Political Crossfire Forums

[Green]

Moot wrote: I think if there was only one political party then the USA would resemble the old United Soviet Socialist Republik. Wouldn't that be ironic? Be careful what you wish for, it just might come true.

Only two parties is just as bad as one. We can't have a democracy with just two people, we need all 200 or so million of the people in this country to support their own ideas to make a stable, progressing nation. That is what the founding fathers wanted.

[perdidochas]

EconomicHitman wrote: When America was founded in 1776 THomas Jefferson and Sam Adams thought that there should be no political parties.

During the Civil War (American) Abraham Lincoln was a Republican even though he stood for many of the morals that modern day Democrats do.

Anybody have any thoughts on how parites should be governed now adays?

As they are. Parties have evolved the way they are for a reason. No law keeps them the way they are.

I do think, though, that we need to eliminate all current campaign finance laws, as they help the incumbents too much.

[perdidochas]

Fido wrote: Lee_p413 wrote: I believe that you're mostly right. That would be best. The problem is that it will never happen, because to get elected, one must be known. To be known, they use the parties.

And the parties use the candidates, when elected, to sell local issues out for national issues. Local issues should remain local. State issues should remain within the state. Issues do not become national only because the national government chooses too make them a part of their domain. The saying is that all politics are local, but the problem is that all parties are national, and elected national officials sell out their locals, and locals they have no business voting against for the benefit of a national organization. Parties are the original special interest, always chasing the money, and tailoring the message to the money.

Let me offer examples. The government gives to congress the right to regulate interstate trade. My state once had meat inspection standards that were more stringent that the federal standards. No more, since some of that meat came from other states even a law that protected both citizen and producer was found in conflict with a constitutional right of the federal government. We might have argued that stringent standards, by the state passing a law, had become our right, and a right we might have carried with us from state to state. The federal government, whose strong point is somewhere other than regulation, would not even let us defend ourselves. But what is it the federal government can not control if it should cross a border? Medical weed? Homosexual Marriage? Assisted suicide, abortion?
The problem with your state's more stringent standards is that they put up a trade barrier with the other states. That sounds like a government action that actually follows the Constitution.

[Fido]

Green wrote: Moot wrote: I think if there was only one political party then the USA would resemble the old United Soviet Socialist Republik. Wouldn't that be ironic? Be careful what you wish for, it just might come true.

Only two parties is just as bad as one. We can't have a democracy with just two people, we need all 200 or so million of the people in this country to support their own ideas to make a stable, progressing nation. That is what the founding fathers wanted.

Two parties is not enough and too many. The answer to every question is not yes or no, true or false. To phrase every political question in like fashion diverts the cooperative nature of society, and saps the strength of the nation. The first question is what is best between voter and representative, and this 'best' on every specific issue cannot be traded away.
Just as two parties cannot possibly reflect the opinions of this diverse nation, so as well can no single representative reflect the will of huge numbers of voters. If vast numbers are not voting for their representative it is certain their needs will be disregarded, and from that point on their representative is not representing their will. The division of party is reflected in a people from each side willing to trade on the rights of the other. The key to a functional democracy is to keep each representative in close contact with his constituents, and to make a necessity for a relationship with ones voters, rather than the mass media and money required today. One representative can know thirty thousand people from their district, and know their needs and concerns. How can that possibly happen today? And even if the representative cares to do the will of his huge number electors, the need to guard ones own, and to prey upon other sections destroys the concept of nation and democracy.