Long has America stood in two pieces. Although it has been a very subtle split we have not been the country that we could be. For a long time America has been divided into the parties of Republicans and Democrats. Many a time have we been stopped by the division of our two parties. For the most part people have voted on things based off of weather their party believes in it. In politics the division of parties has long inhibited us for so long. Politics is no longer about what is in the best interest of the common citizen, instead with the political division active we have long stood apart with both parties focusing on insulting the other and trying to find fault with the other. A two party system only inhibits us by keeping us fighting amongst ourselves and instead of getting to the root of the problem we focus on what will be popular with the people so I can get more votes next election. Instead of going with our president the Republican party has constantly disagreed with him based off of the fact that he is a democrat. Our first president George Washington gave us a clear warning that having a two party system would be our downfall. We squabble among ourselves just to find fault with the other party instead of getting to the point where we will agree with an idea based off of the fact that we agree with it, instead of it being because our party would not agree with it. We have become the divided states of America only pulling together when there is a physical threat. My question is to you, what do all of you think about the two party system or a one party system?
Washington warned about political parties in general, not a two party system specifically. In fact, two party systems provide more stability than a multiple party system and allow democracy to function unlike a one party system. If you're going to have parties a two party system is the way to go. There should be no parties. It should be "Sen. John Doe" not "Sen. John Doe (R)" When parties are established everything is for the good of the political machine, not the people. People should run based on their beliefs and what they plan to do with them in Washington - not the parties beliefs. This also prevents the "blue states" and "red states" notion and the false dichotomy of division within this country.
I can see we never grew out of the immaturity from High School. It's basically cliques in different forms, religion in political form. We are right, and you are wrong, because we are too snot-nosed people to give up on each other. Keep your viewpoint to yourself, join together, and focus on WHAT needs to be done. I'm on neither side. Unless it's the right side. Which is niether side mainly because niether seem to be focusing on whats right. They could be, but I don't watch/read the news anymore.
Erm, one major misconception is that the U.S is a Democracy when it is indeed a Republic. "I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Political parties serve as a critical machine for interest accumulation and work to promote intrest aggregation. While it would be better if people voted for candidates because of their views instead of their party, without political parties, nothing would ever get done because groups of representatives would never have enough cohesion to pass laws, or form like opinions. the fact is, all legitimate countries have political parties because they are a necessary evil for government function. Federal Republic
Your conclusion is a fallacy. Despite that, though, your logic is totally erroneous. What about a party enables progress? Group-think? When a bill is proposed each individual senator votes yes or no. If it is worth their time they vote yes, if not then no. A party only means that if someone in your party proposed it you may be more inclined to violate your beliefs for your continued support from the political machine. Parties distract, corrupt and ultimately lead to the downfall of civilizations.
It would be far better without a party system altogether. What is needed is individual candidates who clearly and firmly state what they are going to do and then its LOCKED IN. Nobody can say 'well im going to do all of these amazing things' and then do nothing. Thinking of Adam Smith's 'social contract', this country really belongs to all of us and the government only exists for our greater good. We agree to sacrifice some of our freedoms for the greater good of having a government. Therefore, we should be able to choose the right person, and the right path that will lead this country. The party system blurs this. Party members rely on blind trust. They just want to win. Nobody even casts a thought to what the presidents will actually do. Its time we start taking responsibility to that which we own.
Political parties are not necessary. They keep us back. . A lot more things would be done if we had no parties think about it, just take any bill that needs to be passed by congress and you have many democrats voting for it but the republican party as a whole does not believe in it but one person in the republican party does believe in the bill but however he does not vote for it because his party does not believe in it. There are many people that have certain beliefs such as someone may not believe in Global warming or in Gay rights, but they believe in abortion does that mean they should be in between? There are many cases where this happens and often they only have one thing to choose from either on extreme or the other (basically they either vote for someone who believes in the views embraced by their party). Instead of doing that why not do away with the political parties so that we can actually get somewhere in America rather then us being forced to vote for one or the other. Yes groups of representatives would have enough cohesion to get something done. More so then with a multiple party system because people would vote bassed off of their beliefs and not because their major beliefs fall in allignment with a certain party but they have one small belief that does not align with their party.
I feel the reason we have two parties is that most people who agree with most of the "doctrine" of their party are unwilling to compromise their opinions. It is sort of a "go big or go home" stance, make all our parties beliefs law, or I am going to take my support elsewhere. It would be difficult to elect leaders by a majority without the parties. Many candidates would lose significant numbers of votes over one of hundreds of stances they have. I don't like the party system, and would love to see alternative political patterns in our society, I just don't see it happening or working, after so many years of our current system. Don't take this as an argument or criticism of what you said, I simply want to know, what point were you attempting to make when you said this? I don't see where exactly the official type of government system we have fits into this debate.
It might be easier to elect a leader if we were to have no parties. It would be where people voted for the person that represents their same beliefs. Without parties more candidates would have a moreover customizable belief system, where instead of having two extremes you can have an inbetween. Such things would be like having a person that believes in global warming, yet they are pro-life, and they are against gay marriage.
Just wanted to point out a fact, that we are a Democratic Republic and not a Democracy... Exactly my point, I believe it was essential to the debate so there is less confusion between what the U.S really is and Democracy itself.
The party system is efficient because some people have difficulty forming their own opinions on certain topics. Rather than having to reason and logically decide what is good and bad according to them, it's simpler to latch onto a majority opinion that has certain opinions similar to theirs. Not every conservative I know necessarily is for the right to bear arms, and not every liberal I know necessarily is pro-choice. However, you'd certainly never know that by examining the average struck by each party's generalization.
This can be true however, it inhibits us. Both parties focus is to gain the upper hand against the other, and much time is spent delegating because automatically if you are a republican then you need to vote against Obama. Much more could be done if they voted for something because they believe in it, not because their party does not believe in it. In his farewell adress, George Washington stated that we should not move into having multiple party systems, he saw America moving towards that path. It slows us down, we fight among ourselves instead of getting anything done.
No, having multiple opinions amongst the populace slows down 'getting things done'. The very nature of the democratic method creates bickering amongst all people. You think that having two schools of thought argue over the course of action is slow enough? Attempt to reach a consensus with a every person in America. The 'Washington wouldn't approve' argument against political parties is either outdated or naive. When Washington made that statement, the population of the US was less than 4 million, with only the original 13 states voting. The only differing opinion, really, was whether the newly formed United States should have a strong federal government or a loose confederacy. Today we have 50 states with over 300 million people living in them, all with incredibly diverse backgrounds and all with differing opinions on what should be done on a ridiculous number of topics. Pro-life or pro-choice? Death sentence? Legal marijuana? Public healthcare? If you want the political voting system in anarchy, expect people to speak up for their beliefs and for them to argue for them. Expect nothing short of chaos in decision making.