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!

Does the political party system work?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by TheRealist137, Sep 19, 2011.

  1. TheRealist137

    TheRealist137 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    33,341
    Likes Received:
    19,176
    It seems to me that politicians are interested in two things. Getting reelected, and appeasing their party. Last thing is doing what's best for the country.

    It is becoming clear to me that the party system in the US is highly inefficient and counterproductive most of the time. It doesn't help that there are only two political parties out there either, which makes it much easier to both get reelected and appease your own party affiliation if you attack and sabotage the other parties.

    Should we do away with the political party system?
     
  2. Johndoe804

    Johndoe804 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,233
    Likes Received:
    147
    I don't like it and I don't think it works, but its ridiculous to think you can just get rid of it. What's to keep people with similar views from working together to get people elected and have those people vote a certain way once they're elected?

    A good solution would be to elect representatives at random from the adult population to serve limited terms with some mechanism for recalling inept representatives. It isn't perfect, but it would ensure that candidates aren't vetted by the corrupt Republicrat Party, it would prevent individuals from explicitly seeking political power, and, most importantly, it would make the system more democratic.
     
  3. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    61,253
    Likes Received:
    28,757
    Need more than just 2

    Rocket River
     
  4. meh

    meh Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    15,348
    Likes Received:
    2,220
    The government itself is designed to be highly inefficient where officials are constantly need to be reelected in order to prevent a dictator/king scenario. So the result is that we get an oligarchy.

    Can't complain if we set it up to make it this way on purpose.
     
  5. Kojirou

    Kojirou Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,180
    Likes Received:
    281
    Uh, what?

    A political party is merely a way for people to work together to get their voices heard. Banning them is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
     
  6. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,714
    Likes Received:
    18,912
    Take the money out of politics and the system will work better.

    The more money there is, the more pressure there from corporations and the more control they exert. Reduce the money.

    The Supreme court opened up the flood gates to corporations controling America. No longer do politicians seek the approval of the people, they must first get the approval of corporations or they will

    A) Lose millions of dollars needed to win an election
    B) Face millions of dollars against them from corporations if their position is not in their interests

    Today, you can not do anything without corporate backing. That's down right scary since companies are getting more and more of their revenue from a global market place outside of the U.S. and moving more and more of their operations overseas.

    Founding fathers never could have envisioned this.

    How do you change this?

    I think there has to be a movement from the people. A refusal to vote for any politician that takes more than $5k. Create a non-partisan voting block and votes for candidates that prove they do not take or benefit (donations to their party or PAC) from any kind of advertising from lobbyists for an election.

    It has to be a lot of people, enough to change elections, but I see that as the only way to really force the issue.
     
  7. RedRedemption

    RedRedemption Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    32,464
    Likes Received:
    7,639
    Enforce ridiculously harsh penalties on lobbyists.
    Have more than two national political parties.
    More govt. regulation to counter the power of corporations.
     
  8. Space Ghost

    Space Ghost Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    14,947
    Likes Received:
    6,152
    Here is the flaw in your argument in the Supreme Court decision: corporations have already been influencing the elections a long time before this decision. Even your highly idolized "hope and change and transparent" president Obama is just as guilty. Solyndra execs donated more than 100,000 to Obama. Do you really think Solyndra would have gotten their 530m if they never donated?

    [/quote]
    I think there has to be a movement from the people. A refusal to vote for any politician that takes more than $5k. Create a non-partisan voting block and votes for candidates that prove they do not take or benefit (donations to their party or PAC) from any kind of advertising from lobbyists for an election.
    [/QUOTE]

    I agree that corporations are heavily influencing elections. This is a byproduct of apathy from the voter. Voters are too easily caught up in cheap catchy slogans like "hope and change" that mimic 75% off sales in mall jewelry stores. They are more interested in what the government is going to do for them. What was JFK's famous quote? They are more interested whether there is a D or and R beside their name than the quality of the candidate. Bush was bad. Obama was bad. McCain would have been worse. Perry, Romney and Bachman are all bad.
    The irony? You state we need a grass roots movement to hold politicians to the fire. We have one, yet the liberals and republicans alike mock this group daily for being too fringe because they hold politicians to the fire. Is this not what the Tea Party is about? Or is it easier to label them racists and terrorist because they mostly represent the conservative base? In the end, people vote for whats best for them, be damned the consequences. We are nothing more than example of The Lord of the Flies, but on a much grander scale.
     
