[Rumor]

By looking at the list of US Presidents on wikipedia, it shows that they last time a President was of a party other than Dems or Reps, it was Andrew Johnson, who was Democratic/National Union.

Then came the back and forth between Democratic and Republican. However, at the time, the ideals were reversed. The Republicans were more liberal and the Democrats were more conservative. When did this change?

For the first 80 years, we had several parties: Federalist (once), Democratic-Republican (four), Whig (four), Democratic (five), Republican/National Union (one) and Democratic/National Union (one).

What happened to the diversity we once had? For the last 138 years it has been back and forth between two parties. The majority of political leaders are of these two parties, the ones that aren't do not seem to be taken to seriously (my observation). Would it be a benefit for the US to have more diversity within her political ideals? Would it be better to absolve the different parties?

[nonhuman]

This is why I'm a proponent of parliamentary democracies. Of course, I've yet to figure out how to convert the US to one without scrapping the constitution altogether and starting over from scratch...

The other alternative is to switch from plurality voting to instant runoff voting. I'd be in favor of that as well.

[SpaceMonkey]

For the most part, the rise and fall of those other parties followed the two-party system as well. It's not like Whigs were running against Federalists.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

What happened to the diversity we once had?

The science of marketing.

[Big Mac]

America has been dominated by two parties for the vast majority of its history. It's a consequence of our electoral structure and political culture.

[Face Ache]

"Political culture" - now there's an oxymoron (unless you mean "culture" as in yeast infection).

[Doofy]

It's down to human nature. The vast majority of people are morons who need to pick a side on which to live their life. Having two sides makes it easier for them.

Need proof? Go have a look at the dating sites (a good sample-taking place) for 4x4-driving vegetarians. There's none - because people automatically think "I'm a leftie, so I must live my life according to the leftie rules" or "I'm a rightie, so I must live my life according to the rightie rules".

Very, very few people think outside the box.

[OreoCookie]

It would be relatively easy, I would say:
(i) Change the Constitution so that members of the House (and Senate?) aren't just elected by a simple majority vote, but combine a simple majority voting system with a proportionality voting system (think Germany). This gives you the advantages of both worlds, you can elect a specific person and a certain party. This allows smaller parties (Libertarians, Green Party, whatever) to enter the House.
(ii) Allow the people to vote for their candidates directly, i. e. abolish the Electoral College as a proxy.

I like the fact that in democracies with multi-party systems, smaller parties can `correct' (accentuate) the course of the big parties.

[Kevin]

Or just do away with parties all together. And vote for the person.

This would leave a lot of political zealots confused though. As they are used to voting for the PARTY.. .

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Or just do away with parties all together. And vote for the person.

This would leave a lot of political zealots confused though. As they are used to voting for the PARTY.. .

In theory this would sound like a good idea. But it's not even remotely practical these days.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In theory this would sound like a good idea. But it's not even remotely practical these days.

It's a fantastic idea. And it's totally practical these days.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's a fantastic idea. And it's totally practical these days.

Name me one democratic country without political parties … and I'm talking about real democracies here, not some remote island in the Caribbean with 500 inhabitants.

[Kevin]

There is always a first. Wouldn't be the first time that the US was the first at something.

I know a lot of people that feel this way actually. They are SICK of the shilling political bickering of sides. They don't like parties. They want people to be able to be against abortion, and pro death penalty etc.

For the most part, American's I have talked to are not happy with the party system because of the inherent breaking apart of our country into two sides.

Each side is responsible for it too. I've just gotten so tired of it.

It's not what's best for the country, but what it best for that particular political party. Even if it's harmful to the country.

It's gotten out of control. (The political zealotry)

I am to the point where I think America needs to start caring more about America. The world is an ungrateful place.

Lets go back to being isolationists. Let the "world" figure out it's own problems. Just leave us alone. Don't expect any aid, help, or soldiers from us anymore. Do you own bidding.

While l am sure some here would think thats a wonderful idea. I am not sure they would be willing to put up with the backdraft of such an action.

People ALWAYS have to have something to complain about. Including me.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Name me one democratic country without political parties … and I'm talking about real democracies here, not some remote island in the Caribbean with 500 inhabitants.

Irrelevant question.

Tell me why it wouldn't work in practice.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Irrelevant question.

No, that is the relevant question.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Tell me why it wouldn't work in practice.

No, you're asking me why it wouldn't work in principle/theory.
I'm telling you that it doesn't work in practice, because that's the way all large democracies work these days. It's not a value judgement or saying that we can't have democracy without political parties, it's just a statement of fact.

[Kevin]

How do you know it wouldn't work? You have an opinion. Yes.
It wouldn't be much different than it is now. Just less party bickering and zealousness.

