Political parties- are they necessary?

[Karkat]

TL;DR opinion: No, they only divide us and compartmentalize us, inhibiting individual thought.

And look how great that went when Nazis became a thing.

Long version:

I feel there are way more cons than pros when it comes to following the political ideals of a single party. It results in a lot of people thinking the exact same way, as opposed to forming new and innovative ideas that could improve society.

In other words, the reason nothing changes, is because we don't. At least that's my opinion.

Even 'progressive' liberals seem to band together in a hive-mind type of mentality, attacking any who form ideas not in line with majority thoughts.

The formation of groups where all opinions MUST be the same is only detrimental to society as a whole, and in my opinion should be abolished- it is better for a presidential candidate, for instance, to prove their merits with the words they say, and NOT the party they hail from. Likewise, it is better for the voters who elect said president to vote based not on party or opinions in line with the opinions of the party they identify with, but what actually makes sense to them.

People actually thinking for themselves? How ludicrous.

But only the people who have thought for themselves have ever changed anything or made any good in this world.

I say, screw republicans and democrats, screw liberals and conservatives;make up your own damn mind.

There have been few times in my life where I haven't been afraid of being wrong NOT because the evidence didn't line up- but because no one else agreed with me.

[Judean Zealot]

Surprisingly, I agree with you 100% on the matter.

[dxcxdzv]

I'll be direct. What you are thinking is dangerous.
It's dangerous for the "democracy" and all the Human Order.

In fact, you may think what you want but representative democracy is based on the fact that the thoughts of people can be represented by a single person's ones.
Screw it means say f**k to the representative democracy.

And well... we know the direct democracy is not that beautiful, democracy in general is really fragile and everybody having a different idea on everything just means mess and where there's a mess, the political sharks are, the Real political sharks.

I think you were just tired about hearing democrats and republicans fought, believing that all the thoughts of America can be represented in two single parties with well defined politics. Well you'll can see this almost everywhere, there's often just two big parties. In order to regulate this there's an assembly which representes the people wish by region.

If you believe that the world can work another way than the one of "the people's leader" well good luck for you. Just don't fall in socialism, please, don't.

[Emerald Dream]

This is my biggest complaint about politics, to be honest.

The sheep mentality - of both voters, and the politicians themselves - to a political party is pretty scary. We are at the point in the US where (almost 100% of the time) unless you are a Republican or Democrat then you can't win an election. It's hammered into too many peoples' heads that unless you are voting for one of those two then your vote is wasted and won't really matter.

Surely people can't honestly believe that all Republicans and Democrats believe 100% in what their party platform/agenda tells us to believe. There's no individuality right now when it comes to political candidates. They have to say they are one or the other or the money (and votes) doesn't flow in their direction. We end up voting for the party, and not the person.

Too much money is wasted on this political party nonsense. The two main parties feel the need to argue and block one another politically just because "we can't let the other side win." What kind of bullshit is this? So much money is wasted on two-party elections (where, once again - let's face it...we are told it has to be one or the other) that it's disgusting. Can you imagine how much money could be put towards worthwhile causes (hunger, homelessness, education, etc) if we didn't spend billions on elections and the whole "us vs. them" mentality of our two-party system??


TL,DR: Politicians are sheep. Voters are sheep. Too much wasted money on bullshit.

[Karkat]

I'll be direct. What you are thinking is dangerous.
It's dangerous for the "democracy" and all the Human Order.

In fact, you may think what you want but representative democracy is based on the fact that the thoughts of people can be represented by a single person's ones.
Screw it means say f**k to the representative democracy.

And well... we know the direct democracy is not that beautiful, democracy in general is really fragile and everybody having a different idea on everything just means mess and where there's a mess, the political sharks are, the Real political sharks.

I think you were just tired about hearing democrats and republicans fought, believing that all the thoughts of America can be represented in two single parties with well defined politics. Well you'll can see this almost everywhere, there's often just two big parties. In order to regulate this there's an assembly which representes the people wish by region.

If you believe that the world can work another way than the one of "the people's leader" well good luck for you. Just don't fall in socialism, please, don't.

And I completely disagree with your opinion. Freedom of thought is only dangerous to those who will lose profit; it is not detrimental to human order.

We're sheep because that's what keeps the rich rich. And they don't like us playing with 'their' money.

