Should all elections be nonpartisan?

Netto Azure said:


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.
Click to expand...

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.

twocows said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
twocows said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...)
 
Live_Wire466 said:


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.)
Click to expand...

<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 Trotsky said:
<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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
The Trotsky said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
lx_theo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. >>
 
Live_Wire466 said:


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.)
Click to expand...
How is he a lunatic (don't know anything about him)? Also what's so bad about being Tea party backed? it's not any worse than being Union or Cooperation backed like the rest of the member of Congress...
 
Magmaruby and Aquasapphire said:

How is he a lunatic (don't know anything about him)? Also what's so bad about being Tea party backed? it's not any worse than being Union or Cooperation backed like the rest of the member of Congress...
Click to expand...

Lolololololololol yes it is. Unions and corporations fund campaigns of party members they feel would help further their own interests. The Tea Party is a minority Republican faction that actively poisons mainstream political coverage with vitriol and rhetoric that is simply inaccurate and dumb. And corporations and unions do not host rallies populated by overweight, bearded, redneck white people plopped into lawn chairs and wearing trifold hats (or rallies at all for that matter).

But as for Ron Paul, he wants to get rid of the Fed and IRS. That, in and of itself, should be enough to explain why he's crazy
 
The Trotsky said:
Lolololololololol yes it is. Unions and corporations fund campaigns of party members they feel would help further their own interests. The Tea Party is a minority Republican faction that actively poisons mainstream political coverage with vitriol and rhetoric that is simply inaccurate and dumb. And corporations and unions do not host rallies populated by overweight, bearded, redneck white people plopped into lawn chairs and wearing trifold hats (or rallies at all for that matter).

But as for Ron Paul, he wants to get rid of the Fed and IRS. That, in and of itself, should be enough to explain why he's crazy
Click to expand...
not all of them are...those people high jacked the movement with their rude behavior...also isn't that stereotyping?
 
They didn't hijack anything, they've been the leaders of the movement the whole time and encourage extremism to get a point across. It may be the image of a stereotypical Tea Party and not the image of every single person in attendance, but people like that are far from rare
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top