NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok i dont want a slug fest... I want a argue ment about whether or not having political partys is a smart idea. I swear if theres one bush or kerry insult gggggggggrrrrrrr. ok so i believe it's stupid to have political parties ok how do you feel. :gundge:

ok

Ok i dont want a slug fest... I want a argue ment about whether or not having political partys is a smart idea. I swear if theres one bush or kerry insult gggggggggrrrrrrr. ok so i believe it's stupid to have political parties ok how do you feel. :gundge:

May I ask your reasoning? And is this just in the US system or all systems? Because many countries have parties in far different systems than the US.

and what would be a fair alternative in a world of disagreement?

Ok, being as I have strong anarchist leanings, I doubt my ideal world would see political parties in the usual sense (although all politics involves division... so if I didn't see it I'd start to suspect something was amiss).

But, on the other hand I have a feeling no one on these boards is going to be too keen on parties, so I'll go ahead and make the case for them, given existing societies, at least.


The modern usefulness of a political party rests, first, on the notion that you're dealing with a republican form of government. Not only are you less likely to see them in other forms, but they are certainly less likely to have a meaningful function.

Now, this works best in a democratic or representative republic, such as we see in most Western nations. The ideal is parliamentary, but I'll get to that in a minute.

Ok, so democratic republics work like this: "the people" choose, by election, their government. It's different from a representative democracy in that "the government" is pretty much set for a given term... they're accountable at election time only.

So you have this government that sits in power for a number of years, and the point of an election is to hold it accountable -- if the government does well, you re-elect it, if it doesn't do so hot, you elect somebody else.

Political parties are the organizations that make all this work. How, you ask?

Well, if you just elect a whole lot of random people, who don't have anything going together as a group... then, when the government sucks, each will blaim everyone else. Of course, when things are going well, each representative will claim that he is the one that deserves credit for it.

The "balance of powers" system that the United States uses faces a similar problem. Frequently enough, you get a "divided" government, in which the Congress is controlled by a different party than the Administration -- or you even have the two houses of Congress controlled by different parties. When this happens, the President blames the Congress, or the Congress blames the President... or they each try to take all credit for themselves.

The result is that no one is held accountable. That's why in the 70s, when a whole bunch of American political scientists got together to evaluate the best form of government, they recommended that the United States go to a parliamentary form, in which the administration is chosen by the legislature -- hence, unity and therefore accountability.


There are other reasons to like parties, for instance the fact that they do (or at least used to do, in the United States) the organizational work of collecting diverse interest groups into a platform that can actually get something done. Theoretically.


Today, we may be seeing the final destabilization of accountability in the United States. For a long time, scientists could measure what they called "re-alignments" in American politics... One party would remain in power for about 30 years, and then they would be supplanted by the other party, which had organized opposition to make real changes. But now, perhaps because accountability became too confusing sometime around the early 70s (or for a host of other reasons), we are witnessing an apparent "de-alignment" in which neither party really maintains solid control... and Americans don't consistently vote a certain way.

I guess we'll have to see.

*hands Kumi a boiled slug on a platter*

America ought to have more than two major ones, that's for sure. Having only two leads to the kind of slam campaigns that Bush is using; as there are only two competitors, making the other look bad enough will give you an easy win. Add a third, and you either have to make two people look bad (which gets costly and makes your tactics kinda obvious) or win on your political platform and proven ability to lead.

America ought to have more than two major ones, that's for sure.

I agree that America should have more than two parties that consistently gain seats in the legislature. Proportional representation is the only way to effectively do this.

I do not, however, think that all parties should be evenly balanced -- nor do I think it's likely they could be. First of all, if they were, you would lose all accountability. Secondly, competition for votes will tend to push the main two towards the center... which is fine. Although I'm a pretty radical Leftist, I recognize that most people are not... and representation should be representative. So two major parties near the center, with smaller parties (actually being heard) as you move toward the radical fringes, seems about right.

Add a third, and you either have to make two people look bad (which gets costly and makes your tactics kinda obvious) or win on your political platform and proven ability to lead.

Actually, I don't know that it would matter if your tactics were more obvious. Study after study has shown that when politicians use dirty tactics, Americans respond as follows:

1. We say how horrible we think negative campaigns are, and how we wish people would lead more positive campaigns.

2. Then we vote for the guy with the more negative campaign.

It's sad, but true... negative campaigning wins. The question is, why? I suspect it has more to do with getting people not to vote than with convincing anyone that your candidate is better.

I agree that America should have more than two parties that consistently gain seats in the legislature. Proportional representation is the only way to effectively do this.

or else have a number of regional parties a la india.

but i really do wish that more people would be taught the connection between first past the post voting and two party systems.

Actually, I don't know that it would matter if your tactics were more obvious. Study after study has shown that when politicians use dirty tactics, Americans respond as follows:

1. We say how horrible we think negative campaigns are, and how we wish people would lead more positive campaigns.

2. Then we vote for the guy with the more negative campaign.

It's sad, but true... negative campaigning wins. The question is, why? I suspect it has more to do with getting people not to vote than with convincing anyone that your candidate is better.

This is again just an example, not telling anyone else how to handle these questions, BUT: In many European countries negative campaigns are purely against the law. That's it. You can not bash people anyway you like. You're held responsible of your sayings and anyone who would even try to get more votes by negative campaign would be booed off very fast. In America's case I don't know what people should do, as this form of campaigning has been very strong for such a long period of time.

I'm kinda working on a political democracy that holds all candidates responsible, and even those not elected to office are a part of the decision making process.

This way, we all work as a team, and nobody that wants to govern, outright loses.

It's not based on a party system, but a candidate system for each position in office.
The reason for this is accountability.
What is the point in voting for Tony Blair, or whoever (I'm British), and having no control over all of these mysterious people that actually constitute 95%+ of your government. In this case, the 'people' only have limited control over one person. That's shocking.

All candidates will run for their chosen office, or even multiple offices if they so choose, and each will have as equal as possible campaign funding.
The same will go for candidates who want to run for President.
The elected candidates will form the council, with the president forming a kind of 'referee' role for the majority of decision making (debate).
Anyone not elected, will form the body of the 'parliament', and will be able to reside over and take part in the decision making, addressing the council and the such.

I think that third parties in the U.S. should be given much more power. I'm sick of having to play musical chairs and choose between a Republicrat or a Dempublican.

but another problem is that there are some people who no matter how stupid a choice it is will vote for there party i know they believe there doing the "right thing" because they sit and read propaganda (and both parties both have propaganda) for there choice i hate this and it annoys me i also think we need another party in power all that needs to happen is for some rich guy to run for president and isn't for repulicans or democrats all he'd need was like 15% of the vote and that would be the beginning but it would be a start.

I think that third parties in the U.S. should be given much more power. I'm sick of having to play musical chairs and choose between a Republicrat or a Dempublican.

but how do you intend for the minor parties to get any power?

all that needs to happen is for some rich guy to run for president and isn't for repulicans or democrats all he'd need was like 15% of the vote and that would be the beginning but it would be a start.

we already did that. not too long ago actually. it sort of fizzled out.

iknow if they had worked it right though it would have been neat to see i think some rich popular guy should try and if he got together with a bunch of buddies who knows if they all went for senate seats hey who knows

but how do you intend for the minor parties to get any power?


it woudn't matter if they became huge but if they say got 10% of the seats of the senate or house they'd have enough power

it woudn't matter if they became huge but if they say got 10% of the seats of the senate or house they'd have enough power

except that our first past the post election system requires them to be huge to get that many seats. they would have to be the largest party in 5 states to do that. first past the post elections pretty much necessitate the existence of only two competitive parties in any particular district. if you want minor parties to get multiple seats in the legislature, you have to have some system of proportional representation. otherwise you can only get them by fluke or by strong regionalism.