[dxcxdzv]

Karkat, if that's what you are really thinking then I'm sorry for you.

[Karkat]

Karkat, if that's what you are really thinking then I'm sorry for you.

I'm sorry for you, being blinded by mindless consumerism and capitalism into thinking we need a singular way of thinking to have a working society.

If you can't see that the rich own you, I feel bad for you, honestly.

[dxcxdzv]

I'm sorry for you, being blinded by mindless consumerism and capitalism into thinking we need a singular way of thinking to have a working society.

If you can't see that the rich own you, I feel bad for you, honestly.
The point is not here. I don't even see why you are talking about riches. What's that kind of discrimination, you don't even know who you are accusing. But I understand, it's easier to hate others peoples than to see the way the world is.

You are not believing in representative democracy right, but you will be fool to think that it's a conspiracy or whatever by the "riches" or whatever you think is.
The Human Order is existing as it is by a natural evolution. Furthermore it's a fact that the thoughts of many people converge on the same opinion so in order to organising a society our specie is choosing the best one to represente the people's wish.

You really don't know anything about History of politic and democracy for saying such things. You will be extremely naive to think that humans can live by themselves in (almost) perfect intellectual consciousness of the world. Everybody who has one day reflected about has seen this.

[Microcosm]

You know, now that I really think about it you pretty much got this right, I think. The whole concept of a political party has just blown up into people rooting for one or the other just because it's their party, sort of like it's a football team they're rooting for.

We should vote for the ideas, not the party.

[dxcxdzv]

You know, now that I really think about it you pretty much got this right, I think. The whole concept of a political party has just blown up into people rooting for one or the other just because it's their party, sort of like it's a football team they're rooting for.

We should vote for the ideas, not the party.
This will be the same.
A party is characterized by a certain way of thinking, in this way of thinking there is multiples ideas. The biggest parties are the ones which the ideas match the most with people's thoughts. The personal ideas of the leader and the assemblies are here in order to diversify this sh*t.

Voting for ideas is voting for a way of thinking because the ideas aren't independant (rarely). Most of the time if you are against abortion the reasons for it are the same so it's pretty easy to determinate your other ideas.
This is how a political party is constructed, by the meeting of people sharing the same way of thinking so by the meeting of people with the same ideas conditionned by this way of thinking.

A political party is so the direct representation of the wish of a part of the population. And all the thing is to see which party matches with the majority of people. The political game is a way other thing that the existence of parties.

[ndrwmxwll]

necessary in an organizational sense yes, otherwise no unless they represent your material interests

[Karkat]

The point is not here. I don't even see why you are talking about riches. What's that kind of discrimination, you don't even know who you are accusing. But I understand, it's easier to hate others peoples than to see the way the world is.

You are not believing in representative democracy right, but you will be fool to think that it's a conspiracy or whatever by the "riches" or whatever you think is.
The Human Order is existing as it is by a natural evolution. Furthermore it's a fact that the thoughts of many people converge on the same opinion so in order to organising a society our specie is choosing the best one to represente the people's wish.

You really don't know anything about History of politic and democracy for saying such things. You will be extremely naive to think that humans can live by themselves in (almost) perfect intellectual consciousness of the world. Everybody who has one day reflected about has seen this.

Stop trying to belittle me because you are losing. Your arrogance and condescension is not needed here and only erodes your argument.

Arguably it is you who do not know the way the world works. It isn't discrimination when classism is an obvious societal construct. I did not invent this concept- those with money and power did by saying those without money and power shouldn't have money and power.

I.e. I'm not the one discriminating here- these people with massive quantities of money who vote to raise their pay and dock everyone else's are. They make living wages and far beyond- the poor, by definition, do not.

This is your opinion, not fact, and it's a very poorly held together and disproven one at that- the evidence is all around you. If you have ever seen a homeless person, run down house, foreclosed house, or 'ghetto' neighborhood, that is evidence.

The rich become segregated from the poor.

And why does money have anything to do with politics? Because it's the driving force behind modern politics. If you don't believe me, go research war.

Not to mention that the fact that no one else here has agreed with your sentiment thus far kind of proves my point. Unless you want to give up your individual thought now and agree with the majority solely for the purpose that there's more of us.

[phuckphace]

And look how great that went when Nazis became a thing.

I know, right?

