-
Features
Outlaw Political Parties?
- Thread starter Smoker
- Start date
There's no end to clever ideas that are proposed, without any hint of how it would be done.
This has been done many times in history, but what it amounts to is a single party, in which the general public has no influence.
This has been done many times in history, but what it amounts to is a single party, in which the general public has no influence.
Even if such a thing is feasible, what would it accomplish?
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,714
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
What would be good is to stop effectively outlawing the minor parties, and to stop effectively outlawing non-parties. In other words, stop legally entrenching the 2 main parties so that they monopolize the process, and effectively herding everyone into one of these two or effectively excluding them from participation.
Any state could correct what's wrong by taking out of its law every requirement which puts "parties" into official status. Give no recognition whatever to "political parties" -- remove any mention of "parties" in the law and let any party gain its power only by appealing to voters, without any special status of any kind granted to "parties" in the legal process.
Candidates could be allowed to designate a "party" or anything they want in their propaganda and in their ballot space, but there should be nothing else on the ballot or any part of the law which gives any recognition or status to "parties."
Whatever "parties" might emerge would have to do it without anything in the law promoting it. In that situation there would be nothing wrong with "parties" here and there as totally voluntary associations not subsidized in any way by the state.
DBT
Contributor
What about a political draft for a set of candidates from a database of qualified individuals? Anyone who puts themselves up for election being disqualified.
barbos
Contributor
DBT
Contributor
I first came across the idea in a Sci Fi novel, not sure but it may have been Heinlein.
To actually outlaw political parties would be quite an intrusion on people's rights.
However, there's no reason government needs to pay any attention to them. We don't need parties to know what people stand for anymore. How about we make people do a better job of saying what they stand for:
Once you qualify for the ballot (based on collecting enough signatures or votes in the last election even if for a different office so long as you are representing the majority of the people you represented in the election in which you got those votes) you get to submit 5 questions and one more question on the first of every month. Every candidate for the same office must answer these questions in a public fashion (posted in a standard format on their website would be a good approach.) Every candidate has 2 weeks to answer the questions, although the clock is tolled for major extenuating circumstances (say, in the hospital.) Didn't answer the questions? You're off the ballot. Give a non-answer to a question and any other candidate can challenge this before a judge--if the judge agrees it's not an answer (I'm thinking of the famous if-by-whiskey speech) and the question that can be reasonably answered (no have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife questions) you're off the ballot. Also, while you are allowed to change your mind lying in your answers likewise gets you off the ballot. (Question: Do you support teaching intelligent design in school? They answer no--but then make a speech at a church where they say they will vote for it. Two weeks later you go to the judge with the recording of their speech and they're off the ballot.)
However, there's no reason government needs to pay any attention to them. We don't need parties to know what people stand for anymore. How about we make people do a better job of saying what they stand for:
Once you qualify for the ballot (based on collecting enough signatures or votes in the last election even if for a different office so long as you are representing the majority of the people you represented in the election in which you got those votes) you get to submit 5 questions and one more question on the first of every month. Every candidate for the same office must answer these questions in a public fashion (posted in a standard format on their website would be a good approach.) Every candidate has 2 weeks to answer the questions, although the clock is tolled for major extenuating circumstances (say, in the hospital.) Didn't answer the questions? You're off the ballot. Give a non-answer to a question and any other candidate can challenge this before a judge--if the judge agrees it's not an answer (I'm thinking of the famous if-by-whiskey speech) and the question that can be reasonably answered (no have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife questions) you're off the ballot. Also, while you are allowed to change your mind lying in your answers likewise gets you off the ballot. (Question: Do you support teaching intelligent design in school? They answer no--but then make a speech at a church where they say they will vote for it. Two weeks later you go to the judge with the recording of their speech and they're off the ballot.)
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 16,490
- Location
- Tauhalamme/Laquisimas
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
I don't see how they could be avoided - even single party states end up having factions - but I do wish they were less abnormally privileged by the law in my country. Many states severely restrict what parties their citizens are allowed to vote for, for instance, so the ballot looks quite different in each state. If you were doing, say, marketing research, it would be seen as iffy to distribute polls with very different questions and still try to compare the results. But we all pretend we participated in the same election come December.
I don't think it possible or desirable to do that. But you could take some measures to reign them in. Do away with "party whips", do away with debate schedules set by and only including them, get some public funding for anyone who gets over x% on polls regardless of party, etc.
And most importantly, reexamine the voting system. First past the post, split into ridings where those who didn't vote for whoever wins their district don't matter is a system that will push you hard towards two and only who parties.
I like the ranked choice system myself. If your first choice doesn't make the final 2, it gets automatically reassigned to your next choice. Then people can vote 3rd party without thinking they are throwing away their vote.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,524
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Wouldn't solve the problem. The federal Constitution already tried that -- the framers were deeply suspicious of political parties and tried to set up a partyless government -- and yet a two-party system sprang up almost immediately. As JP said, we also have to get rid of first-past-the-post election districts. (Ranked choice is one way but there are quite a few others that would work.) But we find ourselves stuck with a technology that was created for the purpose of getting around 18th-century communication difficulties.
It was in "Utopia", published in 1516, by Sir Thomas More. Henry VIII cut his head off. (Not for that.)
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
The chances of outlawing parties is nil and none. Even if one did so, they would simply mutate into parties without the overt trappings of a party. What is probably easier and more desirable is outlawing corrupt politicians and political dirty tricks. Which will not happen as long as the GOP holds power of Presidency and Senate. Start with voter caging, gerrymandering, voter discouragement and other similar corrupt practices.
DBT
Contributor
Surprising, that long ago.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
It would be good but it's not going to happen.
I'd take campaign finance laws that limit spending, an end to PACs, limiting campaign time to 60 days before elections.
That would amount to a huge win for everyone.
how about something less than banning the formation of groups of people and more about reducing corruption in politics through cooperation and collusion of groups of people working against democratic principles of representation... modeled more closely to anti-trust provisions of law.
That’s a bit too vague. Who defines “working against democratic principles of represention”? Prefer to err on the side of liberty.
RVonse
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,855
- Location
- USA
- Basic Beliefs
- that people in the US are living in the matrx
I like liberty too. But what defines liberty? If you can only have 2 parties who are defacto political monopolies, is that liberty? When you have 2 POTUS candidates who both favor NAFTA, TPP, and globalism trade the same way.....is that liberty? When you have only 2 POTUS candidates who are both for endless war mongering.....is that liberty? When you have both red and blue POTUS candidates who both favor the banksters.....is that liberty? I think not.
So who defines "working against democratic principles of representation"? IMO, I would apply same kind of restrictions we apply to anti trust laws. Because if people have no real choice at election time, it is not representation. The party monopolies need to be busted.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
How about we set a crook to catch a crook and use anti-trust law on the two big parties. Forcibly split them into two (at least) smaller parties each giving a minimum of four parties where there are two.
I know it is a stupid suggestion, but people are determined to ignore what everyone already knows is a good suggestion. Just look to Lumpen's post about the electoral impediments placed against third parties.
I know it is a stupid suggestion, but people are determined to ignore what everyone already knows is a good suggestion. Just look to Lumpen's post about the electoral impediments placed against third parties.