Get Rid OF Political Parties and Elect American Leaders!
By redzventures
@redzventures (19)
September 3, 2009 7:42pm CST
The amount of time, energy and more importantly, the country's money, wasted on cross party referencing and criticism should render the concept of the political party system as redundant. Both in the US and here in the UK, politicians constantly refer to their predecessor's failings in term of their party and far too often the debate ends up as a mud slinging match where each party spokesperson tries to tear apart the oppositions policies. If there was only ever ONE party, the American or British Governement, then policies would have to be agreed on by individuals and the population in general. Members could still be appointed by elections and the same process as is currently in operation but they would then just be promoted to the relevant position according to their level, grade and past performance. This may well reduce the often ridiculous behaviour attributed to party followers who take their party's views to the extreme. To the point that even the party that they are following would not support the fan themselves. I'm no political academic but wouldn't it be more civilized?
1 person likes this
4 responses
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
4 Sep 09
I will take this a step further and state that in the U.S. we already have a one party system. It is a party with two factions, but it is essesntialy the same party. The division preached by both factions is used by them and the media to project a fake choice, a false paradigm of left vs right. The result how ever is the election/selection of the same two factions election after election and the voter believing that some how things have "changed" becuse their faction of that one party got in to power.
I also notice as I am sure may others do, that people who still belong to one of those two factions cling patheticly to that factions ideology, no matter how much they oposed that same ideology when the last faction in power did it...resulting in the canned response of "well so and so did it when they were in office"....or "where were you when so and so did it"...it is an argument that continues in perpetual circles leaving us no better off and no further than we were before.
@redzventures (19)
•
4 Sep 09
Ok great, how about having no partys, so that the stupid games between the media and governing party can be halted. If so much time and money are wasted fuelling these fake clashes and oppositions, with only a select few creaming the public purse, is that not more reasons to scrap party politics?
@cotton0821 (259)
• United States
4 Sep 09
Having only one party to choose from is the method used in the elections held in communist countries. Our current system may very well be silly and inefficient but it creates an openness that cannot be found in one party systems.
@redzventures (19)
•
4 Sep 09
But has this openness reduced corruption or wrong doing by politicians? How open is it when there are far too many lies? Hidden agendas are still hidden so how open can the system be? Cronyism, nepotism and favoritism still happens in our western governemnts and it is only pressure from us, the people, that helps to change things. Would this pressure not be as effective if there were no political partys? There are still too many people who sign checks behind closed doors!
@lilaclady (28207)
• Australia
4 Sep 09
I hate the way politicians carry on, I think the people should pick a leader then vote for policies put up to the people then they should vote for a party of people to carry the wishes of the people out, afterall we can never vote for all we agree on by voting for one party...it would be rare for someone to agree with every policy a party puts up and then they say this is what the people wanted, we may want one policy we feel strongly about but then we have to take all of the polies from that party...i have never agreed with all policies of any party...
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
4 Sep 09
I'm with you more or less. But I think the "one-party" system is going in the wrong direction. One party would suggest more of a dictatorship. I'm thinking that we need either multiple parties (hundreds!) or no parties at all.
I'm pushing for no parties. I want people to run independently. Moreover, I want this to prompt people to live their lives independently.
Here in America, there's a HUGE section of the culture that clings to the fixed news like religion. It's a big cycle of FUBAR redudancy. The media are in bed with the politicians. The media then push biased news to the public. The public shows support and keeps elects one side to power. The politicians reward the owners of the news mediums. The media then refuse to run anything counter to that party's progress. The public remains uninformed, by in large. And it just makes for an absolutely broken system.
This is enabled by people claiming a "side." If everyone entered the game and lived their lives independently, the corruption would be harder to sell.
Having a major two-party system--at least in America--basically insists that people choose a side. It's hard to be an independent thinker, because your side WILL be chosen for you based solely on who you DO NOT support. This is fear-mongering at its finest.
I'd be afraid that having a one-party system would really just have the same two-party results, only the independent misfits would then have absolutely no voice and no politcal capital.
@redzventures (19)
•
4 Sep 09
I agree with you in that is should be no party at all. The problems with partys is that people tend to get drunk a lot and say stupid things - lol Actually, not as ridiculous and humorous as it might sound. Followers of party politics are misled and the leaders often have their hands tied. Scrap partys all together. Except for on the weekends of course.
