Switch the "R" to D" and the "D" to "R" and see what happens

[newyearsrevolution08]

What I find sad is the fact that there are so many "party" voters who really do not care about specifics of a presidential candidate or any candidate for that matter. All they care about is what party they are affiliated with.

It makes me wonder how things would sway if a candidate was from another party and if that would boost them up further than not.

I know in local elections it would affect things tremendously. All of the "I am been a voting republican for 42 years and counting" people because you KNOW they would never vote for anyone with a "d" by their name BUT if that candidate happened to put that "r" next to it then this type of person would THEN vote for them.

Bugs me, had to see others thoughts on it and HOW we can break it. Being in one party or always voting one way does not do a damn thing for personal growth or learning about the politics you are voting for. All I see it doing is allowing you to tell your other "d" or "r" friends how much of an amazing party voter you are.

[Zippyjuan]

The "R" and the "D" makes it easier for some people to decide which way they are going to vote- they don't have to decide based on each issue. That is why candidates do not target their own party members as much but instead go after the so-called undecided or independents. They already have the support of their own party members. And the letter does not necessarily mean which way their politics run. Bill Clinton was actually a more conservative president than George W. Bush was.

[ShowMeLiberty]

If it was up to me, political parties would be illegal. Voters should have to actually find out what a candidate stands for, specifically, instead of defaulting to casting a party vote. Political parties = far too many lazy, uninformed voters.

[nate895]

If it was up to me, political parties would be illegal. Voters should have to actually find out what a candidate stands for, specifically, instead of defaulting to casting a party vote. Political parties = far too many lazy, uninformed voters.

Banning political parties=violation of the Freedom of Association.

[nodope0695]

Yep, parties suck...why can't we all just be Amerians?

[heavenlyboy34]

If it was up to me, political parties would be illegal. Voters should have to actually find out what a candidate stands for, specifically, instead of defaulting to casting a party vote. Political parties = far too many lazy, uninformed voters.

I wouldn't ban them, just de-emphasize them to the point of irrelevance.:D

[nate895]

Yep, parties suck...why can't we all just be Amerians?

You can't quell parties. Even if you couldn't make an official party, there will be factions and pseudo-parties. Then we'd have to ban PACs. Then, since the pseudo-parties are eliminated by banning PACs, a single person will be looked to to determine candidates for a movement, and then we'd have to ban Freedom of Speech in this form, and one person is dangerous anyhow. Parties are the best way to organize a political system, otherwise you wind up with back-room deals and no one knows who is allied with whom.

BTW, what are Amerians?

[mediahasyou]

Banning political parties=violation of the Freedom of Association.

True but political parties do not have the right to steal through public funding. Nor do they have the right to infringe on other's self ownership. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I) Thus, the coercive gov that the parties seek shall be banned.

[nate895]

True but political parties do not have the right to steal through public funding. Nor do they have the right to infringe on other's self ownership. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I) Thus, the coercive gov that the parties seek shall be banned.

I agree. I don't believe we can get rid of government however. I believe that since we have already had government, then if we eliminated it, there would almost certainly be a faction that would organize and reassert governing authority.

[heavenlyboy34]

You can't quell parties. Even if you couldn't make an official party, there will be factions and pseudo-parties. Then we'd have to ban PACs. Then, since the pseudo-parties are eliminated by banning PACs, a single person will be looked to to determine candidates for a movement, and then we'd have to ban Freedom of Speech in this form, and one person is dangerous anyhow. Parties are the best way to organize a political system, otherwise you wind up with back-room deals and no one knows who is allied with whom.

BTW, what are Amerians?

No, you can't technically ban political parties. However, you can avoid incentivizing them. If they get no special privileges (automatic ballot access, etc.), they will naturally dissolve as smart, efficient individuals come onto the scene.

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree. I don't believe we can get rid of government however. I believe that since we have already had government, then if we eliminated it, there would almost certainly be a faction that would organize and reassert governing authority.

I believe it is possible to get rid of government. All functions that the government currently fills could be done more effectively in an atmosphere of capitalistic competition. I maintain that all government is a coercive force, and therefore not needed in a truly free, laissez-faire society.

[nate895]

I believe it is possible to get rid of government. All functions that the government currently fills could be done more effectively in an atmosphere of capitalistic competition. I maintain that all government is a coercive force, and therefore not needed in a truly free, laissez-faire society.