  9. Dubious

    Dubious Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,316
    Likes Received:
    5,087
    pick one answer:

    YES

    or

    NO



    That's why we have a two party system.
     
  10. RedRedemption

    RedRedemption Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    32,464
    Likes Received:
    7,639
    We have a two party system because everyone groups themselves into two political parties from the age of ten. False syllogisms: "My daddy is a republican. My daddy is a great person. Therefore Republicans are great people." Not to mention most people don't even know their own party's political policies. Its as blind as religious faith.
     
  11. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,714
    Likes Received:
    18,912
    Not to the level they can now. I am not sure why you are bring up Obama and all that stuff, because I am saying both sides are subject to the problem. You are stating the obvious.

    [/quote]
    I think there has to be a movement from the people. A refusal to vote for any politician that takes more than $5k. Create a non-partisan voting block and votes for candidates that prove they do not take or benefit (donations to their party or PAC) from any kind of advertising from lobbyists for an election.
    [/QUOTE]

    A lot of the reasons these guys can not be effective is that the power of the presidency has been literally handed over to corporations. The president has to give up a lot to get elected, and then once elected, faces a congress that essentially represents the various companies and interest over their constituents. Again, not sure why you mock "Hope and Change" which was just a campaign slogan. It definitely isn't apathy though. It's just most people don't have the time to take to really understand all the issues - they are busy trying to survive. And TV and speeches from all sides influence them, they don't have a lot of the right info. There is so much misinformation and b.s. Was "Hope and Change" b.s.? Of course it was. That's not why I voted for Obama. I voted for him because I thought he would take a pragmatic approach and he has for the most part.


    Problem is that the Tea Party isn't a grass roots movement. It is funded by PAC's and corporate money itself!!! Fact is they do represent the conservative base and are not inclusive of moderates like myself.

    I am not talking about a group that is bent on comparing presidents to dictators or Stalin, or attacking liberals or conservatives. Or even taking any policy stance...and one that doesn't understand basic economics and states that a strong dollar is what we need to create jobs (a completely ludicrous and disasterous statement).

    I am talking about a non-partisan movement. That is not what the tea-party is. A non-partisan movement with one aim. Not a whole right-wing political platform. One aim - take money out of politics. To do that, such a movement would have to not take PAC or corporate money to begin with.

    If you are going to try to sell the Tea PArty as a movement to get rid of corporate money, then I say you are a b.s.ing either me or yourself, probably both.

    If you say you are willing to forget about a political agenda and attacking Obama like a robot, and instead focus on the common issue of getting rid of corporate dollars from our system, then I'm with ya. But don't sell me the Tea Party as a grass roots movement to do that and expect me to take you seriously.
     
  12. zenithnadir

    zenithnadir Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    2
    A very interesting question. I am living in China and just finished a booked called "The Party" discussing the Chinese Communist Party.

    Just a few years ago liberal thinkers were celebrating an "End of History" that claimed liberal democracies were the final evolutionary state of societies. Recent events have thrown this theory into disarray as the Western societies are collectively suffering while emerging markets seem to be dashing ahead.

    The starkest comparison came just recently when the US political parties failed to come to an agreement for the better of the nation on the debt ceiling and instead put their respective parties ahead of them.

    In contrast, China operates with one party that focuses on maintaining the power of the party and the better of the nation. The Party (the CCP) holds ultimate power in China - over courts, companies, laws, individual rights, capitalism, democracy, everything. Nothing is above the Party. And the Party is singularly focused on the nation. Stimulus spending? 500 billion - a huge amount relative to Chinese GDP. New transportation? Done. Olympics? Done. Large infrastructure? Done. If the CCP wants something done, it gets done.

    Now I am not defending the CCP, I know how ****-astic they are. I know of the problems in China (I live here). But it is amazing what they can do - one party, to rule all, with a singular focus on the nation and the party (one and the same in their mind).

    Now the question is can there be one party rule and democracy. I am a firm believer that due to the aggregation of power that there will never be an effective third party. But can there be a law that mandates ONE party? I think so. The CCP does it through education, indoctrination, and tight controls on who gets promoted to the very top. A limited democracy may work.

    In summary, it may be that a system supporting benevolent one party rule is the true "End of History"
     
  13. Don FakeFan

    Don FakeFan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    43
    Politics is determined by economics. Carl Marx said so and I believe it.

    70 years ago, CCP was a party for 0.5 billion farmers who were the only dominating class in 1940s in China when their average life span is 34 and their GDP was less than a US county. At that time, half billion Chinese had only one goal: to survive. CCP can just do that and that's how they were chosen. CCP have done a great job so far.

    The one party thing won't work forever for China when comparable rich and poor classes are formed in China. The conflict between the two classes will separate CCP easily. It is not happening now only because China do not have a strong class for rich people yet.

    The two parties in the US are not separated from economic point of view. They are just two forms of one party with a little bit of difference on the surface. Their arguments are all on the minor things. USA is effectively just one party country. USA is damn efficient in wars, military spendings, foreign policies and maneuvers.

    Democracy is something only on the propaganda. it is not happening in real life.
     
  14. pirc1

    pirc1 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,971
    Likes Received:
    1,701
    China do not have a strong class for rich people?
     
  15. meh

    meh Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    15,348
    Likes Received:
    2,220
    What conflict? The CCP controls the government, banks, communications, transportation, oil, news, anything and everything that's important to people. They even control the internet!!!

    There can only be conflict in China if the CCP want there to be a conflict.
     
  16. zenithnadir

    zenithnadir Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    2

    People have been predicting that the CCP will blow up for various reasons for at least two decades now - the internet, growing riches, more ppl travel abroad, west v east, water supplies, deforestation, cancer, one child policy, etc. The CCP has weathered it all. I'm not saying that they will continue to, but they have done an interesting job so far and I would say that their downfall is far from conclusive.
     
  17. Dubious

    Dubious Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,316
    Likes Received:
    5,087
    As people become more empowered they are less likely to accept low pay, long hours, unsafe working conditions, polluted environments, crony oligarchs, and a lack of representation and self-determination.

    The US sounds like it is in the dumper partly because we have freedom of expression, China sounds like it the rising star partly because no one in the system can publicly criticize it. The tell of the tape is to take some random immigrants and ask them which country they would rather move to.

    Democratic systems are messy because they are always releasing a small amount of dissent but rarely is there a disruptive upheaval.

    Autocratic systems appear neat and efficient until they have their massive civil changes ( see the Soviet Union or Egypt or Libiya)

    Chaos is stability, order is unstable. It's like having a bunch of little earthquakes frequently or the big one once. The big one ends up with the most total damage.


    (The Dubious theory of entropy in social systems)
     
  18. zenithnadir

    zenithnadir Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    2
    Thanks Dubious, and I agree. However, let me posit a counter argument.


    China does allow dissent and free speech to a certain degree... just enough to avoid the big earthquake, but no more to cause social unrest, fear or panic.

    Chinese weibo's (twitters) are places for much discussion. There is a good social debate. EVERYONE b****es about food, pollution, etc, but see it as a period of modernization - US went through a similar period.


    So in all, the Party is AWARE of such risks, and mitigates against it by allowing some free speech, some dissent, but never allowing it to risk their hold on power or anything that would disturb the public good. (Don't get me wrong, I KNOW for a fact that China censors a bunch of stupid ****, this is just for argument's sake).
     
  19. zenithnadir

    zenithnadir Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    2
    Moreover, in the US I think we're feeding off our own fear, it is like some tragic narrative that we want to see. We want to fall, because we got nothing else to do and it keeps us entertained. I dunno, just a weird feeling.

    A society can't keep pushing the envelope forever...
     
  20. rockbox

    rockbox Around before clutchcity.com

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2000
    Messages:
    21,571
    Likes Received:
    10,436
    It works for the parties. Parties are not something you can change. Organization is natural. The problem isn't the party system, the problem is that our party leaders have sold out to special interests, and a large number of people that vote for them are sheep. There are too many voters that support a party like they support their favorite sports team. Just win baby.
     
    1 person likes this.

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