Should We Eliminate Both The Republican And Democratic Parties?

Question

Isn't using the best answer to solve a problem the most important thing?

Answer 1

party politics have certainly appeared devastating to the american political system as congressmen REPRESENTING PEOPLE do not vote for the people's interest but the parties interest, but this no where new anything of a new concept, and while destroying the party system certainly seem like a valid and  obvious choice, the simple truth is that new parties will develop, and the proof lies in the history. the setting- early 1800's- america is experiencing sharp devides, as we are today, with the 2 party system, but there is hope! the federalist party dies only leaving the democrat/republican party, this age is know as the "era of good feelings" it ends though as america enters economic hardship and a new party develops, the whig party, so simply- birds of the feather flock together and this occurs with people's political beliefs as well. so simply, biparisanism is an idea that america has come to accept and there seems to be no end in sight

Answer 2

The twin parties should be allowed to fade away as other parties have (they should not be outlawed if that is what you mean).  Voters should vote for whoever offers the best answers regardless of party affiliation as you suggest.  

Folks should understand that the checks and balances of our political system mean that there will be little difference in most of our lives regardless of who wins.  That means voters should feel free to look over all the candidates ( a list of many is online at http://politics1.com/p2008.htm ) and vote for whoever most represents their views.  For example, Joe Schriner comes closest to my views (so far) and I may vote for him.  I don't worry who will actually win if I vote for Schriner (or someone else) because I think both McCain and Obama are decent people and either will try his best, but I still think we can do better and want to vote for ideas like those suggested at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nonlethala... .



Other voters may have very different views and should find a candidate who supports their views.  That is the real democratic process; the two party system is not fatal to democracy but it isn't helpful to democracy either.

Answer 3

All parties that exist today are incorrect because none of them are completely correct.  There is not one party that supports reality and reason 100% today.  Questions can only have one true answer, some in which the Republican Party have correct, some in which the Democratic Party have correct, and some in which no one at all has correct.  

I've learned that our government is much too destructive.  It's sort of like a nanny that will be there to protect you if all else fails.  Individuality and freedom (according to the wonderful Declaration of Independence) should be the main objective for this country to provide for it's citizens.  In other words, the government should really only be supplying us with, A) A militia to protect us from other countries trying to take over and eliminating our freedom, B) A police force to protect us from criminals, and C) Court systems for correct determinations.

So, yes.  We should eliminate all parties because they are useless  (aside from learning what is wrong).  Are we ever going to?  Not any time soon, because people have the right to create these Parties and join them; and as long as there are supporters, they will live on.  

P.S.  I have learned a lot from studying the Delaration of Independence, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and philosophy (specifically objectivism). Capitalism and the free-market systems work - it's just hard for people to imagine how because of such long dependence on government.

Answer 4

Yes

Answer 5

they should be combined, into the republicratic party, then there will be only ONE candidate on the general election ballots, then it won't be so hard to make a decision what with our busy lifestyles.

Answer 6

And replace them with what?  All political parties are primarily self serving, putting their own interests before the nations.

Athenian style democracy would not be economically feasible, as every law would have to be voted on by the entire population, not to mention less than 40%  of people turn out to vote.

A benign dictatorship is the best solution, however that goes against what people have been taught to believe in.

Answer 7

If they can't figure out how to use the best ideas out of both parties then, yes. Democratic government shouldn't be about two teams fighting over who should "win". The truth is that when they are so busy fighting over their party "values" the common good gets completely forgotten. Compromise is something that seems to have been forgotten in American politics and politics around the world. Left or Right doesn't matter- whatever is the best for the people is what matters.

Answer 8

Yes....

Answer 9

Yes.  Bring back the Whig party!

Answer 10

Yes we might as well they don't serve the interest of the people anymore.

Answer 11

You could say that if few enough people do it they are trying to earn a political darwin award.

There is a TON of money in both.

Should is a loaded word.  There is an unstated rubric - an unarticulated measure of goodness applied to the decision.

Even if it was best, I think it has too much social inertia to change.

Answer 12

Please, point me to a list of the best answers to all problems and I will gladly support the removal of both parties.

...

Both sides believe they have the correct answer. Who is to say which is best?

Answer 13

Yes, but they would have to do that themselves.  I abandoned the Democratic Party in 2001 when they abandoned America and the Constitution.  Now I am a member of the Green Party, and proud of it.

Answer 14

I believe they are one party with two names. I also believe that if they are to be eliminated, it should be by voter selection. Vote Libertarian or whoever. If nobody votes for the Republicrats or Demicans, they will go away in the natural course of things.

Answer 15

no just make it easier for 3rd parties to get elected

Answer 16

I don't think they should be eliminated but I don't think it's fair to have to declare either one during the primaries. I don't like being categorized and I am forced to. Other parties are on the ballot but never win, so what does that say about the voters? Many just vote straight party and don't even consider a split vote as I do. All parties should have the same relevance. There is also write-in but I haven't known anyone to use that option, and if they did, they got nowhere. Let's face it...it's bi-partisan and shouldn't even be called that.....as it means two and that's unfair. I absolutely do NOT agree with the electoral votes. I think it is so unfair that because you have a state with many electoral votes, you can win less states and still win the election. I have always wanted the popular vote as I think that is what is fair.

Don't call me a Republican or a Democrat. When I am asked I say "Neither, I vote for whoever I want and dislike being put into a category. That needs to be changed too.

Yes ,using the best answers is very important but remember that politicians will promise you anything to get your votes and many things are not realistic or would take years if ever.

Answer 17

Sure... but ummm good luck with that!