Whats the point in political parties?

[catintheoven]

Why do we have political parties? how do they benefit the system? It seems very undemocratic to me to have groups of elected representatives gathering together and deciding how they are going to vote rather than what their constituents who they are representing the opinions of.

I can see how temporary factions getting together to organize votes and motions can be useful but I don't really see what else parties bring apart from split a representative between their party (and career) and their constituents?

can any one else see my thinking? can any one tell me the positives of the party system?

(im not saying getting rid of being represented but instead have each running independently and so have loyalty to no one but their constituents)

[chilon]

Why do we have political parties? how do they benefit the system?

Because it is far easier for a small collection of powerful elites to control a democratic republic through a two party political system.

They benefit those that are at the top of the power structure of the political parties. To assume they were designed to benefit all citizens is a mistake.

Evidence for this control method is not hard to find, just look at the history of the Electoral College.
Or the history of any electoral politics in America's largest and oldest cities such as the Tammany Hall era of New York or how the South dealt with the 14th Amendment.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Its easier for corrupt politicians to get elected and stay in power with parties.

[Lord Tomyris]

Hmm, the French revolutionaries were very much against the party system, which they saw as solely representing and guarding vested interests and nothing more; parties were thought to be self-serving and undemocratic. But they still had political 'clubs', and look what happened when one of those got too powerful!

[Ahlerich]

80 millions of people would never agree on anything. sometimes its even hard to get three people to agree on something. a democracy without parties would never get anything done because all the time would need to be used up to discuss and decisions wouldnt be accepted.

democracy without parties might work in a small town though

[catintheoven]

80 millions of people would never agree on anything. sometimes its even hard to get three people to agree on something. a democracy without parties would never get anything done because all the time would need to be used up to discuss and decisions wouldnt be accepted.

democracy without parties might work in a small town though

so what your saying is that the parties should just decide because being democratic is too much hastle?

[Tankfriend]

No, he's saying that the parties should decide because the whole population can't agree on a single thing well enough - and that would render a nation incapable of doing anything.

I don't agree with that as well though. There are cases of a direct democracy where the actual population is voting itself rather than getting "other people" to vote for them. But you've got to note that these cases usually happen with a limited population. If you really want to implement direct democracy as the principle of yur state (i.e. no parties, everyone always decides on every national issue directly), though, then you're becoming very ineffective with a large population:
- Think about tax policy. How many people, in your opinion, would actually decide on raising taxes even if it is in the best interest for the nation? You'll have a minor part of the population who actually decide on voting "yes" for this because they know and care about the problem. But a majority of the population most likely just cares about how much money they've got in their own purse.
- Think about cases where a quick decision is necessary (e.g. war, financial crisis etc.). You're losing a lot of valuable time if you're going for a direct democracy approach because you've got to organize the whole voting procedure first. Then you're losing time because you've got to count the votes and find out what actually has been decided on etc.

Now, the point in a system with political parties (and therefore an "indirect" representative democracy) is that you vote for a certain party that has a certain agenda (e.g. a lot of environmentalist policies for the Green parties). In theory, you know how the people you've voted for will decide in certain situations because you've hopefully read their political program before you've actually cast your vote. This system isn't without its faults, of course (like corrupt politicians and the like) but your nation ideally is always capable of making quick decisions where they're necessary. And that's very important imho as the modern world is "moving" faster and faster.

[catintheoven]

I wasnt saying change to direct democracy, but to get rid of parties, each representative being an independent candidate answerable to only their constituents not to parties

[Viking Prince]

Let's say that you and I are in agreement that good old Jill should become our next representative. We work together to help her get elected. That worked so well that we try it again in the next election and Bob and Lisa join in to help. Now we have a political party helping people get elected to office. And how do you propose to eliminate this process? And why?

[catintheoven]

Thats not really a political party is it, just people supporting a local candidate, thats a campaign not a party, i'm talking about parties in government . The problem begins when the candidates get together, start having conferences and start deciding their own policies often under the pressure of unelected members of their parties and not the general population.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Why do we have political parties?

Because there are democratic elections and someone has to win them in order to govern. Why's that so incomprehensible for you? Do you have an alternative perhaps? Feel free to share it with us.

[catintheoven]

Because there are democratic elections and someone has to win them in order to govern. Why's that so incomprehensible for you? Do you have an alternative perhaps? Feel free to share it with us.

you dont need parties though because you can elect independent representatives, if ministers are elected they could be elected by a vote of the representatives or by the general population, it doesnt require a party to operate, its called non-partisan democracy

I just want some one to come up with good reasons why parties are better than independent representation because the whole system seems stupid and undemocratic

[Tankfriend]

I just want some one to come up with good reasons why parties are better than independent representation because the whole system seems stupid and undemocratic

Right then, I guess there are some advantages for political parties:

- Each political party provides a certain "framework" of standards. As long as you know about a party's programme, you also know about what that party (and its' candidates) most likely will be doing if it wins the elections and how it will most likely react to short-term problems noone could have foreseen.
-> If you compare this to a non-party democracy, you've got to try and learn about the ideas and plans of every single candidate for every single election in order to find "the right one" for you. That's a lot more "work" for you to do and you can easily loose track of some candidates if there are a lot of them.