I am sick of both sides. I've disowned them both. And this isn't a recent conclusion. This has been brewing for a good 10 years or more.

[SpaceMonkey]

I think it would be difficult to eliminate political parties without drastically altering the First Amendment. Like-minded people will want to organize somehow.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm telling you that it doesn't work in practice, because that's the way all large democracies work these days. It's not a value judgement or saying that we can't have democracy without political parties, it's just a statement of fact.

It's not a statement of fact at all. Just because all large democracies work in a certain way it doesn't mean that they wouldn't work in another way.

That's a severely lame argument.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's not a statement of fact at all. Just because all large democracies work in a certain way it doesn't mean that they wouldn't work in another way.

Reread what I've written, I'm not claiming they won't work otherwise, I've explicitly said that. It's not my opinion, it is a statement of fact that all large democracies have political parties. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand and a statement of fact is so difficult to distinguish from a theoretical supposition, theory.

I'm pragmatic on this: if we were to start from scratch, we could start thinking of what happens if there are no political parties. But once Pandora's box has been opened (and it has been opened a long time ago), it is my opinion that there is no going back, even if we wanted to. Political parties are too deeply entrenched in the political process whether we like it or not.

[Kevin]

Again thats just an opinion Oreo. Some people say I'm a dreamer...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Reread what I've written, I'm not claiming they won't work otherwise, I've explicitly said that. It's not my opinion, it is a statement of fact that all large democracies have political parties.

No, you said:

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

It's not a value judgement or saying that we can't have democracy without political parties, it's just a statement of fact.

Which means:

we can't have democracy without political parties

[OreoCookie]

No, it doesn't. You quoted the sentence alright, but apparently didn't understand it correctly.
`It's not a value judgement or saying that we can't have democracy without political parties, it's just a statement of fact.'

The blue part is a logical unit that is not to be separated. The sentence splits into three parts:
(i) It's not a value judgement. (ii) I was not saying that we can't have democracy without political parties. (iii) It's a statement of fact. `It' refers to `all large democratic parties have political parties'.

You misread this to be: `It's not a value judgement or saying that we can't have democracy without political parties, it's a statement of fact.' (The gray part is omitted.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, it doesn't. You quoted the sentence alright, but apparently didn't understand it correctly.
`It's not a value judgement or saying that we can't have democracy without political parties, it's just a statement of fact.'

The blue part is a logical unit that is not to be separated. The sentence splits into three parts:
(i) It's not a value judgement. (ii) I was not saying that we can't have democracy without political parties. (iii) It's a statement of fact. `It' refers to `all large democratic parties have political parties'.

You misread this to be: `It's not a value judgement or saying that we can't have democracy without political parties, it's a statement of fact.' (The gray part is omitted.)

I stand corrected. I missed the "or".

I still reckon a party-less system can be done, though.

[nonhuman]

SpaceMonkey has the right idea, I think. It certainly possible that the system not have parties. But the voters will always, I imagine, tend to group up with other who think like them. Over time this will lead to parties. In a system such as ours this will probably inevitably lead to there being two major parties.

This is the nature of democracy. A single person's vote has very little value. It's hardly worth it for a person to vote. When a bunch of people get together and vote a certain way then the votes of that group of people have tremendous value.

Yes it's true that if everyone just voted according to their own individual preferences patterns would emerge and we would still end up getting results. But you're going to get much more bang for your buck by forming a party and convincing other people to vote your way (and voting their way sometimes too).

[Dork.]

Actually, I think you have to go back further, to the 1850's, to find parties that are not connected to our current Democratic or Republican parties. Lincoln and Johnson may have run under a "National Union" party label also, but that may have had more to do with the events leading up to the Civil War than an actual difference in the party structure. (Perhaps a History buff can comment here....)

And what else was happening in the mid-1800's? Technology was making both travel and communications between disparate parts of the country much more manageable. Before then, it would have been much more difficult to enforce a centralized party structure, since all elections were (and still are) essentially local and a political party had to run hundreds of small campaigns instead of one big one. (Even Presidential elections are really a number of individual state elections, not a true national election.)

As communications and travel got easier, though, it became more possible to organize these hundreds of local campaigns. Throw in the big money involved in a modern campaign, and it becomes nearly impossible for a new party to take hold, since the big parties are so pervasive, can have an influence on even the smallest campaigns, and have so many resources to draw on.

[Super Mario]

The Cold War changed everything. You had to be either soft outside but hard inside or hard outside but soft inside.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

This is why I'm a proponent of parliamentary democracies. Of course, I've yet to figure out how to convert the US to one without scrapping the constitution altogether and starting over from scratch...

The other alternative is to switch from plurality voting to instant runoff voting. I'd be in favor of that as well.

Parliamentary democracies are notoriously unstable and weak.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Or just do away with parties all together. And vote for the person.

This would leave a lot of political zealots confused though. As they are used to voting for the PARTY.. .

Kevin, I couldn't agree with you more. It would be great to canidates in office because of what they do, not because they belong to a political party.

The sad realty, however, is it would be extremely difficult for the US to go that route. Perhaps my generation (Y, I think) could bring about this change if they were more politically concious.

[Dork.]

The initial intent of our political system was to do away with parties. But they just naturally sprang up, especially with the winner-take-all elections we have. If there are four candidates, it is possible for a winner in a close election to get as low as 26 to 30% of the vote. But if the last-place person had pulled out and backed the second-to-last candidate, it's likely that their combined supporters would have beat the leader. Poltitians start supporting each other and poof! -- parties are born out of nothing!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I don't mind the party system- at the heart, it keeps the lines drawn among the politicians themselves, which is what matters more than just the useless labels tossed around by everyone else.

The absence of parties would simply shield politicians from the consequences of other politicians fsking up- IE: when one member of a political party is caught with 90gs in his freezer, or soliciting underage inters, or whatever, his party members SHOULD feel the heat too, and therefore SHOULD try and enforce some sort of conduct for the party as a whole, in order to avoid giving the other party ammo.

Without that basic level of competition, you'd get even more of a singular good ol' boys club that has even more impunity than these corrupt bastards already have. Worst of all, without the competition that parties create, there would be ZERO incentive for any politician to do anything other than cover for each other's fsk-ups, let alone publicize them. Politicians only expose other politicians in order to score points for their parties, no other reason what-so-ever.

That there are only two major parties doesn't bother me all that much either. Why people think that having more of these twits to divide up and squabble among themselves would be any better, is beyond me. At the end of the day, they're all just spenders of other people's money, little else. The labels applied to them serve only in attempt to keep them somewhat in line and not grab too much power without the other side attempting to create a balance by blocking the power grab- not out of any real concern for the people, but by not wanting to compete against the other side with too much power.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Kevin, I couldn't agree with you more. It would be great to canidates in office because of what they do, not because they belong to a political party.

The sad realty, however, is it would be extremely difficult for the US to go that route. Perhaps my generation (Y, I think) could bring about this change if they were more politically concious.

The reality of it is that humans have a natural impetus to gather in groups comprised of people they consider their kin. I think it also makes it easier to negotiate compromises, instead of 500 opinions, the groups have mechanisms to find answers amongst themselves and then negotiate with other groups as a whole. It's a natural extension to democracy, another layer if you wish. Consider this an observation, not an opinion.

I can relate to people who feel they `don't have a choice' (kinda like in the Simpson when Homers visits the Duff factory and notices that Duff, Duff light and Duff special all come out of the same pipeline). There is no alternative to the two big parties. I think allowing for smaller parties to participate in the political process would allow voters greater leeway to accentuate the topics and ideas they think are important. If you are a libertarian Republican, for instance, you have much less influence over the amount of libertarian ideas within the Republican party than the amount of `Republican ideas' in Congress (read: seats). If the Libertarian Party could participate in the political process (not just on a theoretical basis), then the voters had a mean to show how much LIbertarianism they want in politics.

I agree that this probably wouldn't change that most politicians are self-centered and narcissistic, though Although I find it interesting that some of the people here who complain the loudest are also among the most active in the partisan mud-slinging contest.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Parliamentary democracies are notoriously unstable and weak.

I would consider that a positive attribute when applied to central governments...

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I would consider that a positive attribute when applied to central governments...

Not considering that a strong government is necessary to secure personal freedoms. Well what do I know? I just like to read John Locke.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Parliamentary democracies are notoriously unstable and weak.

Non-sense. They have different strengths and weaknesses compared to presidential democracies, that's all. The stability of a democracy is determined by its democratic tradition and not by the specific form of democracy.

[ebuddy]

I've already started the non-party, party. Come on in, the water's fine!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's down to human nature. The vast majority of people are morons who need to pick a side on which to live their life. Having two sides makes it easier for them.

ding ding ding

Ford vs. GM
Coke vs. Pepsi
Mac vs. Windows

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The other alternative is to switch from plurality voting to instant runoff voting. I'd be in favor of that as well.

I'd like to see that too. I've never heard what the negative effects of such a system are.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I'd like to see that too. I've never heard what the negative effects of such a system are.

