Should all elections be nonpartisan? Page 2

Started by FreakyLocz14 April 2nd, 2011 9:44 PM
  • 2377 views
  • 56 replies
Male
Seen November 2nd, 2013
Posted May 31st, 2013
958 posts
13.9 Years
You've got to be kidding me. You think the Civil War has any real relevance to the modern democreatic party?

If you want to play that game, fine. During the years leading up to the Civil War, political parties were split by North and South. Northern and Southern Democrats or Republicans had become almost different parties, even with all of them offering up their own Presidential canidates.

The racism issue in the 1960s were different, there was no regionalist split, it was just rampant racism.

You obviously don't know your history

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
You've got to be kidding me. You think the Civil War has any real relevance to the modern democreatic party?

If you want to play that game, fine. During the years leading up to the Civil War, political parties were split by North and South. Northern and Southern Democrats or Republicans had become almost different parties, even with all of them offering up their own Presidential canidates.

The racism issue in the 1960s were different, there was no regionalist split, it was just rampant racism.

You obviously don't know your history
In 1964, Democratic Senators attempted to filibuster the Civil Rights Act. The percentage of Democrats that voted against it was more than double the percentage of Republicans the voted against it. If those Republicans didn't vote to end cloture, it would have never passed.

Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said that her father was a Republican because the Democrats in Alabama wouldn't register him to vote, but the Republicans did.
Male
Seen November 2nd, 2013
Posted May 31st, 2013
958 posts
13.9 Years
The Democratic party had gained considerable strength in the south, yes, but it was still based on regional tensions not political parties opposing each others.

And again, this is relevant in no way or form. So why this brought up is beyond me. All I can assume is that there seems to be some intent to try and defame the Democratic party with such ignorant statements.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
The Democratic party had gained considerable strength in the south, yes, but it was still based on regional tensions not political parties opposing each others.

And again, this is relevant in no way or form. So why this brought up is beyond me. All I can assume is that there seems to be some intent to try and defame the Democratic party with such ignorant statements.
The topic of this thread is to discuss nonpartisan elections, not to go over the history of American political parties.

Let's get back on topic.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
So I can assume I'm right and go to sleep? Okay, good to know where you stand realistically.
I'll just wrap this up by saying how the modern political parties were formed and their history is very relevant today.

WriteThemWrong

LetMeHearYourPokemon's___ Voice

Age 31
Male
Tucson
Seen September 22nd, 2011
Posted June 19th, 2011
1,130 posts
14.3 Years
So I can assume I'm right and go to sleep? Okay, good to know where you stand realistically.
And yet you were the one that drove us off topic.

How exactly does the Civil War have no relevance to today's politics? Now I'm no historian but wasn't the Civil War really important. The country almost crumbled because of political ideal and had to be rebuilt. In that time political parties changed greatly.
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
In 1964, Democratic Senators attempted to filibuster the Civil Rights Act. The percentage of Democrats that voted against it was more than double the percentage of Republicans the voted against it. If those Republicans didn't vote to end cloture, it would have never passed.

Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said that her father was a Republican because the Democrats in Alabama wouldn't register him to vote, but the Republicans did.
You still don't know your history. Southern Democrats in the 1950's and 60's, ideologically/politically wise, would be today's conservatives/Republicans. Also, Lyndon Bird Johnson, a Democrat, backed the Civil Rights Bill (not to mention other social entitlement programs, so not a Republican by any stretch of the imagination) in congress and signed it himself.

Pro tip: If you don't want the thread to wander off-topic, Freaky, then don't make wildly outlandish statements.

WriteThemWrong

LetMeHearYourPokemon's___ Voice

Age 31
Male
Tucson
Seen September 22nd, 2011
Posted June 19th, 2011
1,130 posts
14.3 Years
I thought the Confederate states denounced political parties. The fact they didn't have a two-party system made them politically unorganized and contributed to their defeat.

So history is telling me that the absences of strong political parties, parties competing and coming up with better ideas than the other, is only a short way from a dictatorship.
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

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
I'm all for restructuring American political parties in general, but as long as we have political parties a candidate's affiliation (or lack thereof) should be noted during elections and on ballots. Politicians are known to hide and play down potentially divisive views that voters would rightly want to know about. Especially in a time of hot-button issues you can have a candidate who only seems to talk about 3 topics during an election, but never voices their views on dozens of other issues important to people. Knowing what party someone belongs to can give you some idea what kind of ideology candidates are willing to associate with and so can give you insight into their views on things that they might not willingly share.

Netto Azure

Kiel

Age 30
Male
Alistel, Vainqueur
Seen November 17th, 2021
Posted September 29th, 2021
9,467 posts
15 Years
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.
The US Constitution has been set up in such a way that in the federal and state levels the viability of 3rd Party candidates to win elections has become very minute. Each district is a winner takes all system where you need a majority to win the election.

