What do you think would happen if...
By dizzblnd
@dizzblnd (3073)
United States
September 7, 2008 2:02pm CST
all political affiliations were removed. No Republicans, no Democrats, no Independents, just [i]people[/i] running our government?
I understand that people with the same interests would still group together. That is natural. Sure, there will still be differences in opinion, that will never change. But if there is no named "rivalry", do you think everyone could just learn to work together to solve the issues?
If you couldn't sling mud at a particular "party" wouldn't that leave more energy to focus on what needs to be done; make people in a government position more willing to cooperate?
We will still have President and Vice-President. If they have different opinions on what to to to solve the same issue, without a stigma attached (Democrat, Republican, Independent) I think more people in Congress could get get along better than they do now and offer suggestions to solve it without being blasted.
In the end though in my opinion, we could have a lot better country.
I am starting to ramble, but trying to get my point across.. I hope I am clear.
6 people like this
14 responses
@kellys3ps (3723)
• United States
7 Sep 08
I don't think all political affiliations could be removed - people tend to put themselves into groups based on gender, income, social status, interests, etc. Even in non-patisan elections, you see party line distinctions.
3 people like this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
7 Sep 08
I think the country would be much better off without parties. I've never understood why they were invented, anyway. We'd get a lot more done and the country would be better served if everyone, including the candidates, were "independent".
I also think there should be a cap on how much someone can spend to get elected. That would rule out big business interests spending money to buy candidates.
3 people like this
@dizzblnd (3073)
• United States
8 Sep 08
The cap is a great idea! That way it becomes less about who has more money and more about the ideas the canidates have to help fix our broken world. The special interest groups would hopefully lose interest and focus on helping to fix our world instead of lining their pockets
2 people like this
@KrauseHome (36448)
• United States
7 Sep 08
I think this would be an excellent idea. To give up all of their party affiliations and just work on solving some of the main issues out there facing the people today. I know that many times you will see someone change views, etc. just to look good, when in reality it goes against what others in that party might think to where you are mocked. I feel they should just drop their titles, and work more together as a team. When you have people loosing homes, jobs, medical why should it care what political party you belong too unless you all can agree that it is time something really needs to be done, and do it.
2 people like this
@dizzblnd (3073)
• United States
8 Sep 08
Very well said! God forbid one should change one's mind on something if different circumstances have occurred to make you reconsider your position on something. I think all the opposing parties lie in wait ready to pounce on the other just for this reason.. it's very sad. 
@xtedaxcvg (3189)
• Philippines
8 Sep 08
Well, it's all up to morality now. Parties are just made up to group people with similar interests or goals together. Even if we don't have political parties we would still have groups of people running the government. What needs to be focused on is how these groups of people run the government.
2 people like this
..In Congress? I am not so sure some of them would know what it was if it came up and bit them in the 
But you are absolutely correct. Morality is needed most
@cobrateacher (8432)
• United States
7 Sep 08
Great idea! Would it t cause more personal mud-slinging? I hope not!
What's psh?
2 people like this
@dizzblnd (3073)
• United States
7 Sep 08
It probably would cause more personal mud-slinging.. and that would be a shame that people can't be more mature
It's like what your students say to you or each other... pssssssh whatever! Just shortenedto psh Whatev!
Are you going to evacuate or stay put for Ike?
3 people like this
@cobrateacher (8432)
• United States
7 Sep 08
So far, it looks like it's only going to cause heavy storms in Miami. They aren even closing my school, which is a designated shelter.
I LOVE your psh!
2 people like this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
7 Sep 08
Great idea! So do you want to get that started? 
I know that it would never happen but it would be really nice to see wouldn't it?
I know that it would never happen but it would be really nice to see wouldn't it?2 people like this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
8 Sep 08
What is that saying, If wishes were fishes the fish would be full
1 person likes this
@Thoroughrob (11742)
• United States
8 Sep 08
I am beginning to think that it would not be a bad idea at all. They need to put their heads together and get some solutions and quit bucking things just because the other party thought of it. They spend more time bucking each other than what is important.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
8 Sep 08
I think that would be the best thing that could ever happen! No more stupid filibusters, finally candidates and those already in office would be able to speak and vote their consciences without fear of angering their parties and having their campaign funds withheld or committee chairmanships taken away. It would o away with the respective party platforms with all their inconsistencies and allow people to completely vote for the person, not the party and know they mean what they say when they campaign. I honestly believe that while it will certainly take a long time for the parties to be completely "phased-out" if there ever has been a good chance to get such a movement started it's now. There are so many new voters, particularly among the young, and while a large number of them are for Obama this year I don't think they are or ever will be the party loyalists we've had in past generations. How can we get this thing started?
Annie
1 person likes this
@dizzblnd (3073)
• United States
8 Sep 08
I think fear is one of the things I hate the most about our politicians. Getting blasted for going against their party just sVcks! To quote Rodney King "Why can't we all just get along?" 
How can we get this thing started?
I wish I knew. even if we could get it started.. I am sure it would be fought every step of the way. 
If you figure it out, let me know. I'm right beside you!
How can we get this thing started?
I wish I knew. even if we could get it started.. I am sure it would be fought every step of the way.
If you figure it out, let me know. I'm right beside you!
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
7 Sep 08
I think it would be a good idea. I think that if they did away with all the convention stuff and primary stuff and all of that and just put everyone on the ballot that wanted to run for president, it would be better. The president would be elected by the majority vote of the American people.
2 people like this
@thebohemianheart (8827)
• United States
8 Sep 08
I can see the point you are trying to make, but think about it. Think about families, friends and co-workers. In families, there are always a few that the majority don't have anything to do with. We have friends who are friends with someone we don't get along with. And, I am sure that we have all worked with people we don't like. In each case, there is always friction, gossiping, name calling ,and backstabbing. This is going to happen whether we have political parties or not. The people "in charge" are not going to change much just because there are no party lines, are they?
@thebohemianheart (8827)
• United States
8 Sep 08
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that something needs to change.
@jfxrsch (1041)
• China
7 Sep 08
Who are the political affiliations? They are "people". If earthquake kills us all, there won't be Republicans/Democrates/Independents. But, as long as a male and a female survived and make a baby, some years later, there will be some political affiliations. That's the way the world is moving.
2 people like this
@geekyjock (371)
• Philippines
8 Sep 08
Hmmm...that would be nice. But I think if that happens it would turn out to be a socialist government. I think one factor to democracy is serving the human differences that's why parties are formed. But I think it will be more in "order" because the chain of command will be centralized. And I'm no quite sure if the established organizations, aristocrats would agree with a mono-party. And I think it is not realistic in our world because there will always be discontentment, greed will always be there, and there will always be differences.
1 person likes this
@dizzblnd (3073)
• United States
8 Sep 08
You know, a socialist government is one of the things I thought about when I posted this discussion. I was afraid that would be the end result as well.. which s something I don't exactly want. The "order" you speak of is what I was thinking. Though I am sure it would probably not be what any of us had in mind.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.. it gives m a little more to think about.
Welcome to mylot, I hope you enjoy yourself here.
@surpriseme (185)
•
8 Sep 08
i think it would still be chaotic as it is right now. groups of people will soon emerge to be more powerful than the others and therefore would rule. when they think they are supreme, each one of them would want to be above all the others. it will just make things as worse as our politics right now.
1 person likes this
