Should all elections be nonpartisan?

Started by FreakyLocz14 April 2nd, 2011 9:44 PM
  • 2377 views
  • 56 replies

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
Read this article:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/

All I have to say is, just wow. I won't even get into the racist history of the Democratic Party.

I know plenty of people who vote blindly based on party affiliation. I believe nonpartisan elections will force someone to think about a candidate's positions on the issues before voting.
Age 26
Male
Tennessee, USA
Seen April 14th, 2011
Posted April 14th, 2011
115 posts
12.5 Years
You are fourteen. You do not know anything about politics.
The above will be ignored.
---
I highly dislike the thought of parties because some people cannot get passed Republican, Democratic, or any form of Independent (of any form). The ignorance of those that actually vote just based of a word(s) apparently knows no bounds. I will base my votes in the future off the politician's views on our country's problems. But, in all honesty, I really dislike politics in general because most of the men/women that run our country are liars that sit in Congress for thirty years whilst getting hundreds of thousands of dollars annually because they just got elected by using lies and money. The world needs to change or it'll go to hell in a hand basket. In other words, yes, I agree that the usage of political parties should be banned.

pastelspectre

Memento Mori

Age 25
he/him
The Pacific Northwest
Seen 2 Weeks Ago
Posted 2 Weeks Ago
2,156 posts
13.1 Years
Honestly I don't really know what all this means, but I can tell it's a bad thing. I think voting is really going downhill....
Age 26
Male
Tennessee, USA
Seen April 14th, 2011
Posted April 14th, 2011
115 posts
12.5 Years
Honestly I don't really know what all this means, but I can tell it's a bad thing. I think voting is really going downhill....
What with America's (and the rest of the world's) dependence on foreign oil, the simple laziness the world is exhibiting concerning attempting to find another form of energy, the state of events in recent history, and many more unsettling things going on in society, I wouldn't be surprised if with the next century, modern civilization falls.

Age 26
Male
Tennessee, USA
Seen April 14th, 2011
Posted April 14th, 2011
115 posts
12.5 Years
You act as if its any better for the Republican Party with their blindly following Tea Party and friends.
Don't act like that. She didn't write the article and this thread is for the sole purpose of the discussion of what you think about the decisive aspects of political parties.

aruchan

I resent the title beginner :D

Female
Seen October 30th, 2011
Posted October 2nd, 2011
226 posts
12.3 Years
The problem with nonpartisan politics is it never works out. Every country with a fair democratic system has political parties; the only party-less countries are non-democratic nations. While the Democratic Party was certifiably racist until the 1940s-50s, you can't hold its past against it now. I mean, we have a Black Democratic President, for one.

WriteThemWrong

LetMeHearYourPokemon's___ Voice

Age 31
Male
Tucson
Seen September 22nd, 2011
Posted June 19th, 2011
1,130 posts
14.3 Years
If you think about it, there can't be a democracy that doesn't eventually create political parties with their own agendas. Under a dictatorship there's only one party because it's a dictatorship. But in democracy where everyone votes for their leaders, eventually groups are going to band together to get more votes than an individual running.

Political parties are good but only two main ones is bad. It's either you voted for Kang or Kodos (awesome Simpsons reference) and neither turned out stellar. I would be for looking at the other parties more seriously.
They confiscated my monkeys.
Dammit sky!
It's hard talking to cactus.

I think my head is dying
It's like being trapped in a room of smells

Midnight Beat

elit resu motsuc

Age 31
Male
Seen July 15th, 2022
Posted May 1st, 2011
1,614 posts
16.5 Years
As polarizing as political parties seem, they're inevitable. And while they're not written into the US constitution, they are as much a basic part of our government's structure as anything else.