[Judean Zealot]

necessary in an organizational sense yes, otherwise no unless they represent your material interests

I'm not so sure, even in a democracy, that it's an organizational necessity. I think a system based on local representation would do fine without the party apparatus.

[dxcxdzv]

Karkat : ... So. When do riches people start? 1 billion? 2 billion? 1 million?
Who are you calling rich. Am I a conspirationist bastard because I'm multi-millionaire?
The critic of capitalism is a way other thing that the political parties. That's what you don't understand.

And I don't know how you can argue about ghettos when I talk about majority at elections. You are using a minority in order to criticize a majority. Sorry, democracy doesn't work like that. Unless if you want to make the "Proletarian Revolution". Well, good 80 years of tyranny.

I repeat the political game has nothing to do wi the Existence of parties. God I feel like you are putting everyone in the same sh*t.

Ok so you are talking to me about "believe in what you want" but now I have to accept the thoughts of a couple of teens who know nothing about the stuff they are talking about? You should read Marx in order to make yourself an opinion and stopping reacting emotionally to something you don't globally understand. Because it's really easy to say "the world is unfair", "the riches are controlling us" without asking to yourself why the world is like that and what does make all these things work.

In fact, I don't even have an opinion. But I hat the persons like you who are juste seeing one side of the problem and think their way is the best. You just hide yourself behind some poverty stuff without saying anything technically concrete.


PS : And I don't see "what I am loosing", please light me on this point.

[Left Now]

I believe they are not,but the matter that different opinions must be expressed respectfully is something else.

[Karkat]

Karkat : ... So. When do riches people start? 1 billion? 2 billion? 1 million?
Who are you calling rich. Am I a conspirationist bastard because I'm multi-millionaire?
The critic of capitalism is a way other thing that the political parties. That's what you don't understand.

And I don't know how you can argue about ghettos when I talk about majority at elections. You are using a minority in order to criticize a majority. Sorry, democracy doesn't work like that. Unless if you want to make the "Proletarian Revolution". Welll, good 80 years of tyranny.

I reapeat the political game has nothing to do wi the Existence of parties. God I feel like you are putting everyone in the same sh*t.

Ok so you are talking me about "believe in what you want" but know I have to accept the thoughts of a couple of teens who knows nothing about the stuff they are talking about? You should read Marx in order to make yourself an opinion and stopping reacting emotionnaly to something you don't globaly understand. Because it's really easy to say "the world is unfair", "the riches are controlling us" without asking to yourself why the world is like that and what does make all these things work.

In fact, I don't even have an opinion. But I hat the persons like you who are juste seeing one side of the problem and think their way is the best. You just hide yourself behind some poverty stuff without saying anything technically concrete.


PS : And I don't see "what I am loosing", please light me on this point.

Nothing you even said makes any sense. If you don't have an opinion, why the fuck did you even comment? I'm done answering your drivel.

[Vlerchan]

It results in a lot of people thinking the exact same way, as opposed to forming new and innovative ideas that could improve society.
This is a product of the manner in which elections are organised, in-line with the median voter theorem. Parties are broad sets of interest groups, and there's lots of disagreement within them. However, in the short-run, parties are locked into selecting candidates that appeal to the median voter. But, in the long-run people within parties can attempt to shift the median voter to be more reciprocal to their exact interests.

So innovation occurs, it just tends to be either slow, or in response to shocks.

It's also better for people to form up into interest groups that might not be most reciprocal to their exact interests than otherwise. Because, it's better for some amount of someone's interests to be heard, than none. This also helps explain the large amount of identification towards parties within the US.

[Karkat]

This is a product of the manner in which elections are organised, in-line with the median voter theorem. Parties are broad sets of interest groups, and there's lots of disagreement within them. However, in the short-run, parties are locked into selecting candidates that appeal to the median voter. But, in the long-run people within parties can attempt to shift the median voter to be more reciprocal to their exact interests.

So innovation occurs, it just tends to be either slow, or in response to shocks.

It's also better for people to form up into interest groups that might not be most reciprocal to their exact interests than otherwise. Because, it's better for some amount of someone's interests to be heard, than none. This also helps explain the large amount of identification towards parties within the US.

You're the only person on this subforum that ever makes any sense.

