What point, if any, point are political parties?
|
Even with multiple parties (forget for a second no parties at all) the majority would get their way far less often. example: Pretend X and Y are almost the same thing. 100 people want either X or Y so 50 people vote for each. Meanwhile only 51 people like Z. Z gets done and the 100 people who didn't want Z are screwed. So with no party system at all this problem would be multiplied by however many thousands of opinions people have about stuff. It's impossible to get a large group of people to agree about anything. What you can do is come close to what most people want more or less. At least idealy. This is easier when there are two parties. Side: Compromise
I'm not sure I understand. If X and Y are almost the same thing, then it seems like proponents of X and Y should be voting together and not playing partisan politics. That only makes them lose to Z. I don't understand why they wouldn't vote for the same thing if the two items are almost the same thing, or why they couldn't compromise it into one belief. "It's impossible to get a large group of people to agree about anything. What you can do is come close to what most people want more or less. At least idealy." I agree with this to some extent. The Articles of Confederation failed because just thirteen states couldn't agree. But it doesn't seem like the deeply entrenched party politics of today (when people vote a way because of their party not because of their beliefs) are really a healthy expression of democracy. Side: Compromise
I'm not sure I understand. If X and Y are almost the same thing, then it seems like proponents of X and Y should be voting together and not playing partisan politics that's the crux of the current atmosphere. A real life example of X and Y is for instance end of life planning. Corporate America and the tea bag puppets renamed it "death pannel" but describe what end of life counseling is, and 99 out of 100 people think it's a wonderful thing. Moreover, if you have good insurance (which most don't realize till they're deathly ill, their insurance actually sucks) you probably already have a "death pannel" in your plan. X and Y are almost the same in this case, almost everyone likes the idea. But Z is brought into the picture by tea baggers and corporate America, and everyone gets screwed. In this case though the reason for X and Y getting screwed isn't an honest debate, it's simple stupidity, but you probably see why bringing in a third choice can sometimes screw stuff up. As for the last paragraph, yes, you are correct. People are idiots acting like complete morons right now. One side in particular is not dealing in facts on any issue (the right) and it mucks up the debate. Side: Compromise
1
point
1
point
1
point
Well, to use your example, in a democracy, either representative as practiced in the US or parliamentary as practiced in Europe and elsewhere, we wouldn't be voting for "x", "y" or "z". We would be voting for representatives who would vote on "x", "y" or "z". Presumably proponents of "x" and "y" would come to some sort of compromise and defeat "z". At least that's the way it's supposed to work. The role that political parties would play in this scenario would depend on the ramifications of the issue on whatever binds the party together. And, BTW, what binds the party together may not be political ideology. Today the US parties are divided along ideological lines with the Republicans representing conservatives and the Democrats representing moderates and liberals. But that's not how it always was. Up until about forty years ago, both parties had liberal and conservative wings and region played a much bigger role. Side: Unity and Assemble
1
point
|