<<--Life isn’t measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away- Unknown-->>

Timbjerr

T-o-X-i-C

Age 36
Female
Texas
Seen May 30th, 2022
Posted January 28th, 2016
7,415 posts
19.7 Years
I highly dislike the thought of parties because some people cannot get passed Republican, Democratic, or any form of Independent (of any form). The ignorance of those that actually vote just based of a word(s) apparently knows no bounds. I will base my votes in the future off the politician's views on our country's problems. But, in all honesty, I really dislike politics in general because most of the men/women that run our country are liars that sit in Congress for thirty years whilst getting hundreds of thousands of dollars annually because they just got elected by using lies and money. The world needs to change or it'll go to hell in a hand basket. In other words, yes, I agree that the usage of political parties should be banned.
You are fourteen. You do not know anything about politics. XD

Actually, I agree with all of the points you've made. This post is exactly why I'm as jaded and cynical as I am about politics. For some time, I have firmly believed that parties are the antithesis of democracy. Instead of voting on their individual views, our representatives in congress stick with their "cliques" all the time. The party that happens to be in power will often refuse to make a compromise anywhere and the minority party gets snuffed at every turn. People's political views are far too diverse and uniquely individual for them to compress down to two flavors. I like some aspects of the Republican platform and I like some aspects of the Democratic platform, but there's also parts of both platforms that I dislike and that's what makes voting seem like a "lesser of two evils" sort of thing to many americans and why voter turnout has been a joke, at least until Obama's cult of personality drew a lot of the politically ignorant people out to cast their vote for him. :/

WriteThemWrong

LetMeHearYourPokemon's___ Voice

Age 31
Male
Tucson
Seen September 22nd, 2011
Posted June 19th, 2011
1,130 posts
14.3 Years
Instead of voting on their individual views, our representatives in congress stick with their "cliques" all the time. The party that happens to be in power will often refuse to make a compromise anywhere and the minority party gets snuffed at every turn.
That's not true. When Obama came out with his health reform, a lot of democrats disagreed with it. And around that time, when republicans were the minority, by a few members, they were still able to sway the decisions on political issues.

Even in our representatives, I don't think political parties matter that much, especially when something so controversial and complicated as the health reform comes out. The democrats were against it and so were the republicans. Just like how both parties are for cutting spending right now.
They confiscated my monkeys.
Dammit sky!
It's hard talking to cactus.

I think my head is dying
It's like being trapped in a room of smells
Male
Seen November 2nd, 2013
Posted May 31st, 2013
958 posts
13.9 Years
Don't act like that. She didn't write the article and this thread is for the sole purpose of the discussion of what you think about the decisive aspects of political parties.

Well starting the thread with a nice little attack on the other side helps a lot.

Age 28
Male
Oregon
Seen September 24th, 2018
Posted July 3rd, 2018
17,520 posts
13.1 Years
George Washington (I read) didn't want Political Parties as he was afraid...well of what we are experiencing now Partisanship in congress and throughout the nation. I agree with our first president and he was right this has teared our country in half...
I'm currently working on some novels. If you're interested you can read them here:
https://www.wattpad.com/user/ImperialSun

Mr Cat Dog

Frasier says it best

Age 32
Male
London, UK
Seen September 29th, 2017
Posted July 12th, 2017
11,344 posts
19.1 Years
All forms of legislative government have problems: the party political prone to them just as much as any other system.

The main quandaries with parties are that in grouping together to vote on legislation (as well as other executive facilities in certain jurisdictions) democracy itself falls by the wayside, due to key decisions being voted down the party line and not with the minds of the people who voted them in. However, because of this perceived lack of democracy, it’s easier to pass crucial legislation if more people are going to blindly follow/reject it… sorta like a dictatorship!

As well as this, different parties have different levels of internal discipline. In the UK, for example, Parliamentarians pretty much have to keep to the party line or face expulsion from the party; in the US Congressional system, there’s still more of a connection between the electorate and their Representatives/Senators despite all the corruption you hear of, so party discipline is reduced; however, it is still there on some of the most important issues (although the most polarizing issues can just cause havoc with the notion of parties at all, as has been mentioned in previous posts!)

In places where the parties in the legislative essentially elect the executive – as in Parliamentary systems – the added advantage of getting rid of them altogether would mean that the electorate may feel like they are actually having a say in both executive and legislative elections, rather than voting for a party for executive power and just ending up with a member of that same party for their legislative representative. However, especially in Europe, the fragmented nature of their party system meant that it can often take an awfully long time to even form a government after an election: the worst example is Belgium after their last election in 2010 where, 290 days later, a government STILL hasn’t been formed due to parties clashing with each other.