The problem I see with that society is that it would be very easy to take over if someone had an organized force. If there was a faction that wanted to plunder from the rest of society, all they need do is organize themselves and they would beat most anything a government-free society can muster. Protection agencies would be of great good for police forces, but it would be unprofitable to maintain a military, especially since it is a public good that you can't get everyone to pay for unless you have a government.

[nate895]

No, you can't technically ban political parties. However, you can avoid incentivizing them. If they get no special privileges (automatic ballot access, etc.), they will naturally dissolve as smart, efficient individuals come onto the scene.

In Washington State, we have a top-two primary system where all candidates can get on the ballot using the same filing fee. This should, theoretically, eliminate the parties' influence, but it instead is giving back room deal making a new role to play in our elections.

[nickcoons]

Protection agencies would be of great good for police forces, but it would be unprofitable to maintain a military, especially since it is a public good that you can't get everyone to pay for unless you have a government.

A modified version of Switzerland's army would work well in this scenario.

[nate895]

A modified version of Switzerland's army would work well in this scenario.

Only reason why Switzerland's army works is because there is a government that will have you shot if you don't comply. If there was no law, and no one to enforce it, you would never be able to get enough people organized to defend against an organized military threat.

[escapinggreatly]

It's team politics. People declare themselves to be a member of a particular team, and let that membership define how they think, instead of vice-versa. A sad, sad state of affairs.
__________________

http://www.meltingpotproject.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/22/libertariansig.jpg
The Melting Pot Project: Proportional Representation. New Parties. Intern Jokes. (http://www.meltingpotproject.com/)

[Matt Collins]

Many city and local races are nonpartisan. I suggest everyone start running in those.

[ronpaulforever]

It's a group-think mentality... And I agree that it's mainly for lazy voters who don't want to study all the issues. Instead they just have to look for the D or R and cast their vote accordingly. But then of course the proverbial bus starts taking unexpected turns with all the members aboard, and before you know it you've got a party full of voters who have long abandoned their principles because they got swept off with their party. Factor in some die-hard loyalty, and you've got a serious psychological problem to overcome with voters.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Many city and local races are nonpartisan. I suggest everyone start running in those.

You would think that, I thought that as well until the republican party backed the republican mayoral candidates and the democratic party backed the democratic candidates as well as everyone else who "Backs" based on party affiliation.

Even when they don't have that "d" and r" next to them locally they STILL are voted on based on it.

Non partisan, I don't buy it at all.

[werdd]

If it was up to me, political parties would be illegal. Voters should have to actually find out what a candidate stands for, specifically, instead of defaulting to casting a party vote. Political parties = far too many lazy, uninformed voters.

George Washington was very weary of political parties for that reason.

[Mesogen]

I don't have anything against political parties per se, but today they are entwined with the state in many ways. The 2 major parties have coopted the election system and party functions are paid for and run within the state structure, and this is so wrong.

There have to be laws to change the election system. The parties can have their nominating primaries if they like, but they must be entirely private. The nominating "elections" cannot use any public funds.

Real, state-run elections would have a real primary and a final run-off between the two top vote getters. The Rs and Ds could nominate their candidates themselves and enter them into the general primary. If they are in the top 2, they get into the run-off. If not, too bad, so sad.

[dr. hfn]

the gov't can't ban parties, but the people can by not joining them

[ShowMeLiberty]

Some very interesting and reasonable responses in this thread. Good stuff.

Ok, I'll concede that outright banning of political parties is wrong. But there still needs to be serious, systemic reform because what we have now is hopelessly broken.

I like Mesogen's thoughts about removing the connection between the parties and state-run elections. Also, what if the state did not list candidates' party affiliation on the ballots? If voters want to know a candidate's affiliation, they'll have to research it before they go to the polls. The state should be completely neutral on affiliations and print the names only.

It might also be good to get rid of the previous elections requirements for ballot access, as someone else mentioned. If any candidate can deliver a certain number of signatures on a petition by a certain deadline, they should be allowed on the ballot. Again, party affiliation is no concern of the state - only that the specific candidate has enough minimum support to be placed on general election ballot. Kind of like it is done for other ballot measures.

Thoughts?

[Matt Collins]

You would think that, I thought that as well until the republican party backed the republican mayoral candidates and the democratic party backed the democratic candidates as well as everyone else who "Backs" based on party affiliation.

Even when they don't have that "d" and r" next to them locally they STILL are voted on based on it.

Non partisan, I don't buy it at all.Who wins local non-partisan elections? Those with their name and face out in front of most people. In other words the candidate who is most familiar to the voters.