Do you think it's time for America to ditch the party system

[Redoubtable]

Politics is tribal; even if there were no official parties people would find out pretty quick who to side with. Most people who vote don't really care in depth about policy specifics, they vote more based on how the candidates make them feel. If you look at many past elections but this one in particular, many Trump voters didn't care about any policy specifics, it was about setting up your tent with the 'tribe' that was politically incorrect and represented more of an attitude (nationalist, anti-elitist, anti-Islam) than any actual specific policies. With Hillary I think you will find a similar phenomenon, pick 100 Hillary voters and I'd wager only a minority of the voters could articulate specific policy points that attracted them to her. These votes were also tribal in the sense that it was vote based on fear of what was perceived to be that scary tribe (Trump) and what it would do if it got into power in addition to the desire to see the first female president. I'd say only 20% (if that much) of voters make conscientious decisions based on what they actually know about the candidates, their own interests, and politics in general. 80% vote on pure tribal emotion with a facade of reasons for their choice.

[brewer]

Brits tried that for a couple of hundred years. To get anything passed massive bribes had to be paid, along the lines of corrupt men being appointed as chief taxcollectors for England, Ireland and Scotland; with all the skimming they could manage.

Eventually the system coalesced into today's Westminster.

Like bribes aren't being paid now. They just don't call them bribes.

[Minimalist]

All it does is cause polarization and doesn't allow for anything to get done. Some people, not all on both sides of the political spectrum if for example a Republican see's a "D" in front of someone's name they're less likely to actually listen to their idea's and solutions. Can you imagine if we just had elections where every candidate was not allowed to identify with a certain party that way people would actually have to focus on the issues?

I suggested this somewhere else and of course some Contards thought I was somehow advocating for socialism or communism. lol All I'm advocating for is to get rid of the party system, no one identify with a party. Everyone is simply a fellow American with idea's and solutions and whoever has the best policy ideas should be put in office. Not the candidate you hate less or like just because they have a certain letter in front of their name

Great idea.


How are you going to do it?

[Pat Mustard]

Brits tried that for a couple of hundred years. To get anything passed massive bribes had to be paid, along the lines of corrupt men being appointed as chief taxcollectors for England, Ireland and Scotland; with all the skimming they could manage.

Eventually the system coalesced into today's Westminster.

Like bribes aren't being paid now. They just don't call them bribes.

Difference between then and now is that the bribes come from outside the system. It is companies and rich people bribing politicians now, not the leaders of the country as used to be.

And because of that it is possible to get rid of graft without breaking the whole system aunlike what they had to do in the past. Unfortunately for the US there are other problems with the system which mean a full redo from start is neccessary.

[mihoda]

Political parties are an emergent property of voting in general. I find it hard to impossible to construct a democratic system where parties aren't the proper strategy of candidates.

[chimp3]

We do not have a two party system. There are other parties . There are independents. I have always been told that my third party vote is wasted. The only thing the two major parties have going for them is that they are master manipulators. The American public is especially vulnerable to sound bites.

[Autumnlicious]

Without artificial barriers to prevent two party convergence, it is an ignorant fools assertion that this two party malaise can be broken.

Any voluntary devolution of a party is disadvantageous to itself and heavily benefits its political enemies. That alone reinforces existing practices. Even when parties have died out, they've rapidly been replaced with another one which preserves the two party status quo. A particularly popular individual can stave off conglomeration of their private party into a larger one, sometimes they may take over the larger one. Again, we return to two.

Care to illustrate the route out? Or are third party advocates still lost in the emotional ouroborous that is their collective assholes?

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's a difference between supporting a third-party and advocating the elimination of parties.