The founding fathers didn't like the idea of a party system, and I'm not a fan of it either. I'm sick of hearing Republicans and Democrats fighting all of the time. Suddenly, government has become more about these silly games than about bettering the country, and it legitimately worries me. I would classify myself as a Democrat, but I happen to think that both sides of the coin have valuable ideas that should be applied here. Instead, I see adults acting like children, refusing to listen to each other and throwing fits if they don't get their ways. Is this the system we want representing our country? Folks, it isn't a competition. Two heads are better than one, and we are missing out on some incredible potential if we are letting parties get in the way of politics. Agree or disagree? I say we do away with the system entirely. It's every person for him/herself and may the best person get the position.
Not going to happen. Period, end of story. It isn't the two or three party system that is the problem. It is the progressive liberal mindset brought forward by the Alinsky-Cloward-Piven school of thinking that is reflected in Lyndon Johnson's Great Society launched in the mid-1960s. Toss in the loss of the nuclear family beginning back then too. Now the conservatives and the liberals, with accompanying variations of both mindsets, argue over a bloated federal budget with an ever-increasing national debt (as endlessly discussed in other threads on this board) and a socially-engineering tax code.
Oh, I completely understand that this will never become a reality. At this point, both sides have way too much pride for their own good and won't give up the ability to be the "top dog." Bringing up the debt is Pandora's Box. I don't quite understand how this country can continue to spend as much as it does. This debt is multiplying daily, and many countries would be happy with us at the end of the day.
The best we can hope for is splintering of both parties. It already happened on the Rep side where the Tea Party has basically moved the party so far to the right that anyone with even a small amount of liberalism on any type of social issue is immediately labelled a RINO and cast out of the party. I think Hillary is being pretty smart and moving/talking more towards the middle, even though she is very liberal. You aren´t going to see her talking a ton about hardcore liberal issues, instead she will be talking about the economy while the Reps are bashing immigrants. It would be nice if someone came in to the left of her and helped fragment the Democrats also.
The mob always rules. So I guess that applies here. People are stronger in numbers and being affiliated will get you into the White House. Being a independent is lonely to say the least. No backing, no financial support. Also no $2500 USD a plate dinners campaign dinner for you my friend. If you have several billions of dollars to blow, you might have a chance of winning.
Being from Europe this is the one thing I never understood. Why are there only 2 parties? It makes no sense since surely a lot of people find themselves in a situation where part of them thinks one is right and a part thinks the other one makes sense. Most European countries have multiple parties each with their own views, some are similar to others of course but there are always differences. Let's look at Germany for example. (I'll have to google this) Looks like the parliament is made out of 5 parties. The two biggest ones along with a 3rd smaller one form the government while the 2 small ones are the opposition parties.
I completely support your idea of doing away with the party system. The whole election process has gotten so complicated and away from the original plan that it makes me wonder if there is any legitimacy left to my vote. Not that it matters a whole lot anyway because we end up with two unsatisfactory choices every time in my opinion and I always feel like I am voting for the least worst option. I really can't remember the last time I actually voted for a candidate because I believed that he would represent the country the way I wanted. As a matter of fact, I don't think we have had a decent president since Reagan. So...I think maybe doing away with the party system may be a good first step to reworking the process, but it needs a complete overhaul if you ask me.
It really is the biggest problem with the Republican party right now. You have soooo many people who are financially conservative who want smaller government... but the entire party has been hijaked by the southern rednecks. There is no place for financially conservative people who aren´t all whacko about social issues. Right now, if you say you are a Republican.... you are immediately stereotyped as a racist and homophobe, because those are the people who are leading the party now. A few years ago, the Tea Party did try to bring the roots back to where it was about being fiscially conservative.. but people like Sarah Palin hijaked the Tea party and turned it into just another bible-thumping bunch of racist homophobes who very rarely talk about fiscal issues anymore. Then you throw in the fact that Bill Clinton DID actually manage to balance the budget and cut debt.. and Bush exploded the size of the federal gov´t with the Dept of Homeland Security and crushed the debt once again with his war... and it is why people like me, who are fiscally conservative are leaning towards the democrats. At this point for me there is more hope that Hillary would balance the budget than any of the Republicans.. People like Kasich who goes back to the roots of the Republicans being the party of financial responsibility gets actually no traction or airtime, while Trump is on the news every day calling Latinos rapists.
It will never happen because people like to argue too much and having parties gives people leverage in groups. We spend so much time arguing among ourselves and this is all time that can be used to really fix the problems in America. It is sad really.