- A political party essentially pools its' ressources to support the voting procedure of a few people.
-> If you compare this to a non-party democracy, everyone has to do "his own thing". It shouldn't be hard to realize that that puts wealthy people at a serious advantage because they actually have the ressources to finance their own political campaign. Many poor people will lack this ability.

- Political parties increase the "effectiveness" of your political system by forming groups of people that support a similar agenda. That way they can also "pool their votes" (in addition to the actual ressources) by deciding on a few candidates.
-> In a non-party democracy you'll have a situation where a lot of people with similar agendas will share the votes. That makes it a lot more likely that there won't be a decisive result after the votes have been counted and it's also more likely for people winning despite extremely low public support just because the overall votes are spread so thinly.

- The main problem about political parties that you're encountering in a non-party democracy is the fact that people tend to form "groups of interest". And these groups can become very much like a party - they'll just be kept unofficial.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

you dont need parties though because you can elect independent representatives, if ministers are elected they could be elected by a vote of the representatives or by the general population, it doesnt require a party to operate, its called non-partisan democracy

I just want some one to come up with good reasons why parties are better than independent representation because the whole system seems stupid and undemocratic

The problem with "indpendent representation" is that it wouldn't work in a mass democracy (democratic mass society). It would work in a small city-state with direct democracy, maybe. But when there are millions to convince that you are the best candidate for the role, you have the best program etc., individuals are simply pushed to the background, as they lack the money, the capacity, the mobilizing power, the infrastructure etc. that a party has. It's the same like with corporations in a market economy. You can try and get on as a single enterpreneur, but sooner or later, you'll need a hierarchical organization to be successful. The same happens with parties. It's called the iron law of oligarchy.

[Bylandt]

Humans are social animals. So are polticians. They will form tribes, whatever you do. Better to have the dividing lines visible and open, rather than obscured in an artificial political system that wrongly suggests that voters are offered the choice between free, strong and independent political candidates.

Political parties are also beneficial to democracy as such. They allow for the voters to vote for ideas, rather than for personalities. We may be expected to make a reasoned choice between polical ideas. But it's hard enough for us to fathom the personality of our friends (or our wives ...), let alone that of distant politcians.

Politics is about ideas, not personalities. At least, it should be.

[chilon]

Humans are social animals. So are polticians. They will form tribes, whatever you do. Better to have the dividing lines visible and open, rather than obscured in an artificial political system that wrongly suggests that voters are offered the choice between free, strong and independent political candidates.

Are you claiming that our current two parties somehow don't obscure all the true cross cutting divisions in our society?

Do you honestly think most people's TRUE views can be summed up by the party line platform of both parties?

The very dividing line that you claim is "visible and open" is itself artificial and falsely divides people. It already obfuscates the huge variety of opinions and differing views and more often than not forces people into voting for the 'lesser of two evils' candidates.

If these two 'visible and open' dividing lines were actually accurate, then I guess America is simply a duality of red neck christian fundamentalist racists on one hand and smelly, gay, tree hugging, luddites on the other.

Also, both political parties are part of what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex. Neither political party for instance comes even close to representing what my true beliefs are and I am hardly a rarity in that regard.

Even just allowing the Green and Libertarian candidates to debate RepubluDemocrat candidates would go a long way in making the US political system more vibrant, representative and honest.

[Inhuman One]

Sure would be nice if appointed ministers would actually have knowledge about the thing they are a minister of.

[Dr. Croccer]

Because two or one party states have always fared well. Wink, wink.

[Inhuman One]

I think kings and queens should get some power back.

I dont know how it is in other countries, but Beatrix of the Netherlands isnt even allowed to have a political opinion it seems. The house of royalty is more a thing of tradition than anything else.

Personly I think that the king or queen of a country should be part of the parlement. Their vote shouldnt be worth more than others though.

[Ahlerich]

I think kings and queens should get some power back.

I dont know how it is in other countries, but Beatrix of the Netherlands isnt even allowed to have a political opinion it seems. The house of royalty is more a thing of tradition than anything else.

Personly I think that the king or queen of a country should be part of the parlement. Their vote shouldnt be worth more than others though.

i am not sure if i want a kaiser back. didnt work well the last time
we have a president who is in charge of firing at the chancelor and the parties. and he is elected. somebody that isnt elected shouldnt have the power. look at bush (just kidding)

on second thought... we voted hitler