However, the chief advantage of the party system, especially in modern politics – although it’s possible to argue that this is caused by rather than an advantage of party politics – is that you have access to the party machine both throughout your election campaign as well as your time in office. Publicity tours, think tanks and even smear campaigns are all at your disposal as a party member, and you never know when you might have to use them! On top of this, the costs for getting elected in the first place have skyrocketed in recent years: and will continue to do so in the US after a recent Supreme Court ruling. (Again… yes this does sound kinda dictatorial.)

Finally, in areas where party discipline is relatively strong, and a two-party system is in de facto effect, the electorate as a whole can becomes pigeonholed into specific boxes on certain issues. The notion that one can’t vote for anyone else can rise up, and force people to vote for the ‘lesser of two evils’ instead of a candidate that may better reflect their political positions… it’s a wonder many people feel as cynical about politics as they do, not only in this thread, but in the wider world.

OK… that was longer than I had anticipated. To answer the question of whether parties should be abolished: it would be a nice idea and would undoubtedly lead to a more representative legislative procedure, but probably unworkable in modern day politics, mainly due to the funding mechanisms inherently provided, but also because people have become conditioned to the nature of party politics and may not like what they don’t know. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t may apply here…

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
If you think about it, there can't be a democracy that doesn't eventually create political parties with their own agendas. Under a dictatorship there's only one party because it's a dictatorship. But in democracy where everyone votes for their leaders, eventually groups are going to band together to get more votes than an individual running.

Political parties are good but only two main ones is bad. It's either you voted for Kang or Kodos (awesome Simpsons reference) and neither turned out stellar. I would be for looking at the other parties more seriously.
The problem is, there are more than two parties on that ballot most of the time. If people are so fed up with the two-party system, no one is stopping them from casting their vote for another party. If the people of this country finally decided to give both the Democrats and the Republicans the finger by voting third parties into power, that would be a remarkable step forward for America.

The problem with nonpartisan politics is it never works out. Every country with a fair democratic system has political parties; the only party-less countries are non-democratic nations. While the Democratic Party was certifiably racist until the 1940s-50s, you can't hold its past against it now. I mean, we have a Black Democratic President, for one.
Nonpartisan politics would have a positive effect on the American voters. I find it funny and hypocritical how President Obama complains about the Republicans playing partisan politics, but then he stops a reliably Democratic district from going nonpartisan.

Political parties only benefit the politicians that are running under that party banner by banding together to win elections. The unfortunate truth is that people form party allegiances and vote blindly for that party every single time even when they are uniformed on the issues and/or they actually disagree on most issues with the candidate they ended up voting for. Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU

I'm not saying that political parties won't form. Even in areas were there are nonpartisan elections (many local elections are nonpartisan), there are parties. In a nonpartisan election, the candidate's political party is not shown on the ballot. It's been shown that third party candidates have a much higher chance of success in nonpartisan elections and that party control shifts more often in nonpartisan elections.

WriteThemWrong

LetMeHearYourPokemon's___ Voice

Age 31
Male
Tucson
Seen September 22nd, 2011
Posted June 19th, 2011
1,130 posts
14.3 Years
However, the chief advantage of the party system, especially in modern politics – although it’s possible to argue that this is caused by rather than an advantage of party politics – is that you have access to the party machine both throughout your election campaign as well as your time in office. Publicity tours, think tanks and even smear campaigns are all at your disposal as a party member, and you never know when you might have to use them!
Those are advantages? To me, those seem to be the loaded vitriol everyone was talking about a few months ago. They may be resources or tools but they can't be advantageous to the system of democracy we have. If we want to move towards a nonpartisan election, or government in general, then politicians should quit smearing and promoting their parties' brand of government and actually make it about their ideas.

If the people of this country finally decided to give both the Democrats and the Republicans the finger by voting third parties into power, that would be a remarkable step forward for America.
I completely agree with that.
They confiscated my monkeys.
Dammit sky!
It's hard talking to cactus.