Statewide, the Senatorial direct elections require a cross ideological consensus to elect 1 person to such a seat in a state.

Presidential, the Electoral college system also requires a Majority of votes where if a majority is not reached, the House of Reps votes for the president, which requires, you guessed it a Majority of House of Representative members.

So unless we have a parliamentary system where governments can rise and fall on the whims of a vote of no confidence by a coalition, the idea of nonpartisan elections is very hard almost impossible to implement.

That aside, I'm more than happy to have multi-party systems in the United States. But what? Most votes will fall to ideological lines, Libertarians will vote with Republicans, the Greens will caucus with Democrats. Heck Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman caucus with the Democrats.
Male
Seen November 2nd, 2013
Posted May 31st, 2013
958 posts
13.9 Years
And yet you were the one that drove us off topic.

How exactly does the Civil War have no relevance to today's politics? Now I'm no historian but wasn't the Civil War really important. The country almost crumbled because of political ideal and had to be rebuilt. In that time political parties changed greatly.
Of course ignorant attacks should be ignored if they are off topic...

But what's not relevant is the ideology of the party back then and how that defines them today.

Age 28
Male
Oregon
Seen September 24th, 2018
Posted July 3rd, 2018
17,520 posts
13.1 Years
I always wonder how other nations have more than two parties but we don't (though in those nations two parties or more usually team up to create a majority)...or is it just culture...
I also think that the media might have something to do with us only paying attention to two parties...most of the time I barely hear people talk about them if they do at all...
I'm currently working on some novels. If you're interested you can read them here:
https://www.wattpad.com/user/ImperialSun

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen

Age 32
Male
Michigan
Seen February 19th, 2023
Posted April 30th, 2021
4,307 posts
14.2 Years
Libertarians will vote with Republicans
Please don't presume. Actual Libertarians, not these Tea Party filth and Glenn Beck followers who claim to support Libertarianism while knowing nothing about it, would only vote Republican in an exceptional circumstance (such as Ron Paul). Above all else, Libertarians value freedom, both personal and economic. Republicans seem to have a stick up their rear trying to eliminate personal freedoms.
VNs are superior to anime, don't @ me

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years


The US Constitution has been set up in such a way that in the federal and state levels the viability of 3rd Party candidates to win elections has become very minute. Each district is a winner takes all system where you need a majority to win the election.

Statewide, the Senatorial direct elections require a cross ideological consensus to elect 1 person to such a seat in a state.

Presidential, the Electoral college system also requires a Majority of votes where if a majority is not reached, the House of Reps votes for the president, which requires, you guessed it a Majority of House of Representative members.

So unless we have a parliamentary system where governments can rise and fall on the whims of a vote of no confidence by a coalition, the idea of nonpartisan elections is very hard almost impossible to implement.

That aside, I'm more than happy to have multi-party systems in the United States. But what? Most votes will fall to ideological lines, Libertarians will vote with Republicans, the Greens will caucus with Democrats. Heck Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman caucus with the Democrats.
I'm well aware of the hurdles to a multi-party and/or a nonpartisan government, but I think it can work here. Even in Parliamentary systems, if there is no party that has a majority, they'll form a coalition with a smaller party that's similar ideologically to achieve one. This kind of, sort of happened during the 110th Congress. Since neither the Democrats nor the Republican had a majority in the Senate due to Lieberman and Sanders being Independent, they caucused with the Democrats to get a majority.

We should also keep in mind that while the Libertarians would caucus with the Republicans and the Greens would caucus with the Democrats, they're not exactly the same. The modern Republican Party's concern with immigration and the religious right's culture war wouldn't sit well with the Libertarians. Likewise, the Greens would have ripped into Nancy Pelosi on impeaching Bush during the 110th Congress. They also wouldn't tolerate any Blue Dogs in their caucus. They're more progressive overall than the Democrats.

Please don't presume. Actual Libertarians, not these Tea Party filth and Glenn Beck followers who claim to support Libertarianism while knowing nothing about it, would only vote Republican in an exceptional circumstance (such as Ron Paul). Above all else, Libertarians value freedom, both personal and economic. Republicans seem to have a stick up their rear trying to eliminate personal freedoms.
This is one of the reasons I dislike the two-party system. We tend to generalize a person's beliefs on whether they're a Republican or a Democrat. Take current Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), former Senator Arlen Specter (was Republican, but switched to Democratic), and Republican Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. They're considered moderate Republicans and have voted to expand personal freedoms. Libertarians also have a hero in the Senate in Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Netto Azure

Kiel

Age 30
Male
Alistel, Vainqueur
Seen November 17th, 2021
Posted September 29th, 2021
9,467 posts
15 Years
Please don't presume. Actual Libertarians, not these Tea Party filth and Glenn Beck followers who claim to support Libertarianism while knowing nothing about it, would only vote Republican in an exceptional circumstance (such as Ron Paul). Above all else, Libertarians value freedom, both personal and economic. Republicans seem to have a stick up their rear trying to eliminate personal freedoms.
Oh I know that, they are Socially and Economically Libertarian. Heck Ron Paul opposes interventionism alongside the likes of Dennis Kucinnich. But in terms of more divisive issues the 2 party system can whip up the majority necessary to pass laws. (Although the Senate throws that out of whack but still...)

