George Washington did not want a two party system because he knew that people would support the party and not the betterment of the people. We do not have proper representation of the people with a two party system because a location might be majority conservative but under a two party system where one party is normally liberal, that area now is forced to also have a liberal representative which has the same power as the conservative representative even though it is NOT representing the people of that area. The Democrat party is a very liberal, and in many cases, anti-American party. Members of Congress in the Democrat party have openly denounces and attacked America and have openly endorsed foreign faction which has actively not only opposed but have militarily attacked America. At one time this would have been called treason! The two party system no longer provides a âbalancedâ debate but rather is simply a stage for opposition and stagnation. Our Congress has become nothing but a cesspool of corruption. It is time that the two party system is removed and the elected officials forced to actually represent the people and the ideals of America.
Youâve explained what you want and given a bunch of cliche talking points about why you donât like âthe two party systemâ, but Iâm not seeing anything to suggest you have any idea how to achieve any kind of âdissolution of the two part systemâ.
Not gonna lie - while I agree with the absolution of the Party system in general, this is the main reason as to why I havenât given it a true voice⌠Because what would it look like? Right now, at least we know roughly what the politician stands for based off their chosen party alignment. But if we go - thatâs no longer allowed, what would it be?
The first problem is how do you say âthatâs no longer allowedâ without violating the Constitution?
The second problem is that for better or worse, political parties are an inevitability. People are going to join together for purposes of a common interest. Even if you ban âofficialâ political parties, those with an interest in politics will find a way to develop an alternative.
It should also be noted that while Washington was officially an independent, if you look into his history - I learned about it by reading the Washington biography by Ron Chernow - he did in fact side with one of the two early political parties over the other, arguably being a member of that party in all but name.
Not sure if I was clear - I was agreeing with you. I would LOVE for the party system to be dissolved. But ⌠how? Iâm not sure it can be.
So, yeah. While I agree with the OPâs sentiment, I donât see how it can happen.
I agree, Iâd like to see any party system dissolved but definitely democrat and republican dissolved. I believe about 99% of all politicians in congress and in general are corrupt. So this includes most all Republicans as well. They are trying to bring us to the same outcome as teh democrats did, with censorship, surveillence, control, and depopulation for the many they canât control.
I agree. The 2-party system must be dissolved. Like the rest of you, I have no idea how, or if, that can be done. If it has anything to do with CongressâŚforget it!
My 1st thought would be to make a 3rd party actually legitimate and with fundingâŚlike an Independent Party. Give it a different name if that helps. Some states organized a âWe The Peopleâ party during RFKâs campaign. That would be a good place to start. But again, if it involves Congress in any way, we can forget it. In my opinion, Congress is our biggest battle and our worst enemy. We are all held captive by Congress and I do believe that is intentional.
What would stop the Democrats and Republicans from just forming new parties?
Thatâs the thing, isnât it?
You have no idea if it even can be done, yet somehow that thing that admittedly may be impossible must be done.
First, if it were an actual party it wouldnât be independent.
Second, if you successfully accomplished this wouldnât it negate the need to get rid of the Republican and Democrat parties?
Replying to mksj,
OK, so if there is a chance it might not be done we should just drop it like good little sheep? Yes, the parties would try to reform. We can sit here and try to enact laws which is a start. However, more terrible things will happen by our govât and military unless we have non-cowardly men showing them the door. I donât have the asnwers on how to write the laws into place, etc. Suggesting it as the original poster did is a great start.
So youâre not going to even consider the unintended consequences, youâre just going to insist that it be done because âsomethingâ needs to be done?
Political parties should not have to raise millions to pay for advertising. It invites cronyism. Local elections as well. People should run on issues, not parties. Debates as well.
We need people with better political education and education in general to make important recommendations.
You may want to consider revisiting the permanent reapportionment act before using the power of government, to mandate how many parties there are.
The historical comparison is flawed. At the time in history you mentioned, people could actually meet with their representatives, and there was a better balanced representation. These days, big money buys the representation and due to the ever expanding populace, yet fixed representative count, we donât have nearly as much fairly balanced representation. And itâs stone cold easy for anyone to buy off most politicians, as their seats in the government cost millions of dollars every single round to secure and resecure again. Itâs called the âdialing for dollarsâ argument. The mechanisms and money revolving around electoral activity has reduced representatives to telemarketers whom focus on lobbyists primarily.
You know what would be a better idea to achieve a similar goal. Making paid lobbying illegal across the board. If people truly believe in a cause, they should be required to spend their own time and their own dollars seeking representative support. That goes hand in hand with strict and reduced donation limitations. And we need to break the corporate media monopoly up and allow a more open sourced journalistic climate. The power houses of the internet whom dwarf syndicated media are still to this day not available on regular channel line ups or regular for free airwave television. We donât have a two party system, we have a one party system, the corporate strangle hold on free and simple access to a broad and diverse set of information. Please try to stay current, mocking bird media needs to go if we want real organic reform in a representative democracy setting, by the people, for the people.
How come nobody else is doing something about my problems?
Oh big government, do something already! We need more government to solve the problems created by our existing oversized government.
People should be more careful what they wish for.
Can I suggest that we do away with party control of the nomination process? That is, each candidate would have to gather signatures as any independent candidate now does. There would be no primaries.
Make it illegal to but campaign advertising.
So your solution is to, what, flood the general Presidential Election with dozens of candidates, including multiple candidates from each political party?
I mean, arenât more choices better?
Choices from outside the establishment! How will we survive? Yes, lots of independent candidates. And Ranked Choice Voting.
I donât see how a Presidential Election with a dozen candidates on the ballot - including with three, four, possibly five from each party - is a good thing.
In any year without strong standouts, the most likely thing youâd be accomplishing is just handing the decision as to who should be elected over to Congress.
Whose presence in the election could easily be rendered irrelevant anyway.
Nothing stops people from running as an independent now.
This is an entirely different issue and an entirely different debate.
Our 1st election had about a dozen people on the ballot. It produced Washington/Adams. 1796 had about the same number of candidates. That election had multiple candidates from the Federalists and from the Demo-Republic Party. The former being Adamsâs party and the latter, Jeffersonâs.
If we allowed more choices then the results would be more in lined with the first few elections we had as a nation and less of a choice of âvoting againstâ someone and more of voting FOR someone.
And, while yes, technically there were more than 2 people running in this last election - we all know they werenât given any media attention nor would people truly be able to vote for them and expect a positive result. I think the best result was Jill stein at a half of a percent of the votes - and that was the 3rd Party/ Independent front runner. All of the non Democratic or Republican party candidates combined was about 2% of the vote. As it is right now - we HAVE to vote one of the two candidates from those parties because otherwise your vote is wasted as they have no real opportunity to compete. The Democratic party and the Republican party have the voter base in a chokehold. I believe your assessment of âNothing stops people from running as independent nowâ is a little intellectually dishonest. While I agree with your statement as fact - the reality of the situation is the opposite. Yes they can run, but nothing will come of it because they donât get any of the same recognition.