User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do political parties do more harm than good?

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    12 66.67%
  • No

    6 33.33%
First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 31

  1. #11
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,130

    Default

    and our country's practice of electing only one representative from each district further entrenches the two party system in this country since the two primary political parties have all of the funding and other political parties don't stand a chance. In countries with multi-member districts more than two different political parties tend to flourish!

    (thanks RM- you covered some of what I was leaving out for the sake of brevity! I'm really too lazy to type much )
    Last edited by miss fortune; 11-25-2007 at 07:57 PM. Reason: clarify that I wasn't being sarcastic for once!
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  2. #12

    Default

    There ARE other parties here. They just don't get a lot of backing since they are seen as "throwing away your vote." (BTW, I will continue to throw away my vote).

    Even in coalition gov't it seems like the major fight is between the ruling and opposition parties.

    I don't think institutionalizing parties through a parliamentary system is that good an idea. IMO that the U.S. system is better then the parliamentary way.

    Since parties weren't intended, I think they should be cut out completely (by legal means) from the campaigning and promotion of individuals for particular positions. IMO, that this would be ideal.

    Right now, the two big parties are more election media machines with loyalties based on family/political history than groups of like minded people with similar ideals, platforms, or issues.

    Parties would still be allowed to campaign and promote ideas, and sell people on their particular beliefs. But any mention of electing so-an-so to such-and-such office should be illegal.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  3. #13
    Senior Member Roger Mexico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    There ARE other parties here. They just don't get a lot of backing since they are seen as "throwing away your vote." (BTW, I will continue to throw away my vote).

    Even in coalition gov't it seems like the major fight is between the ruling and opposition parties.

    I don't think institutionalizing parties through a parliamentary system is that good an idea. IMO that the U.S. system is better then the parliamentary way.

    Since parties weren't intended, I think they should be cut out completely (by legal means) from the campaigning and promotion of individuals for particular positions. IMO, that this would be ideal.

    Right now, the two big parties are more election media machines with loyalties based on family/political history than groups of like minded people with similar ideals, platforms, or issues.

    Parties would still be allowed to campaign and promote ideas, and sell people on their particular beliefs. But any mention of electing so-an-so to such-and-such office should be illegal.
    Creates a myriad of constitutional issues. Again, how are you going to prevent people from associating and cooperating?

  4. #14
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    I think we would be half way there if we dissolved the electoral college.

  5. #15
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    I think we would be half way there if we dissolved the electoral college.
    I could hug you for saying that! (and I don't hug anyone!)
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  6. #16
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    I think we would be half way there if we dissolved the electoral college.
    The problem is that that would that give urban centers more representation than rural areas. From a certain perspective, that's unfair. Some are afraid it would lead to Mobocracy.

    On the other hand, it could be argued that since the urban centers have a higher population and better education, they should have more power.

    What do you think?

  7. #17
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,130

    Default

    the urban/rural split used to be a problem politically back in the days when people actually lived in rural areas! Do urban votes matter less than rural votes? (that's what the 3 electoral votes that Wyoming receives would seem to indicate!)

    the electoral college was put in place because the writers of the constitution did not trust the common man to make a good decision politically. Now we've come a long way from how the country was when that decision was made- 18 year olds can vote, women can vote, minorities can vote and almost everybody has access to news about the candidates and where they stand on issues. The notion that we're all a bunch of uneducated hicks is a bit antiquated and I think that the election of 2000 ( yes, some of us are still mad about that!) illustrates that the electoral college does not necissarily reflect the will of the people of a country since one state got to choose a president based on ancient laws!

    sorry- I could write a book on this issue, but I won't! this is an issue that I've followed for years and know a bit about so I was trying to avoid this thread!
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  8. #18
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    The problem is that that would that give urban centers more representation than rural areas. From a certain perspective, that's unfair. Some are afraid it would lead to Mobocracy.

    On the other hand, it could be argued that since the urban centers have a higher population and better education, they should have more power.

    What do you think?
    I think the "rural areas" are the reason Bush was elected. That should be way more than enough of an answer. I also think more people would vote if they thought their vote actually counted in so called "red" and "blue" states.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Punggung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    I think the "rural areas" are the reason Bush was elected. That should be way more than enough of an answer.
    So areas in which a majority of the voters are in favour of your political opponents should get lesser representation?

  10. #20
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Punggung View Post
    So areas in which a majority of the voters are in favour of your political opponents should get lesser representation?
    Less representation is an intuitive stretch. Rural people are overrepresented because of the electoral college. If it were a popular vote, then each person's vote would be equal. I don't think it is quite fair to give rural people more representation just because they are a minority. Should we make every African American's vote equal to 2 European American's votes just because they are a minority and "underrepresented"? Honestly, if we are going to give minorities more representation then we should extend it to all minorities, right? Had the 2000 election been a popular vote then Al Gore would have won because he had the most votes, which is strangely enough how I think people should be elected.

Similar Threads

  1. How Political Parties Rig Elections
    By Evolving Transparency in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-07-2016, 05:11 AM
  2. What political party do you identify with?
    By Ozones in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 06-03-2014, 03:31 AM
  3. Political Parties and Groupthink
    By MacGuffin in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 06-30-2012, 11:59 PM
  4. MBTI Types and Political Parties
    By DJAchtundvierzig in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-15-2010, 11:59 AM
  5. Political Party?
    By wyrdsister in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 08-04-2009, 08:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO