Should America Not Have Political Parties?
Yes
Side Score: 12
Winning Side! |
 |
No
Side Score: 1
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Political parties discourage individual thought and ideals and instead promote division and mob mentality. In a two party system people are forced to choose between one set of ideals or another. There is much less freedom for people to create nuanced opinions on a large range of issues. In most elections the candidate we can chose from usually embody the majority of the parties ideas and therefore little room exists for candidates who differ from these ideologies. Another consequence of the party system is that it sets up an "us verses them" mentality. Views are polarized and the opponents of each party are daemonized. The current election is a perfect example of this. A woman came up to McCain and said she was voting for him because Obama was a muslim and hated America. To his credit, McCain corrected the woman and said that Obama was a good American and a Christian(I'm paraphrasing). Political parties tend to divide a nation almost irreconcilably. Instead of viewing each other as Americans with differing opinions on the best way to run the country, each side accuses the others of ruining America. The reason that we see bias in the media is because we are so polarized in our views. Either we see "FAUX news and the corporate media," or the "bias Liberal Media." Political parties do more to divide our country and foster hatred then they do to help. Side: yes
3
points
I do not believe it's a matter of NOT having political parties as such, however, I think the two party system is much too limiting in its scope for today's world and our future. Sometimes I look at political parties as I do religions or belief systems...and that's not as far a stretch as you might think on the face of it! If one becomes at all familiar with either of the parties, there are things about it you don't like or cannot agree with. The thing is, is that on the other side of the coin is another party you have even more disagreement with. So, what does one do? You join the other party (church), become an Independent or a member of one of the several other smaller parties (denominations or belief systems) available to you. Now you find that being a member of a party that carries no weight, is an exercise in futility because the word cannot get out about your candidate. It costs a fortune to run a campaign and those who cannot be seen or heard just fall by the wayside. This is not a healthy way to run a country! I believe we should have MORE political parties than we do and that each party should be governed by the same set of rules as they pertain to money spent on campaigns. I don't much care about the money they receive because it's about the money which is spent in promotion of the candidate. I believe that media...all media should set a rate for what actually is a PSA (Public Service Announcement) that is minimal and that all candidates can afford. Idealistic? Yes, very! But it can be done if everyone is willing to make the proper adjustments. This is supposed to be the country in which ANYONE can become President. From Al, the electrician to Bob, the attorney. This should never have become a matter of who has the biggest bucks to throw at advertising or venues. We're all in this together, each and every one of us, and we all have a responsibility to get the best person we can in line for high office. It must have to do with the person and their platform as well as how they will get from step one to one hundred for each and every important issue! No party should have the means to stack the deck. The greatest equalizer today is money and how it's collected (the source) and used. This has become the absolute worst way to elect a person of substance. This election will probably go down in history as having the highest priced group of campaigns ever run and it's wrong. When it's all tallied and you look at the figure...think of what the people of this country could have done with that money to give us more choices and a better fit for the times. OK, I'm tired and rambling...lol. I'll probably look at this tomorrow and wonder what I was thinking about when I wrote it...but I think you get my drift! Side: We NEED more parties more people
1
point
I agree to a certain extent that more political parties might help solve the problem, but here is the main issue with that: Look back to the election of 1912 between Taft (Republican), Wilson (Democrat) and T. Roosevelt (Bull Moose/Former Republican). Wilson won because Taft and Roosevelt split the Republican vote. This is the scenario that happens in a system with more than a main candidates running. Of course if we instituted an instant run off system in which every voter ranks the candidates in order of preference we could solve this problem. Also, I think at this point, in America, we are too polarized for third parties to have any significant support. But hey, we won't know 'til we try, right? Side: yes
|
1
point
1
point
2
points
That's a given. Well, then...., maybe the question should be, "Should the world not have stupid people?" You know that Beatles song, I think it's called "Imagine?" So.... Imagine there are no idiots No imbeciles too No stupid people to deal with I wonder if we could Imagine all the people being really smart You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one Perhaps you will join me and the world will be one or something like that. I really don't know the lyrics. Side: yes
|