Livewire

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years
Libertarians also have a hero in the Senate in Rand Paul of Kentucky.
Rand Paul is a raving lunatic and hypocrite, and a tea party backed candidate, not a traditional Libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. (see Twocows' response regarding libertarians.)
Age 28
Male
Steel City
Seen May 28th, 2011
Posted May 5th, 2011
117 posts
12.1 Years


Rand Paul is a raving lunatic and hypocrite, and a tea party backed candidate, not a traditional Libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. (see Twocows' response regarding libertarians.)
<3

That aside, getting rid of modern political parties is not nice, or cute, or better for American politics, it's DUMB. Parties provide the necessary funding for candidates to run, and make sure voters have the knowledge they need about said candidates. So if you'd like to vote for candidates who you have no knowledge of (before their croneys tell you what you want to hear at the polling stations) go ahead and remove political parties. It would be a wasteful and unintelligent plan.

If you want to shake things up, differentiate your voting! Support smaller parties. The Democratic and Republican parties simply have the power right now, but that can change at any time. America has a history of different parties rising to prominence. Look at the Populists, the Socialist Party (who garnered nearly 20% of a Presidential election once!), the Free-Soilers, the Know-Nothings, etc. Support who you believe, not who you think will get elected that mostly seems like someone you could grow to like. There is no such thing as a wasted vote, except for a vote not cast.

On the subject of "Democratic racism", good effort FreakyLocz14, but aren't you forgetting the fact that the parties entirely switched bases in the 70s, around and during the Nixon administration, where the Republicans took hold of the racist, biggoted south because it gave them political capital, and the Democrats took hold of the free-thinking, learned north? Or the fact that Republicans discriminate against Hispanics and Blacks, people who would line up with them ideologically because of their cultural religious tendencies, but are ignored because of their skin color? Like when Republicans in Arizona pass a law that is blatantly and inherently racist and pass it off as trying to protect American? Hmm, it might seem pertinent to mention that

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
<3

That aside, getting rid of modern political parties is not nice, or cute, or better for American politics, it's DUMB. Parties provide the necessary funding for candidates to run, and make sure voters have the knowledge they need about said candidates. So if you'd like to vote for candidates who you have no knowledge of (before their croneys tell you what you want to hear at the polling stations) go ahead and remove political parties. It would be a wasteful and unintelligent plan.

If you want to shake things up, differentiate your voting! Support smaller parties. The Democratic and Republican parties simply have the power right now, but that can change at any time. America has a history of different parties rising to prominence. Look at the Populists, the Socialist Party (who garnered nearly 20% of a Presidential election once!), the Free-Soilers, the Know-Nothings, etc. Support who you believe, not who you think will get elected that mostly seems like someone you could grow to like. There is no such thing as a wasted vote, except for a vote not cast.

On the subject of "Democratic racism", good effort FreakyLocz14, but aren't you forgetting the fact that the parties entirely switched bases in the 70s, around and during the Nixon administration, where the Republicans took hold of the racist, biggoted south because it gave them political capital, and the Democrats took hold of the free-thinking, learned north? Or the fact that Republicans discriminate against Hispanics and Blacks, people who would line up with them ideologically because of their cultural religious tendencies, but are ignored because of their skin color? Like when Republicans in Arizona pass a law that is blatantly and inherently racist and pass it off as trying to protect American? Hmm, it might seem pertinent to mention that
The Democrats have always been liberal and the Republicans have always been conservative. In the 1920's and 1930's, the Republicans were for not intervening in the economy when the Depression hit, so the liberal Democrats came into power and set forth the same Keynesian policies they advocate for today.

Please show me how Republicans discriminate against Hispanics and Blacks? As a Mexican-American, I would be highly offended if you equate not supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants to discrimination against Hispanics. I was born in the United States. I am not an immigrant just because I am of Hispanic descent.

