How many RPF readers think political parties are a scourge?

[hyoomen]

Amid support of Congressman Paul's support for reforming the Republican Party, contrasted with the rEVOLution's ability to bring in a wide variety of supporters, there has been a lot of talk about third parties/independents vs. the two primary parties.

Out of curiosity, though, how many of you think the political parties/factions are anathema to our Constitutional republic's checks and balances?

As background, I was watching CNN news last night and one of the pundits mentioned the Supreme Court being 5-4 along party lines, and it was the first time in a while I've considered the potential detriment to our nation's separation of powers that can be had when two parties control the various branches.

I understand Congressman Paul's position on WINNING only through one of the two parties, but do you see dissolution of our two-party system as a worthwhile goal?


"The greatest good we can do our country is to heal its party divisions and make them one people." --Thomas Jefferson

"To restore... harmony,... to render us again one people acting as one nation should be the object of every man really a patriot." --Thomas Jefferson

[Banana]

Personally, I do believe parties suck.

But the problem is that if you banned parties, it wouldn't really stop people from organizing somehow; it'd be just under a different umbrella, with a new face, whatever.

Therefore, I envision the ideal situation to be something like this: We would have a single party, but give much more power/weight to precincts than to national. The higher you go, the more bound you are to the platforms that has been drawn by delegates under you. I believe delegate system is very good idea: not everyone wants to be involved in politics, but everyone does know someone who they trust to be involved and thus elect this person as a delegate. By keeping it small (e.g. precinct), it is very hard to be corrupt because you'd be scrutinized by your own neighbor, and the delegates gets to scrutinize the local officials, and so forth.... jury by peers.

The party wouldn't have a set list of goals or objectives or values, but rather a platform that may change from time to time as voters/delegates convene on regular basis. All candidates would be nominally running as independent, so party serves nothing in terms of endorsing/supporting/favoritism/cronyism.


But that's just my pipe dream.

[humanic]

Instant Runoff Voting can help put an end to the two-party stranglehold.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqblOq8BmgM
http://www.instantrunoff.com/

[No1ButPaul08]

George Washington said it best in his farewell address. Washington pretty much nails it here. Just like he did foreign policy, national debt, and what he calls, "the impostures of pretended patriotism."

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

[colecrowe]

So Ron Paul is diehard on all the other things the great founders talked about... States-rights, federalism, limited gov't, bill of rights, gold and silver currency, foreign policy...BUT NOT THIS! He even talks about it still...how bad the party system is. But he and most of you think that running independent would be bad because it would get in the way of changing the 'Grand', wonderful Republican Party. And why all of the damn sudden? Huh? He resigned, officially, via a nasty letter from the Republican Party at one point. And ran as a Libertarian...and he is still a card-carrying, LIFETIME member of the Libertarian Party. So stop saying this BS about him being so loyal to the GOP...or saying that he shouldn't do anything to lose its respect...What respect? And why the f is that important? We need an independent. Look at this poll...look at what the public thinks of parties...look at what all the talking heads think....the founders...and us--and, again, Ron Paul. So why won't he do it? Why are you all so afraid and unsure?

When there was still a chance for the nomination, I was giving every week--I gave over $1,100, my gramps gave $1776.00--everybody I know gave and they'd never given to anyone else before. AND they never will again, most likely...But they've all said they'll give even more if he does the right thing for our country (not for this horrible party) and runs for us...runs independent.

whatever.

[Banana]

colecrowe,

Consider the fact that RP was just simply being pragmatic- he already ran on LP ticket and knows that system itself is rigged.

Why do you think he keeps tells us to be a delegate, to reform the party, etc. etc.? So we can toy around? No! It's taking over the game by turning the table around on them!

As I pointed before, if everyone in LP + CP went and infiltrated the GOP, we wouldn't be bitching about an independent run at all. No need to.

Besides, remember that an average voter doesn't really look beyond the letter besides the politician's name. If they hear of candidate on a ticket that's neither D or R, they mumble something about crazy pinko kook and furrow their brows over whether they like how R nominee parts his hair better than how D nominee smiles. That's what RP is up against and because of that, he's telling us to learn the rules and play the games. Taking the ball home only makes kids jeer at us for being a sore loser.

And if you read his message, you can see that he would gladly support third parties and help them get a equal footing, but there's this pesky fact of him having to be elected in a position to leverage this change somehow.

[hyoomen]

I'll post more on it tomorrow, but interestingly one of the concepts I came across when reviewing our founding fathers' concerns over political parties is Thomas Jefferson's observation that political parties tend to originate along the poles of more/less government. Now that the poles have been perverted so both parties value greater governmental intervention, our nation is facing a more daunting challenge than ever before.

This seemingly frames the context of our revolution nicely.

[Kludge]

They are a filter used by almost everyone.

Watching the news, the first thing most people look for is the letter next to the speaker's name, to instantaneously become angry or receptive. This is why it's so nice to associate yourself with a third party, and is why they tend to be the innovators.

[colecrowe]

bump

[nate895]

I see that I am the only one who voted ideal, I shall defend my position.

I find political parties to be good because they provide organization to what would be a disorganized system, they also provide a way to determine the candidates values if you do not know them deeply, and also are a good way to bring people of similar values together to form one cohesive unit. For example, there could be any number of races running in the local area, and you will probably not know what every single candidate believes, but with the party system, you will know the basics of what the candidate believes. The only problem in modern politics with this way of determining who to vote for is that both parties have candidates who pervert their message so much that they look like candidates form the opposing party.

The parties also provide an effective campaign tool to organize and get people of a certain viewpoint elected to office. Without the Democrat and Republican (as well as the minor parties) there would be no way to effectively organize a movement, including this one. Without the Republican Party, Ron Paul Forums might not be here since Ron Paul may not have won his Congressional seat, because, I hate to break it to, but a good amount of people that voted for him in the General Election for his Congressional seat just saw the "R" and said that it is probably better than the "D" so I'll vote for him.

Also, without parties, there would be chaos, imagine if all the candidates at the beginning of the race were in it right up until the time of the election, almost every election would wind up in the House because there could be hundreds, if including the minor party candidates, on the ballot, and there are probably 5-10 who are considered "front runners" and the really greedy ones will only pander to the "middle" because they merely want power.

[nate895]

Instant Runoff Voting can help put an end to the two-party stranglehold.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqblOq8BmgM
http://www.instantrunoff.com/

I like approval voting.