Partisanship

[Mr.Mad]

Inspiried by the mudpit, naturally.

For myself, next to the insane amount of money that flows left, right, and center into politics, (from all corners) partisanship is one of the worst aspects of our political world. Both parties here in the states are, in my opinion, equally corrupt and supportive of terrible ideas. And the good ideas put forth, at least on the national level, are championed right next to ideas I disagree with. Either I pick the same of two evils, or...well that is it. They are so polarized that even ideas that will be circulated by one party and shouted down by the opposition might very well end up being ideas that the opposition later supports. A sort of "we did it first" situation.

Both parties feed off this. It only takes a quick look to see how parties have changed over time to grab votes and stay in power, and they only feed the partisanship that protects them. It seems very much a case of "us and them". I understand why parties formed, but why is it that so many people continue to support one or the other, instead of forging something else? Indeed, is there any hope? Have independents, any at all, even won state or local elections? Or do you have to become bedfellows with the status quo to get anywhere? I might not agree with people of the left or the right, depending on the issue...but I'll remember that getting stuff done is far more important than some political ideology.

Opinions?

[Magicman2051]

Alternatively, do away with the FPTP voting system and deliberately redesign electoral districts to negate gerrymandering.

[Diamat]

I don't like the idea of parties to begin with, period.

[florin87]

I don't like the idea of parties to begin with, period.

political parties, as a concept, are a good thing for society as they prevent abuse and create order in the world of politics. however each party should be guide by a political and economic doctrine, which is rarely the case. and each party should put the common good first, something that never happens.

[Diamat]

political parties, as a concept, are a good thing for society as they prevent abuse and create order in the world of politics. however each party should be guide by a political and economic doctrine, which is rarely the case. and each party should consider the common good first and foremost, something that never happens.

Parties are simply offspring of self-interest. Thus, the common good, although sometimes coinciding with self-interest, tends to be secondary.

[Boyar Son]

My opinion isn't so simple to nail down.

You guys are so deep.

[Their Law]

Yes as they inevitably stifle diversity and political discourse in favor of the 'party line'.

[Denny Crane!]

Since some times a group in power must do some things like say cut deficits partisanship leads parties to attack actions they know to be right anyway just to score points or to spend when they shouldn't spend to win.

I'm with Tvs, parties are bad.

[Maidel]

I'm with Tvs, parties are bad.

I also agree.

I think parties are an inevitability because the majority of people are too stupid to actually be able to make a reasoned and rational decision on the benifits and negatives of a whole range of candidates - thus they simply vote 'right' 'left' 'middle' - generally the same way as their parents always voted. If you actually stop and ask people 'why did you vote for the 'left' what are their policies - people almost always have no clues what so ever.

Thus without parties the chances are people wouldnt vote (Because they would feel they didnt know who for) or they would vote based on another superficial issue (colour, creed, sex, or who was the best looking).

[Menelik_I]

What kind of Partisanship are we talking about here ?

Mere opposition for the sake of power or opposition on the basis of ideological difference ?

[Denny Crane!]

What kind of Partisanship are we talking about here ?

Mere opposition for the sake of power or opposition on the basis of ideological difference ?

There is only ever the first I find.

[Menelik_I]

There is only ever the first I find.

You have the second kind too, but not has common. In most cases it is either backbenches of a party or a former vocal wing which overtakes the party. Example could be UKIP, Conservative backbenches or the Tea Party.

But I grant that mere opposition for the sake of power is more common, which makes most of the ''left vs right'' debates useless because this is not what the fight is about, it is mostly about power and the two competing parties agree on everything but who is going to run the circus.

[Condottiere 40K]

Depends on the prevailing national political culture.

The principle is to present ideas and then discuss their merits or disadvantages, perhaps biased to the particular viewpoints of the speaker, and then come to some kind of consensus for the general benefit of the country and the electorate.

Sometimes this forgotten or ignored, in pursuit of some other goal.

[Thorn777]

No. It depends what party your being partisan about.

[Their Law]

Generally I find it's crossed the line when party's start to represent themselves as institutions rather than the ideas that created them.

[Prosaic Visitant]

I hate partisanship and petty politics; and it's always the other side that does it, all the ing time.

[Prosaic Visitant]

^ The drawback of mandatory voting is that people who don't like politics and have no interest in it (I can sympathiese with them) are forced to participate.

Remove mandatory voting and only half the population, on average, will vote; then you get people whining that "Nobody cares about our country" or "people are sheeple who refuse to vote for my awesome party" or "stupid people and their apathy allow the right/ left to destroy our country".

Rock and a hard place.

[Condottiere 40K]

If I were a politician, who wanted to prevent direct voting, I'd make the wording as confusing and long as possible and create many referendums so that the electorate gets fed up and outsources those decisions.

[Treize]

Our system does not allow independent candidates to run for political positions. This should change. We should get a system with constituencies as in the UK, possible a hybrid form like in Germany.

[Nietzsche]

What may alleviate some aspects of the problem of gerrymandering and a two party system is to set congressional regions rather than districts. The top X candidates get elected in each region, where X could equal to some number relative to the size of the population. I think 6 would be high enough and cover large enough swathes of the political landscape to eliminate gerrymandering in principle. Further, enforce a law making it only possible to draw districts based on municipalities (towns, townships, villages, etc).

Obviously, the problem would remain at some level, but in this case, the effect would be reduced. Politicians should not draw districts period. It's conflict of interest and in opposition to a free political process.