Like look, a dissenting opinion that isn't condescending or confusing. It is actually perfectly logical, and while the matter at hand still bothers me, I actually see your point.

[maggs]

I think they are necessary for "democratic" countries, buuut, I don't like any political parties, the just divide people and are full of @$$holes that only want money and power.

That's my opinion.

[dxcxdzv]

Nothing you even said makes any sense. If you don't have an opinion, why the fuck did you even comment? I'm done answering your drivel.
If it's your way to say "I don't know what to answer" ok then.
I don't have an opinion because in fact I clearly see what you think, in fact, it's extremely previsible.
You don't see the problem on a scientific point of view, your way of thinking is just ridiculous. It's restricted by certain ideas and a way to see the world.
But sorry, I will not agree with any ideology, because when you've got something to think about you analyze it and find an objective solution. Which neither capitalism nor socialism do.

And I'm sorry that the "you should read Marx in order to make yourself a proper opinion" doesn't make any sense. I'm not telling you to read 30 economic books in order to know what you are criticizing. I just recommend you to read the person who fits the most with your thoughts.

The next time you want to talk about capitalism&socialism&all that shit, please, have better arguments than "Riches are controlling us" and "what you're saying doesn't make any sense".

[ndrwmxwll]

maybe it is political parties thats unnecessary :)

[dxcxdzv]

maybe it is political parties thats unnecessary :)
You mean China had the answer from the beginning?

[lliam]

I do believe that the political party system of the most active democracies is an outdated model in the history of democracy.

I prefer direct democracy in which citizens are directly involved in political decision-making processes ( or progress? ).

I guess, I contradict myself (1st paragraph) when I say that the time for such a democracy is unfortunately still far from being to be realized. Especially in countries with a high density of population, ethnic and cultural diversity, this should be difficult to achieve.

[Microcosm]

I do believe that the political party system of the most active democracies is an outdated model in the history of democracy.

I prefer direct democracy in which citizens are directly involved in political decision-making processes ( or progress? ).

I guess, I contradict myself (1st paragraph) when I say that the time for such a democracy is unfortunately still far from being to be realized. Especially in countries with a high density of population, ethnic and cultural diversity, this should be difficult to achieve.

Not to mention people wouldn't give a shit about most things they're voting on.

The vast majority would know nothing about the situation and just vote on a whim. It'd be a disaster.

maybe it is political parties thats unnecessary :)

PUT ALL THE COMMIE DEMOCRAT GUN-STEALERS IN AN ELECTRIC FENCE.

Asserting that everyone else is wrong is a great way to run a government.

[phuckphace]

http://i.imgur.com/UUiz3uD.jpg

something like this? (at first I couldn't tell if it was a Landsgemeinde or an NSDAP rally)

Switzerland can, obviously. other countries like the US are a lost cause and need a benevolent Saddam Hussein to keep them in line. someone like me :3

[lliam]

Not to mention people wouldn't give a shit about most things they're voting on.

merde ... I really forgot these folks.

In Germany we call them Wahlverweigerer and Politikverdrossene ... means

Politikverdrossene - dudes who see no sense in politics and they think politics is more likely superfluous.

Wahlverweigerer - idk .. choice holdouts or so, folks who give up their right to vote in protest, because they feel themselves no more represented by any political party.

I think that's a dangerous tactic, because Germany's history of the last hundred years precisely proves, how quickly democracy can be replaced by a totalitarian regime when citizens no longer seeing any sense in democracy.

Nazis are no longer relevant in this country, but it need not always Nazis, to catapult a country politically back into the deepest Mesozoic Era.

[ndrwmxwll]

PUT ALL THE COMMIE DEMOCRAT GUN-STEALERS IN AN ELECTRIC FENCE.

electric fences or the like are for fascists et al

Asserting that everyone else is wrong is a great way to run a government.

i dont see any ideology as being "right/wrong" per se, but assertions are democratic

[Scott10111]

Nice point

[Miserabilia]

Well it depends. Most countries don't have such a polarized system as the USA, but many parties. That usualy involves the end result being a very mediocre mix of the most mediocre parties, so it may feel like government never really changes; but atleast then everyone feels represented in the government. In the USA you have to "pick a side' in order to feel represented in your government.

[lliam]

so it may feel like government never really changes; but atleast then everyone feels represented in the government.

... tt May. But it fades more and more, i guess.