political party question

[HouseofWool]

As I sit here looking at who divide we are as a country, I can't help but think that our current 2 party system only makes the problem worse.

For this entire election cycle, I've been wondering what the purpose of the parties really is? Besides giving someone a recognized label and being able to funnel money into a campaign, what is the purpose of the parties? (This isn't meant to be flip - and I fully admit to being politically ignorant. Sadly, much of my political knowledge starts here on iMSN.)

[PrincessFiona]

I've been thinking a lot about that too, Kris. I didn't actually vote for one of the major parties this time around. Our two party system has become so polarized. Imagine what it would be like if there were election spending limits, everyone got the exact same amount of commercial time (limited) and if all parties were represented in the "fight for the white house". What if the government also even had to be composed of equal percentages of those elected from each party on election night? Would we get more done as a country? I don't know.

I'm just struck this cycle by how much money was burned in the name of ... the same. At the end of the day, politically things did not change much. That money could have been more useful at helping people hit by disasters like Sandy, or might have been thrown into social security, medicare or ... how about at the national debt? It seems so wasteful to me.

Kris

[HouseofWool]

First and foremost, I think doing away with PACs would limit campaign spending. But I am so frustrated by the fact that third party candidates don't have a real opportunity to hold a major office. I'm not sure how to level the field so that the Greens or Independents have a shot against Republicans or Democrats. And THIS is what makes me angry. The fact that by voting for a Green (which is what tends to align most closely with my belief system) I really feel like it is the same as not voting at all.

Would having an all or nothing vote in November, with no primary (thereby abolishing the conventions) help? In other countries, it isn't uncommon to have 10 or more candidates on the ballot. Why do we have to narrow it down to 2 people? Does the Constitution specify this? (Again, letting my ignorance hang out there for all to see.)

[PrincessFiona]

I hope you voted for a woman for president and vice president then!

My kids only learned about the two political parties in school.

They all 'voted' and came home and asked me who I voted for. When I told them, the responses were "who?" and "what? I can't even talk to you!" LOL That's ok. They had no idea that there even were other parties on the ballot.

Oooh...and my 13 year old deviated from the 'family vote' (my husband's ... hmmm, how did that happen?) while the other 4 fell into lockstep with him. Interesting dynamics and discussions!

If the influence of all ideas can not be felt within the political system, then it leaves the two major parties very polarized...and maybe it affects the gridlock. We need a balance of experiences, education and ideas to promote financial growth and change....my opinion of course.

[bobk]

I wrote a fairly lengthy post about this in another thread a while back (can't remember which one). The gist of it was that in a country as large and diverse as ours, these big national parties help bring about a consensus that many people can feel invested in. I get frustrated by the system too, however alternatives aren't necessarily more effective.

[GrayMatterWife]

This thread makes me think of the VP debate for the 2000 election. With Cheney and Lieberman. Does anyone else remember that? It was after the first Presidential debate, when GWB looked kinda cowboy and Gore looked like an arrogant jerk. Cheney and Lieberman, who actually agree on quite a bit, seemed poised, experienced, comfortable and actually answered the QUESTIONS instead of running off soundbites that were not even really responsive.

I remember turning to my husband during the VP debate and asking, "Could we just vote for the two of them? They seem like grown-ups."

Then, I swear, the NEXT day, all the papers were running articles about how much "gravitas" (remember when no one had ever heard of that word?) the two VP candidates had..and apparently a not-insignficant number of people had the exact same response to the VP debates that I did! Screw parties. Pick grown-ups.

[PrincessFiona]

I do remember.

Imagine how interesting it would also be to have a republican president and a democratic vice president.

[Pollyanna]

I vote issues that are important to me, my family, and what I feel is best for society as a whole. I'm not so concerned about parties. When we registered to vote here we didn't even have the option of selecting a party affiliation (but I am pretty thrilled about the republican super majority in our state house and senate).

[HouseofWool]

I wrote a fairly lengthy post about this in another thread a while back (can't remember which one). The gist of it was that in a country as large and diverse as ours, these big national parties help bring about a consensus that many people can feel invested in. I get frustrated by the system too, however alternatives aren't necessarily more effective.

I think that's an interesting point, but my gut reaction is just the opposite. I find that I pick the lesser of two bad choices with the large national parties. If there were more options to choose from, then I might be able to find a candidate I really support rather than voting for the one I dislike the least.

[diggitydot]

Truly, I don't have serious problems with major parties. I take issue with any one group, regardless of which party they belong, refusing to work on any legislation to deny "the other side" a win of some kind. Can we just leave that petty middle school bullshit out of this, please? We are all Americans. That's the "side" that matters.

[ladymoreta]

I agree with you 100%. You say it so much better than I can!