This is an idea I have been tinkering with for many years now.

I would like to have your collective opinion about declaring the principle of existence of parties illegal. I believe it would open the place for more debates and remove the extreme polarization of political systems around the world. (can imagine USSR or CHINA without central party?)

I say we only elect independent representatives that serves local interests first.

So, what is your take on that?

The problem is democracy itself. No one should have the right to vote on what kind of health care I use if any, or what kind of money I use, or anything else I decide to do as long as I am not oppressing anyone. Anything done collectively by a community should be completely voluntary with no force or coercion involved.

Democracy is just a tool for the 51% to use to oppress the other 49% period.

would love to see it happen however
the hard part is convincing the other
300 Million people to do the same

Originally posted by hawkiye
The problem is democracy itself. No one should have the right to vote on what kind of health care I use if any, or what kind of money I use, or anything else I decide to do as long as I am not oppressing anyone. Anything done collectively by a community should be completely voluntary with no force or coercion involved.

Democracy is just a tool for the 51% to use to oppress the other 49% period.

To be exact the original make up of out system of government . Was a democratic republic , the republic form of government being the set up and the constitution being the rules and law . The democratic part has a wide area of influence but being governed by the Constitution .

The Constitution was set up to protect the advances of pure majority rule and protect the rights of the minority . I believe the traditional limits of majority rule have been eroded away over time and the Constitution has been weakened .

I feel the parties each pushing for their own agenda have eroded away the original controls the constitution put on the democratic process .

When the political parties have whittled away at the strength of the constitution then this is what happens we have politicians who are not accountable to the people only to the party its self . Now we get on party in control who can dictate like is being done .

Originally posted by Lostinthedarkness

Originally posted by hawkiye
The problem is democracy itself. No one should have the right to vote on what kind of health care I use if any, or what kind of money I use, or anything else I decide to do as long as I am not oppressing anyone. Anything done collectively by a community should be completely voluntary with no force or coercion involved.

Democracy is just a tool for the 51% to use to oppress the other 49% period.

To be exact the original make up of out system of government . Was a democratic republic , the republic form of government being the set up and the constitution being the rules and law . The democratic part has a wide area of influence but being governed by the Constitution .

The Constitution was set up to protect the advances of pure majority rule and protect the rights of the minority . I believe the traditional limits of majority rule have been eroded away over time and the Constitution has been weakened .

I feel the parties each pushing for their own agenda have eroded away the original controls the constitution put on the democratic process .

When the political parties have whittled away at the strength of the constitution then this is what happens we have politicians who are not accountable to the people only to the party its self . Now we get on party in control who can dictate like is being done .

Big sigh! No no no!!! to be exact your exactly wrong. Care to show me where in the constitution Democracy is mentioned at all? Need I post the many quotes by the founding fathers condemning democracy to hell?

We are not a democratic republic. We are a union of several republics sometimes called states the Federal Republic did not superceede the several republics. It was a mutual defense and free trade agreement.

Here are the facts the constitution delegates 17 enumerated powers to the federal government period! None of which have anything to do with you and me. The Bill of Rights protect the minority and was an extra precaution to the federal government to keep thier hands off the people and the states. IOW they had no authority in those areas period! It was the law they were to operate by and not go beyond.

It was not a democracy to " run the country" as everyone has been brain washed to believe, study some history. There was no country it was a union of several countries strictly for mutual defense and free trade nothing more period. Everything Congress does these days is in democracy and completely outside the scope of authority of the constitution. It's was a restriction on the feds, if it's not in there they can't do it period.

There was no democracy telling you and me what to do like health care, or growing hemp, or making wine paying income tax etc. etc. etc. That was all born of this modern De facto democracy that has usurped the constitutional republic of the union of the several states. AMERICANS DON'T KNOW THEIR HISTORY and continue to repeat this nonsense about us being founded as a democracy and wonder why we can't change things!

Democracy is nothing but a tool to oppress by supposed consensus.