I can't start to think of how Republicans are discriminating against Blacks except for equating disagreeing with the President as racism because he's black.
Age 28
Male
Steel City
Seen May 28th, 2011
Posted May 5th, 2011
117 posts
12.1 Years
Do you mean those same Keynesian policies that just bailed our economy out, as well as saved America from the Great Depression, as well as preventing an effing agricultural revolution and preserving the entire banking system? Yeah, I kinda like those. And that may be true, but conservative and liberal have always had different definitions. Hamilton, the father of conservative politics, supported big government and high tariffs, very anti-Republican. Jefferson, the father of American liberalism, hated big government. Jackson, a Democrat, followed Jefferson, while Lincoln, a Republican, followed Hamilton. I can list out more and more if you want. So their bases are constantly changing and it is unfair to group in Democrats as a racist party because of events far in the past.

Republicans discriminate against Hispanics and Blacks by inaction. Any functioning political party would do everything in their power to expand their number of voters. Hispanics and Blacks, both of whom tend to have robust Christian tradition as a whole, have ideas that would align with the Republican party, yet conservatives make no move to incorporate them into the flock

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
Do you mean those same Keynesian policies that just bailed our economy out, as well as saved America from the Great Depression, as well as preventing an effing agricultural revolution and preserving the entire banking system? Yeah, I kinda like those. And that may be true, but conservative and liberal have always had different definitions. Hamilton, the father of conservative politics, supported big government and high tariffs, very anti-Republican. Jefferson, the father of American liberalism, hated big government. Jackson, a Democrat, followed Jefferson, while Lincoln, a Republican, followed Hamilton. I can list out more and more if you want. So their bases are constantly changing and it is unfair to group in Democrats as a racist party because of events far in the past.

Republicans discriminate against Hispanics and Blacks by inaction. Any functioning political party would do everything in their power to expand their number of voters. Hispanics and Blacks, both of whom tend to have robust Christian tradition as a whole, have ideas that would align with the Republican party, yet conservatives make no move to incorporate them into the flock
I'd have to disagree with you on that discrimination point. Hispanics and Blacks may be socially conservative, but fiscally, most are liberal. I never said in this thread that the MODERN Democratic Party is racist. Neither party is proactively racist today. I said that they has A HISTORY of racism.

Classical liberalism is what you are talking about. This is the view of the modern Libertarian Party with their belief in small government and respect for personal freedoms. While the religious right has shifted the party away from its historical roots of being the freedom fighters that make me proud to be a Republican, the GOP still is closer in ideology to the Libertarian Party than the Democrats are.

Also, the worst years of the Great Depression were 1937 and 1938, when the New Deal was well in effect. World War II is what saved us from the Great Depression. The war economy suddenly created tons of jobs in wars industries and people put money generously into war bonds. This is what propped our economy up.
Age 28
Male
Steel City
Seen May 28th, 2011
Posted May 5th, 2011
117 posts
12.1 Years
I disagree with you on the Great Depression. The worst times were between December 1932 and March 1933, Hoover's lame duck period. Then FDR swooped in and called Congress to a special session, during which they passed 16 pieces of significant legislation in only a few months, which is unheard of. Health care took 8 months on its own. The Emergency Banking Act staved off the worst bits of the Depression and opened the door for future reform to get us back on our feet. World War II gave us the final heave out of the depression, but it wasn't the catalyst to recovery.
Male
Seen November 2nd, 2013
Posted May 31st, 2013
958 posts
13.9 Years
Also, the worst years of the Great Depression were 1937 and 1938, when the New Deal was well in effect. World War II is what saved us from the Great Depression. The war economy suddenly created tons of jobs in wars industries and people put money generously into war bonds. This is what propped our economy up.

The worst years were, for one, like said, in Hoover's lame duck years.

the time period you're referring to took part right after two big things happened. One, the National Bank decided to reduce the amount it was giving out for loans, and two, the FDR administration actual decreased spending for that time.

The two happening at once caused a resurgence of the effects that defined the Great Depression.

Before that, the New Deal proved extremely effective in staving off a complete financial collapse and promoting economic growth. Graphic economic behavior is like a graph of a wave. It goes up, then goes down a similar amount. If the New Deal didn't exist, the Great Depression would have been much worse.

Yes, WW2 did push us out of the depression. It made it so that our government put unprecedented amounts of money, many of which was raised through war bonds, into the economy to create a total war state.

Netto Azure

Kiel

Age 30
Male
Alistel, Vainqueur
Seen November 17th, 2021
Posted September 29th, 2021
9,467 posts
15 Years
Yes, WW2 did push us out of the depression. It made it so that our government put unprecedented amounts of money, many of which was raised through war bonds, into the economy to create a total war state.
Which I might add entailed massive government intervention including massive rationing of scarce materials from food to rubber. Causing people to save a heck of a lot more than saving thereby giving the middle class spending power which fueled the vast growth of the US economy in the 50's-60's.

Although it did also sparked large inflation in the Truman administration which everyone is scared about ATM for some reason. >>