1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

  2. Live Rockets Discussion
    Jalen Green looks like a legit star, Amen Thompson is shining and the Rockets have found something without Alperen Sengun. Clutch is talking about the 10-game winning streak at 11:00am as we talk Rockets live!

    Talking Rockets - LIVE!

Would America Be Better Without Political Party Labels?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Lil Pun, Sep 7, 2008.

?

Political Parties?

  1. Yes

    19 vote(s)
    63.3%
  2. No

    11 vote(s)
    36.7%
  1. Lil Pun

    Lil Pun Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 1999
    Messages:
    34,132
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    Serious question. I hear a lot of people say they're Democrat so they are just going to vote Democrat, I hear others say they are Republican so they are just going to vote Republican. The two major parties pretty much dominate politics as there are very few other parties or independents in power, percentage-wise.

    Without these so called labels, would people ask for more information from their leaders and representatives? Would they pay more attention to the actual issues instead of the party loyalties? Would it just be better or worse?
     
  2. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost not wrong
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    47,267
    Likes Received:
    16,710
    Question in the title: Would America be Better Without Political Party Labels?

    Question in the thread: Do you like the concept of political parties?

    In the first question and the second question, yes and no mean entirely different things, so I'm confused as to what I should answer.
     
  3. Lil Pun

    Lil Pun Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 1999
    Messages:
    34,132
    Likes Received:
    1,020

    Title of the thread. The questions I was asking in the thread are basically questions I would ask without the party labels.
     
  4. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,714
    Likes Received:
    18,912
    I voted no, that is, dropping political parties won't help.

    The reason is that without the political parties, people won't know how to vote. It would be even tougher to know what a politicians stance is on issues....because there would be no basis (party line) to compare them to.

    Now, what I do think might help is a third party (but not multi-party). A 3rd, moderate party would keep the other two parties more honest and would prevent as much negative attacks, since there would be 3 candidates running and its much harder to run a negative campaign against 2 candidates rather than a positive one about yourself.
     
  5. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,908
    Likes Received:
    15,377
    We might be better off, but I think there's some need in us to categorize and label each-other. It simplifies the world, and it sort of gives us a "team to root for".
     
  6. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost not wrong
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    47,267
    Likes Received:
    16,710
    It's a double edged sword.

    No political labels would mean the electorate would have to research harder on their own, and same goes for news organizations.

    But, it would probably lead to a lot more voter apathy here, and eventually unravel our country by allowing some nut to seize power.
     
  7. thumbs

    thumbs Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    At first I going going to vote "yes," but then I reconsidered when I thought about Texas history. For those too young to remember, Texas once was controlled by Democratc Party. However, the Democratic Party was split along two lines -- conservative Democrats and liberal Democrats.

    People in this country tend to divide into two groups rather than fracture into many, many groups as in other countries. I know not why. So, if you accept that premise, then you would have two new parties called Conservatives and Liberals, as they do in England.

    So, in the end, the label makes little difference -- in my opinion.
     
  8. Dubious

    Dubious Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,316
    Likes Received:
    5,087
    Political alliances in the US always come down to the lowest common denominator. If you are a minority you ally yourself with the super power that will incorporate the most palatable treatment of your concerns.

    Third and minority parties in other countries avoid assimilation by limiting themselves to one or a few particular issues. I have no idea why we can't do that here.
     
  9. rimrocker

    rimrocker Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    22,271
    Likes Received:
    8,067
    If we magically did away with parties today, they'd be back in full force within 20 years.
     
  10. krosfyah

    krosfyah Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    7,435
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    political parties are good ...but a two party system is often bad.

    Look at the Repubs, you have the religous factions and the financial conservatives. They often are in moral opposition with each other. For example, "less government." How does a conservative justify less government while at the same time trying to legislate homosexuality, stem cell research and abortion? How does legislating morality = less government? The rebublicans should be split into at least two parties.

    Meanwhile, the Dems have lots of factions. You got the environmentalists, the labor unions, the civil rights activists and the general social liberals. I'm sure there are more bigs factions that I'm forgetting plus there are a number of smaller factions. The Dems really struggle because their voice is so spread out amoung many different agenda's which makes it hard to build support for a platform.

    Political parties is the only way to go ...but the two party system forces politicains to pander to so many different groups of people.
     
  11. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,193
    Likes Received:
    5,176
    Without party labels, Obama is down by 30% in this race. NOT being a part of the Republican party is the only thing propping him up at this point.
     
  12. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost not wrong
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    47,267
    Likes Received:
    16,710
    Stop derailing threads.

    Answer the OP.
     
  13. Lil Pun

    Lil Pun Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 1999
    Messages:
    34,132
    Likes Received:
    1,020

    Fail.
     
  14. thumbs

    thumbs Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    Disagree.

    Effective political parties are broad coalitions forged in compromise to accomplish general goals. Parties with a single cause generally generally are in such a minority that they cannot accomplish any of their goals, and violently clash with their opposition. Their shelf life is very limited as opposed to broad coalitions that continue for decades.

    Even religions do this -- you have broad coalitions of Christian faiths, muslim sects, etc. They might fight amongst themselves, but they coalesce against an outsider religion yet their purpose is the same -- to worship God.
     
