6 opinions, 2 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
67
6 votes
Jul 2, 2015

I believe that, in a way, political parties are natural outgrowths of the democratic process. Obviously, a single voter on their own will not be able to sway the machinery of government in a nation of 300 million. Even at the state level, a single vote is relatively insignificant.

But when a voter bands together with other voters, they become a force to be reckoned with.

The incentive for individuals seeking a certain result from a large system is to pool their efforts with like-minded fellow citizens. This is essentially what a political party is. Nothing more than a group of people saying, "We agree enough on enough of the issues to stand together as one and demand action."

Political parties also have the added benefit of bringing people into a coalition around an issue that they may not personally have otherwise engaged on. There are many issues in the Democratic Party platform that I don't have a particular, personal passion for, but I support them because they are supported by people who join me in support of issues I do care about and because after being presented with issue, I find their case persuasive, even if I still lack a personal passion for it.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
5 votes,
Jul 2, 2015

The problem I have with political parties is that they damage creativity. People are kinda forced to think certain way. Right, political party brings people into a coalition around some issue, but when it comes to large parties, it gets a little fuzzy. What I mean, if there's a nation of 300+ million people and there are basically 2 political parties, there must be something wrong. It's impossible for 2 parties to correctly address every single issue. There are too many different people, passion is lost. I'd like to have a choice, I'd like to vote more for people, or small groups, rather than for the parties - currently I feel like I cannot be sure what I'm voting for.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
3 votes,
Jul 2, 2015

There is plenty of work to be done at the local level. Local party politics is important - I think too much power is in the presidency and legislature. Too much of what we would rather have state and county discussions on is decided from the federal level.

That is how you get creativity back and not have to worry about the lack of creativity from political parties - restore the multitude of laboratories of freedom the states once were.

subscribe
100
2 votes
Jul 2, 2015

This is a tough question. I personally don't like the hardline positions that parties take as I feel it hurts open-mindedness in policy making. On merely principled grounds I think parties are a terrible way to run a country. The problem arises when we attempt to run the country without them. How would we choose who to vote for on ballots? How would individuals achieve any sort of recognition? Congress and the functions within it are entirely dependent on the existence of parties. They organize and vote together while some congressional functions are entirely dictated by them, such as choosing the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader. Parties are also an incredibly strong factor in mobilizing voters.

To more specifically answer the question, we need organizational groups to help run the vast bureaucracy of the US, but not ones that demand cooperation in ideals and voting.

subscribe
100
1 vote
Jul 2, 2015

In theory, like-minded voters banding together to try to effect change is admirable.

In practice, it leads to mentality of us-vs-them where all that matters is what color the candidate wears. If anything, it makes the system worse in that the two parties we currently have completely suppress any new groups that attempt to form, forcing voters into a choice between two parties, even if they might agree with neither of them.

When political parties were established it was necessary since with direct democracy just the logistics of such a system would be a nightmare. However, with the advent of the internet and current levels of communication, direct democracy without parties would be incredibly simple. The only reason that I can think of for parties to remain in place is that they provide funding for candidates, but even that isn't much anymore thanks to, again, the internet.

I might be rambling at this point but I think I've conveyed my basic opinion.

subscribe
100
1 vote
Jul 2, 2015

Whether or not we need them, they will spontaneously form, since allying with like-minded individuals to make progress toward common goals is fundamental to human nature.

subscribe
100
opinion
1 vote
Jul 21, 2015

Nope.

We the people can use today's technology to vote on policies that a collective/community might come up with. The scientists/economists (voted in by the people) will test it in the real world and balance it morally to come up with the best solution. Pretty much if you don't contribute or don't vote...too bad.

Think of it as true democracy, where no individual politician can be lobbied or fall victim to internal politics.

subscribe
0
User voted No.
0 votes
Jul 18, 2015

What we DO need is to have representatives of the people to vote on rather than to be force fed the garbage politicians by the corporations.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: