Is the political party system detrimental to the country?

[scoutldr]

I've been thinking...how would people vote, if they had no idea of the candidates' political party affiliation? My opinion...they would either not vote, vote randomly, or be forced to actually research and read the candidates' position to form an opinion. And that's all I would hope for...an informed electorate. Oh...and let's do away with the Electoral College, too, while we're at it.

[Eagle92]

Depends who who you talk to.

 

Some will say the 2 party system makes it harder for people to ID with one particular party. Also Some will say that it stagnates ideas.

 

Others will say that the 2 party system is beneficial in that it prevents the problems of a multiparty system, i.e. stagnation in the lawmaking process, and constant turnover in government polciies.

[scoutingagain]

I have to admit I've asked myself this question. Lately it seems the more extreme elements of both major political parties have taken over their respective agendas.

 

SA

[Lisabob]

THere's actually quite a lot of research on how people decide whom to vote for in the absence of party identifiers. For example, in countries where elections take place but formal parties are banned. (People run either as independents, or as part of some less rigid "group" or list.) Or in a lot of state and local judicial elections (and school board elections, and county dog catcher elections, etc.) in the US, which are often officially "non partisan."

 

To summarize, I'm sorry to say, scoutldr, it doesn't work out as you might hope. People use other identifiers instead of party labels. They might use perceptions about geographic origin, race, ethnicity, gender, linguistic identifiers, etc.

 

Research on non-partisan races in the US also shows that voters have a statistically verifiable tendency to just pick the first name on the list. Hence you have major squabbling over whether the incumbent should be listed first, or whether listings should be alphabetical, or what. Ballot design, not well-reasoned and -researched preferences, largely determines the outcome. And in a lot of these officially non-partisan races, campaign staff hand out "voting cards" to as many voters as possible, showing which candidates a particular party supports (even though the candidates themselves are officially non-partisan!).

 

I'm all for people having a better grip on who and what they're voting for. But I think the research shows you aren't going to get that just by banning party labels.

[scoutldr]

I always thought that the conventional wisdom is to "randomize" the order of the candidates. Perhaps have multiple ballot forms, so that "Joe Smith" is not always listed first. I just get so tired of being forced to choose "the lesser of the two evils" or "none of the above". Write-in votes are a waste of time. I have always thought that, in the absence of a party system, the "runner up" should get the VP job, since, in most cases, the Prez wins by a very thin margin (or not, after the Electoral College and Supreme Court has thier way). Whatever you may think of Hannity, his "man on the street" interviews, where he interviews those barely old enough to vote (18-20something) really scare me. His point is, "these kids are clueless, and they are cancelling out your well thought-out vote". Same can be said of a lot of elders, and others of all ages. Makes me wonder why I bother going to the polls. It's become nothing but a popularity contest driven by the special interests and media. No, I'm not happy with Obama...but I wasn't thrilled with McCain, either, especially after he chose Palin, who came across as a bimbo. My true choice, Ron Paul, really talked sense to me, but he's lacking that "Rock Star" quality and eloquent speaking ability that wins elections.

[Kahuna]

I don't really know, but it isn't going away. People make good money running those parties. Besides, Congress wouldn't know what to do.

[OldGreyEagle]

The two party system has led to the creation of the greatest country in the world. And that's not me saying we are the greatest, its the thousand of illegal immigrants streaming here that verify our greatness.

 

Just because the current leadership of the two major political parties are liars, cheats, theives, pond scum sucking bottom feeding maggots is no reason to break-up the system. Perhaps an overhaul of the operators is in order, not an overhaul of the machinery.

 

 

 

[Lisabob]

Scoutldr writes: "Whatever you may think of Hannity, his "man on the street" interviews, where he interviews those barely old enough to vote (18-20something) really scare me. His point is, "these kids are clueless, and they are cancelling out your well thought-out vote". "

 

Yeah, Jay Leno does something similar in his "Jay Walking" segments. They are simultaneously hilarious and depressing.

 

Of course as a political science professor, my answer is to TEACH THEM. Most of them actually want to be better informed, but lack a solid factual base from which to build. The current emphasis on math & literacy in schools is great and all, but many states and school districts have minimal or no social studies requirements to graduate high school. Funding for subjects that aren't covered by NCLB has dried up too.

 

This is one reason I'm a big supporter of the BSA's three citizenship badges and do not want to see them reduced or eliminated. At least we know that our boy scouts have some clue about their own country's history and political system! Tell your scouts who are college-bound to take a history class and a political science class, no matter what they plan to major in (also a writing & composition class, some basic math & science, and some kind of culture - music/art/theater/literature, etc.).

 

And incidentally, young voters were one of Ron Paul's biggest blocs. Does this mean Paul's older supporters were ill-informed too? (just kidding there, scoutldr)

 

 

[scoutldr]

"Just because the current leadership of the two major political parties are liars, cheats, theives, pond scum sucking bottom feeding maggots..."

 

You say that as if it's a recent phenomenon.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

In the past I MAY have left out "pond scum sucking"

[scoutldr]

Thanks Lisa. Glad you're not still mad at me. I'll admit, last week was a bad one...my sister's' husband is leaving her after 30 years of marriage, and they are the typical "gotta have it all even if we can't afford it" family (no education, no savings, no retirement, no insurance, but could afford new cars, inground pool, eating out, etc). Now it looks like I'm gonna have to give her a "bailout" too...at the expense of my own future, to prevent her from defaulting on her mortgage and losing the family homestead that my parents left her free and clear. Between this and having to support my Mother in Law who smoked herself into being an invalid...so much for my well-laid retirement plans for a retirement home on the Lake, for which we've saved and sacrificed. The alternative is to turn my back on family...not sure I can do that. I'll probably die at my desk while being a good Scout and everyone else gets "taken care of".

 

I apologize if some of my comments came across as "unScoutlike". But when do I and MY family get to enjoy the fruits of our sacrifice and hard work? Tell me again..."to help other people at all times"...but when do we say "enough...you're on your own!"(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

[Beavah]

Yah, da one thing I dislike about da two party system is the primary system.

 

Seems like da primary system in recent years has strongly tended to select from da extreme views crowd. So yeh either get a fellow like McCain who has to tack way to the right in order to win a primary (guaranteeing in the process that he can't win the general election), or yeh select someone who really is out on da edge like a John Kerry (guaranteeing in the process that he can't win da general election against someone who should have been voted out).

 

Or, worst of all, yeh get a "dynasty" where an elder family member has enough party clout and connections to put his family out front (like GWB or Hillary).

 

There's another effect I dislike, and that has to do with government handouts. Da two-party system seems to perpetuate da practice. Republicans guarantee farm subsidies (welfare for agrobusiness) to satisfy their rural constituents; Democrats guarantee da urban dole in a similar way.

 

I think our bicameral, non-parliamentary system is enough to prevent da sort of gridlock and silliness that multiparty control generates in parliamentary democracies like Italy or Israel. I'd love to see a suburban moderates party, eh? Somethin' that could team up with da Democrats to defeat welfare farming, and team up with da Republicans to defeat wasteful urban handouts. Somethin' that would give Republicans an alternative when their party is gettin' daffy (like me), and Democrats an alternative when their party is runnin' amok... without having to completely hold their nose, eh?

 

I think that would change da political landscape in nothin' but a good way.

 

Beavah

 

[nolesrule]

Scoutldr writes: "Whatever you may think of Hannity, his "man on the street" interviews, where he interviews those barely old enough to vote (18-20something) really scare me. His point is, "these kids are clueless, and they are cancelling out your well thought-out vote". "

 

Right or wrong, hat's not exactly a scientific sampling method. And just like the Leno sketch, how many are not shown because they don't support the "stupid people" point?

[Tokala]

The two party system seems fine when there's debate and communication. The extreme partisanship we see in our government and home towns has seriously damaged the ability of people to rationally discuss and issue and determine a resolution that benefits most people. Too many are in lock step with party rhetoric to generate any real and meaningful solutions to current problems.Neither seem willing to relax their grip on their beliefs to reach a compromise.

 

We have politicians these days and few, if any, statesmen.

[JoeBob]

A third party would not have to be very large to wield great influence. Just having 10% of congress belong to Party 3 would empower votes of 55%-45%. Keep the Republicans out of our bedrooms and the Democrats out of my wallet!