Would You Support a No-Party System?

Great question. I don't see it currently being close to a reality though.

Me neither Dan.

It would be hard to do # 1. Even in science fiction movies it's hard to track everybody down.

It's hard to do # 4. Mom thinks it's a sin.

no. I want to rock and roll all night and party eva-re DAY

The system we have now is not working very well because the two parties keep trying so hard to be different from each other that there is hardly any common ground left. They vote along straight party lines which means nothing passes because we have a fairly even split in both houses.
Not sure how a no party system would accomplish your list, but at least it might accomplish something!

our lil system is a fraud folks..they are all in on it with the exception of a couple candidates. Our system has been turned into a system of keeping the population divided and dumb, and its collapsing slowly but surely.

Shari it would accomplish just that. No more voting for something just because it is part of the dem or repub doctrine....because their would be no dem or repub parties. Just people running for office with their own ideas and policies.

Thanks Peter.

Christopher....Gene Simmons would be proud of you....LOL

True I hope so.

Lori,

Have difficulty seeing how a no partly system would work on a national level. It takes organization to both run a campaign and raise money to fund a campaign. Political parties at least provide a starting point for developing organizations for the various candidates. Without them only the wealthy and special interests groups would have the money to begin building individual campaign organizations that are needed to run national and even state-wide campaigns.

Rather than a no party system, I think that the majority of Democrats and Republicans need to regain control of their respective parties and reduce to the degree to which the selection of candidates is dictated by either extreme. If we can do this then voters may have a chance of choosing between two good candidates whose views reflect those of the majority of the population rather than being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

As for you list, I doubt that even with no parties all of the items on your list would come to pass, and selecting candidates on the basis of one issue leaves us at the mercy of the those candidates when it come to resolving other issues.

Lori, you are assuming that everyone agrees with your list and a non-partisan candidate would agree with you. Some of those issues would create a divide, even if the candidates weren't tied to a party. We could certainly use an independent or third party to try to find some middle ground in this country. Maybe not the issues you list, but somewhere there has to be some consensus.

I gave you a 10. You did mean only citizens.

Many countries have proportional representation or instant run-off voting; puts the parties in their place.

Our founding fathers warned about creating political parties.

Shari that is my list....if you dont like it make your own. I am not the president so my opinion and my ideals dont matter to anyone but me. Ok

Ron ironic isnt it.

Gosh Carol I am sooo surprised you dont agree with me. You are entitled to your opinion.


Thanks Kate and Jean.

Maybe an effective multi-party system would be better than a no-party system. As things stand now its always and either / or choice that comes down to the "less unsatisfactory" of the two.

Of course, the drawback to that is that it would increase the amount of horse-trading that goes on in Congress. Here in Japan there are two main parties and lots of minor parties, but the minor parties always end up aligning themselves more or less on every isssue with the same major party. Only very occasionally does a minor party break with its ally on some issue. It ends up almost the same as having two parties after all.

Forgot to give you points

Jim thanks. The problem I see with the present system is you are either a dem or repub or you have no chance of being elected. There are some exceptions....like Jesse Ventura but those are few and far between.

I am neither all dem nor all repub. I support different issues from both sides. Wouldnt it be nice to just have candidates that stood for the people and didnt support one party. They would be able to come out and say and do what they wanted without the party back lash.

Thanks Kathleen..yes 1 and 4 would be hard but not impossible.

Yes, I agree, it would be nice if we could have a system like that. To quote one of Don Henley's songs, "Now it all comes down to numbers . . . .

How about simply adding "None of the Above" to all ballots? If None wins, then we do it again with none of the original candidates.

Regardless of party affiliation, the dynamic of campaigns and political discourse will change if a majority can cull the unlikable choices.

PS: As for #4, for millennium people got married without permission slips from the government. Get the government out of the marriage licensing business and all that angst goes away.

L S right on.

Jim I am a Don Henley fan too. Music is very prolific sometimes.

Partly as a result of reading this posting and all the responses, I posted my own question last night: If you wanted to write-in a candidate, would it be possible in your state?

I vote absentee in Hawaii. It's a paper ballot with plenty of white space, but no designated area for a write-in. I'm afraid I dont know the election laws in Hawaii, though, so I don't know whether a write-in would be counted or invalidated. What's more, I don't know whether it would invalidate my votes on all the other offices up for election at the same time.

I agree, I would love for it to happen I just don't see it happening any time soon.

LOL Where our friends live their kids are now taking Winter Break. Just like it use to be Easter Vacation (back in the day) it's now Spring Break.

In Illinois, they used to make it all but impossible. A single spelling error would disqualify the vote. What that means, if you wrote "for 10th congressional district, George Washington" instead of the correct spelling "for tenth congressional district, George Washington", your vote would be disqualified.

Now, there is a write-in space after each office (so you can't get that wrong), but now, they require write-in candidates to register before the election (!) -- and you had best spell the name as they spell it. That means "James Earl Carter" will not count toward the guy who registered as "Jimmy Carter".

But wait! We're not done!!! The write-in candidate needs a minimum number of votes to win over the on-the-ballot candidates. I am not sure, but I think the number is 10 to 50 to 300 depending on the office. That means that a write-in with 9 votes will lose to an on-the-ballot candidate with 6 votes. That may not mean anything for gubernatorial contests, but it does mean something for library and school board races.

Thanks, LS. this is the kind of answer i was sort of expecting. I'll bet it's the same wherever write-ins are "allowed" -- put so many obstacles in the path that it becomes virtually impossible. Of course, I can understand reasons why, but that doesn't help.

Lori, I agree, the bi-partisan system is tearing our nation apart. We are spending billions of dollars to choose candidates that no one is happy with. I just don't see how to get it stopped. I'm seeing the beginning of the end for the United States and it is
very upsetting.