[edit on 17-4-2010 by hawkiye]

[edit on 17-4-2010 by hawkiye]

Originally posted by gagol
I say we only elect independent representatives that serves local interests first.

In theory at least under the US electoral system your idea is possible because Americans elect their leaders rather then Members of Parliament . In practice your idea is impossible because it defies Human Nature . Apart of Human Nature is that people with similar interests good or bad will gravitate together.

Cheers xpert11 .

I don't think the problem is political parties necessarily, although it would be really nice to get rid of them.

However, I think the specific problem we face (here in the US), is that we only have two viable parties, and several completely useless parties.

If you look at most other countries, they usually have several political parties that are active, usually at least 4 or 5. Even in countries such as the UK, where there are only two or three dominant parties, the smaller parties still manage to elect members to parliament. If I am correct, the UK currently has 11 different parties represented in the House of Commons!

Compare that to the US, where virtually every member of the Senate (with two exceptions), every member of the House, and even every governor is currently affiliated with either the Democrats or the Republicans.

The system over here is designed so that third parties fail. Even though roughly a quarter of voting Americans are registered Independent, we receive virtually no representation in government. That, in my opinion, is the heart of the problem.

Originally posted by gagol
This is an idea I have been tinkering with for many years now.

I would like to have your collective opinion about declaring the principle of existence of parties illegal. I believe it would open the place for more debates and remove the extreme polarization of political systems around the world. (can imagine USSR or CHINA without central party?)

I say we only elect independent representatives that serves local interests first.

So, what is your take on that?

I could go a long way with your diagnosis of the problem, but I'm not convinced that your solution is workable.

In Britain, the party machinery has been gaining more and more control over individual members of Parliament for more than a hundred years. National party organisations go back to the time of people like Randolph Churchill and Joseph Chamberlain. One of the most important tools, in modern times, is the fact that a large chunk of the governing party have jobs in the government or are hoping to get jobs in the government. At least your constitution cut off that option.

On the other hand, I'm inclined to think that a legal ban on parties would be unenforceable. If people are not allowed to combine in public, they will switch to combining in secret. It' s hard enough for ATS to keep track of potential secret societies as it is. Just imagine having to use investigation and guesswork in order to establish which politicians were secret Republicans and which ones were secret Democrats? [NEWSFLASH- Palin was spotted having lunch with Bush on Tuesday; might this mean that they belong to the same party?]

So "what to do about it?" is still a puzzle. Tackling the problem from the other end might involve doing something to make life easier for new parties. How might that work?

All of your comments are truly highly valuable. The point of th thread was generating discussion and thinking about the negative impact of parties.

You all give me a lot to think about. Maybe Secretary of Defense should be voted in place by the military personnel.

May the Great Architect of the Universe Bless You All.

What about what we can do today?

We can elect independent candidates, the more we elect, less power will be concentrated in the hands of major parties. It's all about PEOPLE vs CORPORATIONS.

Godspeed!

[edit on 17-4-2010 by gagol]

For now, the idea of just 1 political party working together is excellent. More things would be produced and there would most likely be less debates on certain subjects (as long as the people of the single party are intelligent enough).

Democracy is one of the better forms of government and probably the best one on this planet at this time, but later on better forms of government will be created.
The best form of government is led by one true genius, not the kind with measurable intelligence,by today's intelligence tests, problems with their spouse and frequent paranoia and depression. I'm talking about the kind where they are most always happy, and can solve their problems and their country's problems.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by Keliko favlaka]

I agree, another problem with parties is that it contributes to political instability. I mean, are frequent policy changes really good for a country?

Also, the more parties one has to choose between, the more difficult it will become to make an educated vote - there is simply to many parties (even if many follows roughly the same policies). There's soo many choices that it becomes a pain in the *** to vote for what's best for the country. Then you have parties changing their policies or lying about them. It's really hard to keep yourself updated constantly. It's much easier to simply vote on the parties you've always voted on - which may not be what is good for your country.

Democracy has its good sides like any other political ideology, but it also has its bad sides. I think Democracy best works as a complementary ideology.