No political parties

**Zosiasmom** · May 01 2012, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by kenrichaed

Won't work. Madison addressed this issue in the Federalist Papers, specifically #10. They thought about this issue and decided it not only would be impossible but also against the foundation of what they were writing the Constitution to stand for. Not allowing people to come together to present their views as a group would be undue governmental regulation on personal liberties. Jefferson also spoke at length about political parties and agreed they should not be limited.

I highly doubt that any of our Founding Fathers intended for our government to look like this. We have 350 million or so people, but only 2 political parties that you can vote for without having Ross Perot like money to get on a ballot. That's not democracy or true republicanism.

**kenrichaed** · May 01 2012, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Zosiasmom

I highly doubt that any of our Founding Fathers intended for our government to look like this. We have 350 million or so people, but only 2 political parties that you can vote for without having Ross Perot like money to get on a ballot. That's not democracy or true republicanism.

The reason there are only 2 political parties is that there is not enough room for opinions outside of these two while still appealing to the majority of Americans. This has been well studied.

**Texsdrifter** · May 01 2012, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by kenrichaed

Won't work. Madison addressed this issue in the Federalist Papers, specifically #10. They thought about this issue and decided it not only would be impossible but also against the foundation of what they were writing the Constitution to stand for. Not allowing people to come together to present their views as a group would be undue governmental regulation on personal liberties. Jefferson also spoke at length about political parties and agreed they should not be limited.

George Washington warned of the danger of political parties. The politicians are more loyal to their respective parties than the people they represent. If they go against their party they will face a difficult time during their next election. The current parties leave almost 1/3 of population without representation. We either need no political parties or more choices to choose between.

**NetworkCitizen** · May 01 2012, 03:44 PM

These parties are nothing but the arms of competing interests. Both heavily corporate, but the liberals lean towards the union thugs and the republicans lean towards the tax-exempt buffoonery.

The best thing would be for the people to realize that both parties are owned and useless, but I don't see that happening. You all pull for your corrupt little team in your box.

**kenrichaed** · May 01 2012, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Texsdrifter

George Washington warned of the danger of political parties. The politicians are more loyal to their respective parties than the people they represent. If they go against their party they will face a difficult time during their next election. The current parties leave almost 1/3 of population without representation. We either need no political parties or more choices to choose between.

Most of the founding fathers recognized the dangers of political parties but they also recognized that it was more dangerous to try and limit them. As for more choices that simply isn't realistic. There is not enough room on issues to usually have more than 2 opinions. In order for a third party to establish a platform that is distinct from democrat or republican they would be outside of the mainstream such as the communist party for example.

Take issues such as abortion or the death penalty. Most normal opinions are covered by either democrats or republicans making a third point of view impossible to separate between the major parties.

**CSWorden3** · May 01 2012, 03:45 PM

Something interesting to look at on this topic. This is taken right from Washington's Farewell Address. Read it all carefully, and let me know what you think about it.

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Would it not be wise to have no political parties? And just judge politicians and their opinions by the Constitution?

**Texsdrifter** · May 01 2012, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by kenrichaed

Most of the founding fathers recognized the dangers of political parties but they also recognized that it was more dangerous to try and limit them. As for more choices that simply isn't realistic. There is not enough room on issues to usually have more than 2 opinions. In order for a third party to establish a platform that is distinct from democrat or republican they would be outside of the mainstream such as the communist party for example.

Take issues such as abortion or the death penalty. Most normal opinions are covered by either democrats or republicans making a third point of view impossible to separate between the major parties.

That is a result of both parties taking over any new groups that come together the tea party and occupy movements the latest examples of that. I am not one for banning something just because I do not agree with it. Yet, I can agree with either party on several issues as well as disagree with both. So while I can see your point I as well as I believe most Americans will never agree with only a single party. Most Americans are not represented by the extremes that control the two parties. I do not know the answer to the problem but the current system is not acceptable IMO.

**kenrichaed** · May 01 2012, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by Texsdrifter

That is a result of both parties taking over any new groups that come together the tea party and occupy movements the latest examples of that. I am not one for banning something just because I do not agree with it. Yet, I can agree with either party on several issues as well as disagree with both. So while I can see your point I as well as I believe most Americans will never agree with only a single party. Most Americans are not represented by the extremes that control the two parties. I do not know the answer to the problem but the current system is not acceptable IMO.

They do not take them over but rather its the fact that these movements or separate parties are so similar that they become absorbed into the larger ones. This goes back to my earlier point that it is almost impossible to form a party platform that is far enough removed from republican or democrat to be appealing enough to garner large votes in America.

**Texsdrifter** · May 01 2012, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by kenrichaed

They do not take them over but rather its the fact that these movements or separate parties are so similar that they become absorbed into the larger ones. This goes back to my earlier point that it is almost impossible to form a party platform that is far enough removed from republican or democrat to be appealing enough to garner large votes in America.

I agree with your reasoning but the parties platforms have become so large to prevent a third party from becoming a threat. You are left to vote against a party instead of actually voting for a party. The fact it would take a constitutional amendment that the parties would never vote for makes it impossible for that to happen. I can not help but dream for a day when people will judge a candidate for his positions rather than the (D) or (R) after his name. I do find it hard to support someone just because they are not quite as bad as the other guy.