  15. plutoblue11

    plutoblue11 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    10,526
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    It is a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't"

    The reason, political parties became so prevalent, was in an effort to give candidates a better chance of winning. As many politicians just focus on oen or two issues, and with it being over hundreds of political parties. It could be very difficult to get elected. So the bigger parties over time started to focus on issues that the other parties were also fighting for or stating their cause. Then, naturally the two biggest parties became the strongest for adapting a more universal platform. Alleviating the chaos of political races. Also, it is covenient for the masses.

    Maybe, I think so, and it depends on the climate of society and culture.

    I don't think you can just out right say that apathy would increase, because may feel they have more power in system with no dominate parties or central powers who may choose favorites when comes to public citizens, lobbyists, and private interests. At the same time, you can create good estimates for the acceleration of apathy, if political parties are disbanded. With no party to identify with or vote in conjunction with on popular issues, what purpose is it for me to vote when it is just one vote from one individual. Moreover, it force people who are truly concern about their society to do research on the big pool of candidates, platforms, and politicians out there. Focus more on voting records, political background, and who this individual is and why are they running for office. Most of the information is at the citizens' fingertips, because everything is all over the internet and public records. Also, it might even force some people to run for office themselves.

    Yet, I think the politicians of the superior parties would take the biggest hit over anyone. The ability to get into office would become much more difficult, as winning would be next to impossible. Alot of candidates win simply, because they are democrats or republicans with big money behind campaigns them. Not to say that you couldn't win with a big money campaign, but what if 5 other candidates are spending the same amount as you with similar platforms. Also, even if you win, could you win a re-election bid, so easily when they are twenty plus candidates with 20 different platforms, while you did a very below average job in office, had a voting record that angered many of your voters, and failed to live up to the platform you offered. Washington would also look very different, instead of being represented by two giant political parties.

    There would either be 100 different senators and 500 different congressman from so many different backgrounds and platforms or 100-500 politicians who are from as many as 60+ political parties (if the labels are there, but the power is gone). The political power wouldn't be so centralized, so naturally it would be so many more issues on the table and voting wouldn't be so unilateral in congressional meetings. Accountability might be little bit higher, because you couldn't necessarily fall back on your party.

    Essentially, we would be moving in a direction of a classical (direct) democracy from a very federalistic republic establishment. A public with direct initiatives. Many think that would be a bad thing, if people started to gain so much power and believe a "mob rule" would enthrall society in way. Still, that's quite true, especially if it has checks and balances through elected officials. While, some issues could require some 3/5ths, 60%, or even 70% for an initiative to pass to become an amendment or law.
     
  16. krosfyah

    krosfyah Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    7,435
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    I don't disagree with anything you said, except that our two party system forces each party to be too broad.

    In the example you provided, religious coalitions, despite coming from different religions, they all have a fundamental goal in common ...to promote god.

    However, the original conservatives support anything that reduces the size of government. That is in direct contrasts with the neocons ...who support a government agenda to incrase the power of the federal government.

    As a result, you've got traditional conservatives who are very disappointed with the W administration because the national debt incrased at the largest rate than at any other period in modern US history.

    The repubs should be split in two ...the Dems should also be split in 2 or 3 parties. A country with 5 parties is not unreasonable looking at other countries around the globe.

    Furthermore, you've got to have a house reps that allows each of the 5 parties an equal opportunity to participate. Currently independants can run for office, but their % is so small that they are essentially irrelevant.
     
  17. thumbs

    thumbs Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    My religion analogy was a little weak for purposes of this discussion. However, in your next to last paragraph (highlighted), I would add this observation: IMO, when you have a country with five (or more) parties, you get a very weak government because all at loggerheads. I don't think the U.S. would have become a great nation with multiple parties.
     
  18. rocketanalyist

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Although I don't think it would EVER happen, I think the country would be better off without political parties. Then the candidates would have to live or die based on their stance on a whole host of issues more clearly defined.

    The problem is that there would be no structure for nomination, getting on the ballot and a whole host of other issues that could be thought of. If a way to do it constructively could be figured out, I think it would be best.

    But again, it will never happen in my humble opinion. The poll is confusing compared to the question in the title of the thread btw.
     
  19. thumbs

    thumbs Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    Historians from Alexis de Tocqueville to Charles & Mary Beard to Herbert Agar would disagree with you.
     
  20. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,059
    Likes Received:
    13,408
    It's impossible. That's like asking if we'd be better off without companies or without religious denominations, or without sports franchises. It is either human nature or just so plainly advantageous to work in unison with others, that it cannot be suppressed.

    I think a good thing to look at is the Soviet one-party system. There were many positions in the administration that had to be filled. Having one party was like having no parties, because competition for those spots were between fellow communists. They were all communists, but they'd brand themselves or others as different sorts of communists. And, they'd form coalitions among themselves to help each other along. It is easiest to see, perhaps, in the Stalinist purges, where you had Stalinists, Trotskyites, Medvedites, etc. Some of that, obviously, was political posturing, but there were philosophical differences between camps.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now