I think my head is dying
It's like being trapped in a room of smells

Mr Cat Dog

Frasier says it best

Age 32
Male
London, UK
Seen September 29th, 2017
Posted July 12th, 2017
11,344 posts
19.1 Years
Those are advantages? To me, those seem to be the loaded vitriol everyone was talking about a few months ago. They may be resources or tools but they can't be advantageous to the system of democracy we have. If we want to move towards a nonpartisan election, or government in general, then politicians should quit smearing and promoting their parties' brand of government and actually make it about their ideas.
The internet's reeeeeeally bad for sarcsasm.

Netto Azure

Kiel

Age 30
Male
Alistel, Vainqueur
Seen November 17th, 2021
Posted September 29th, 2021
9,467 posts
15 Years
I'd rather have a Partisan system where my values are represented. Then again the US 2 Party system does force things to equilibrium and a more consensus seeking way.

Either way as was pointed out nonpartisanship led to the 2 party system in the birth of the republic.

Nonpartisanship although does have it's places such as local government, the Judicial system, and redistricting political boundaries for representation.

As for the Democratic Parties racist past...well ideologies shifted and became more concrete in the culture wars of the 1960's.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
I'd rather have a Partisan system where my values are represented. Then again the US 2 Party system does force things to equilibrium and a more consensus seeking way.

Either way as was pointed out nonpartisanship led to the 2 party system in the birth of the republic.

Nonpartisanship although does have it's places such as local government, the Judicial system, and redistricting political boundaries for representation.

As for the Democratic Parties racist past...well ideologies shifted and became more concrete in the culture wars of the 1960's.
You can have your values represented in a nonpartisan system. By learning a candidate's stance on issues important to you, you could decide whom to vote for without a partisan label. The 2 Party System causes me to have to compromise and vote with the Republican Party most of the time, even if my beliefs fall more in line with the Libertarian Party. We need a massive campaign to educate voters on the presence of third parties and that they can win elections if people in the middle stop voting for the "lesser of two evils" candidate and en masse vote for whatever candidate they most agree with on the important issues of the election even if that candidate happens to be a Libertarian, a Green, etc., or even have no party identity.

WriteThemWrong

LetMeHearYourPokemon's___ Voice

Age 31
Male
Tucson
Seen September 22nd, 2011
Posted June 19th, 2011
1,130 posts
14.3 Years
The internet's reeeeeeally bad for sarcsasm.
Uh I wasn't being sarcastic, were you? I know it would be hard for politicians to stop attacking each other but if they did for at least one day that would be one day where they could do something productive.
They confiscated my monkeys.
Dammit sky!
It's hard talking to cactus.

I think my head is dying
It's like being trapped in a room of smells

Livewire

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years
I won't even get into the racist history of the Republican Party.
I fixed it for you.

The Justice Department’s ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.
This sounds like a strictly judicial issue to me. It's not like Obama himself ordered this like you seem to think.
Age 26
Male
Tennessee, USA
Seen April 14th, 2011
Posted April 14th, 2011
115 posts
12.5 Years
America's version of a Democracy is full of failure, in my perspective. The first thing the politicians did whenever the first official political leader - that advised against parties - left, they made parties. I don't know if that was an act of pure ignorance or something they truly thought would help.

Not only this, but governments around the world are all corrupted and the United States of America's government was supposed to stand against that, to have a form of leadership made for and by the people. But the image of American leadership has been saturated with crookedness by the politicians that have made their beds, but make the people lay in them.

That was a bit too deep for my liking, but whatever...

aruchan

I resent the title beginner :D

Female
Seen October 30th, 2011
Posted October 2nd, 2011
226 posts
12.3 Years
The only president who didn't belong to a political party really was George Washington. Ergo, pretty much since the start of American history politics has been polarized, from the Anti-Federalists to the Federalists, from the Federalists to the Democratic-Republicans, from the Democrats to the Whigs, from the Democrats to the Republicans.
(George Washington warned heavily against political parties)