As far as I'm aware, the only real negative is that it require a lot more work to calculate the winner of the election. Basically it requires a computerized vote tallying system. Of course we've been using those for close to 100 years. The real issue, I think, is first building the political will to switch to such a system (I believe there are a few places in the US that do already, but not positive), and second getting good, reliable, open-source software in place to do the tallying so that we can all be sure that the results are accurate. It wouldn't do much good to switch to IRV if we're using closed Diebold systems to handle the voting and/or tallying.

Yeah, here we go (from Wikipedia):
Minneapolis, MN [3] in November 2006 passed instant runoff voting with 65%. Implementation is scheduled for the 2009 municipal elections.
North Carolina adopted instant runoff voting for certain judicial vacancies and will encourage municipal pilot programs starting in 2007. The city of Cary [4] will use IRV for mayor and city council elections [5] in October 2007, and the city of Hendersonville will use IRV for city council elections in November 2007.
Pierce County, WA passed instant runoff voting in November 2006 [6] for implementation for most of its county offices in 2008.
Takoma Park, MD adopted instant runoff voting for city council and mayoral elections in 2006 after an 84% win in a 2005 advisory ballot measure. It held its first IRV election to fill a city council vacancy in January 2007. [7]
Oakland, CA voters passed a measure by 69% to 31% in November 2006 to adopt IRV for its city offices.
Burlington, VT held its first mayoral election using IRV in 2006 after voters approved it in 2005.
San Francisco has used instant runoff voting annually to elect its Board of Supervisors and major citywide offices since 2004.
Ferndale, MI passed instant runoff voting with 68% in 2004 pending necessary implementation.
Berkeley, CA passed instant runoff voting with 72% in 2004 pending necessary implementation.
Cambridge, MA has used the single transferable vote with Droop quota method of proportional voting, which is synonymous with IRV in the case of electing a single official, for more than 60 years. [8].
Dozens of American colleges and universities [9] use IRV, including as of November 2006 more than half of the 30 universities rated most highly by U. S. News and World Report.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Then came the back and forth between Democratic and Republican. However, at the time, the ideals were reversed. The Republicans were more liberal and the Democrats were more conservative. When did this change?

They did a 180 during the Civil Rights movement. From the 19th Century up to around Nixon or so, Republcians were the liberals, and Democrats were the conservatives. To help get a Democrat in office, the Democrats supported the Civil Rights movement and any bills associated with it. That's why there was a large African American Democratic voting base after the 1960s. That's when the conersvative and liberal bases switched parties.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

By looking at the list of US Presidents on wikipedia, it shows that they last time a President was of a party other than Dems or Reps, it was Andrew Johnson, who was Democratic/National Union.

Then came the back and forth between Democratic and Republican. However, at the time, the ideals were reversed. The Republicans were more liberal and the Democrats were more conservative. When did this change?

For the first 80 years, we had several parties: Federalist (once), Democratic-Republican (four), Whig (four), Democratic (five), Republican/National Union (one) and Democratic/National Union (one).

What happened to the diversity we once had? For the last 138 years it has been back and forth between two parties. The majority of political leaders are of these two parties, the ones that aren't do not seem to be taken to seriously (my observation). Would it be a benefit for the US to have more diversity within her political ideals? Would it be better to absolve the different parties?

There never was a diversity. All most times in American Federal government there were only two parties. One gave way to another in political crisis. The Federalists folded when there was little debate left on the constitution. The whigs folded because they had no stance on slavery. The democrats and republicans changed sides when it looked like socialists had a chance of gaining power. Our system begets two major parties. There are ways around that, such as Proportional Representation, but it may be a moot point. The fewer parties a country has, the more internal divisions in those parties there are. In Japan (up until quite recently) there has been little question which party would win the next election. But there are so many powerful factions inside the party with power. In America, one cannot help but notice the difference between the political spectrum in the north and south. In Chicago, for example, the important election is not the final one, but the primary, deciding which democrat will gain power. Will it be the center-left candidate, or the hardcore socialist (although they would never be called those names here [except perhaps socialist pejoratively]). We are making this decision today. Will the far-left Kucinich be the next democratic presidential candidate, or will the center-left Edwards be the one? In the rebublican party, will the Libertarian Ron Paul win, or will the Neocon Romney win? Center-right Giuliani?

Anyway, my point is that there is a diversity of political opinion in the US. Though it is not necessarily reflected at the party level. However, we are a centrist democracy. Centrist candidates usually win. Important political decisions are made in the primaries. Even if Ron Paul were the libertarian party candidate, and Kucinich were the socialist party candidate, and so on, we would probably end up with virtually the same leadership.

In our system, at least we have managed to exclude extremists from government (Although the current regime looks pretty far right from the point of view of an American leftist, and America's entire political spectrum is to the right of Canada and Europe's, among other places). We will never have a Pim Fortyn like the Netherlands, or a Front Nacionale like France.