HorrorMovieFans.com

Given that the UK and the US are similar in a sense, whereby they have people who represent an area or district, rather than just an allocated group of people, I suggest getting rid of all parties. Just have a person, with what they believe in, and what they want to do for their area. People vote for them, they go and vote for each piece of legislation or amendments based on what they think the people want. That would remove the polarized vision, and would create a fairer system.

that would work on a local level, but not for the potus. for instance.

It's a nice dream, but it would organically break down into factions and eventually parties would pop up again.

zombie wrote:that would work on a local level, but not for the potus. for instance.

Why not? Let the people select the candidate they want.

Headhunter wrote:It's a nice dream, but it would organically break down into factions and eventually parties would pop up again.

Outlaw it. If people want to organize along ideological lines, let them, but there's no party whip or "party line" available. Each legislation gets judged on its merits for each state, each community, each group.

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:that would work on a local level, but not for the potus. for instance.

Why not? Let the people select the candidate they want.

well, how do you campaign for that? how would you even be selected as a candidate, to start with?

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:that would work on a local level, but not for the potus. for instance.

Why not? Let the people select the candidate they want.

well, how do you campaign for that? how would you even be selected as a candidate, to start with?

Raise the threshold to be put on the ballot up to a level of signatures confirming candidacy in 3 different states. Then you need some organization/platform to be able to run.

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:that would work on a local level, but not for the potus. for instance.

Why not? Let the people select the candidate they want.

well, how do you campaign for that? how would you even be selected as a candidate, to start with?

Raise the threshold to be put on the ballot up to a level of signatures confirming candidacy in 3 different states. Then you need some organization/platform to be able to run.

the organization and platform would become the new "party line", wouldn't it?

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:that would work on a local level, but not for the potus. for instance.

Why not? Let the people select the candidate they want.

well, how do you campaign for that? how would you even be selected as a candidate, to start with?

Raise the threshold to be put on the ballot up to a level of signatures confirming candidacy in 3 different states. Then you need some organization/platform to be able to run.

the organization and platform would become the new "party line", wouldn't it?

I doubt it. If this Healthcare debacle has shown anything, it is that a rigid "Party line" doesn't work anymore.

Hell, go a different direction, skip a President altogether, and have the parliament elect two. The Senate can elect a President among itself, and the House can elect a Prime Minister. And then share the responsibilities back among them.

Headhunter wrote:It's a nice dream, but it would organically break down into factions and eventually parties would pop up again.

This.

showa58taro wrote:

Headhunter wrote:It's a nice dream, but it would organically break down into factions and eventually parties would pop up again.

Outlaw it. If people want to organize along ideological lines, let them, but there's no party whip or "party line" available. Each legislation gets judged on its merits for each state, each community, each group.

How long do you put a person in jail for agreeing with another person? For telling his friends about a guy with good ideas? For putting a sign up in his yard?

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Headhunter wrote:It's a nice dream, but it would organically break down into factions and eventually parties would pop up again.

Outlaw it. If people want to organize along ideological lines, let them, but there's no party whip or "party line" available. Each legislation gets judged on its merits for each state, each community, each group.

How long do you put a person in jail for agreeing with another person? For telling his friends about a guy with good ideas? For putting a sign up in his yard?

I genuinely have no idea what you mean here. I don't mean outlaw getting together or being like a party, if that was what you were getting at? I mean you cannot reinstitute a giant national Super-PAC-backed giga-party with a brand and a manifesto. You can still agree with people, spread the word, signs in yards, petition, go knocking and campaigning for your guy. That's perfectly fine here.

So what is the point?

You were talking about outlawing etc. If I belong to a church that has an orphanage and see all the great things it does, can we not pool our money together to endorse candidates that support adoption services?

At what point does it become illegal?

Bet you end up with a system where interest groups own politicians similar to the way record labels own artists.

Interest groups own liberals. This is a given.

I don't know if this is what seb was getting at or not, but I've long thought party designations should not happen. Just for the simple idea of removing the default "All Republican/All Democrat" tickets and actually make people be informed or risk voting for a party/person they don't support because nothing on the voting form shows what party what candidate belongs to and no advertisements can announce party affiliation, only the person's ideas, which will still show traditional party bias, but people will have to actually think when marking their tickets instead of just defaulting to "R/D" lines they auto favor.

Dream wrote:I don't know if this is what seb was getting at or not, but I've long thought party designations should not happen. Just for the simple idea of removing the default "All Republican/All Democrat" tickets and actually make people be informed or risk voting for a party/person they don't support because nothing on the voting form shows what party what candidate belongs to and no advertisements can announce party affiliation, only the person's ideas, which will still show traditional party bias, but people will have to actually think when marking their tickets instead of just defaulting to "R/D" lines they auto favor.

Definitely a part of it yes. Agree.

People are basically stupid and if they didn't have a go to party to vote for and actually had to think nobody would vote.

Parties do play a bigger role than people realize in terms of credibility.

You see it at the local level when there is often no party affiliation and the candidates are total wildcards. As a voter, you are less informed because elections tend to boil down to about three issues. The rest of the blanks are filled in to some degree by party affiliation. It at least gives you a starting point.