BtownVolvo Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 This is something I've been mulling around in my head for a while. The question is simple: What would the landscape of politics look like if there were no political parties? People instead just voted for people. Hypothetical example: Instead of seeing "Representative Smith (D-California) called for [blah]" it would be "Representative Smith called for [blah]" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 it would help keep the bat shit crazy people unelected. thats my i'm busy and not able to expand at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin. Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 I agree with Mike, lots of people vote for who they vote for "because I always vote X". On a related note, I personally think it's incredibly annoying when a senator is being introduced as their political party and that's all they focus on.... no designated political "parties" would be awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theForgottenone Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 In other country, they called it communist...................................... In honestly, that would make too much sense since neither party is truly represent what their name for or their original intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikS Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 If we were all blind there would be no racism. BOOM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 wrong, i could still hold a grudge because of that southern accent. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikS Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 wrong, i could still hold a grudge because of that southern accent. I have an eastern Washington accent. I assume you sound like Bill Cohwer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 Lol I'd go with no accent. I've lived in to many places to have picked up a twang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt b Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 Focus kids, focus. You annoy me both because you love spending your money. How's that ? A good friend will only vote Republican, regardless of the agenda and another only Democratic, because it's the parties they're affiliated with. I doubt they would vote for some of the people they voted for if there no parties. I don't see how it's communism. Wasn't the issue with communism the dogma and not the lack of party labels ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 If they didn't belong to a party I might actually take them seriously. Republicans to me = People who believe in a magic man in the sky and hang on to too old old of values. Democrats to me = Liberal hippies who secretly want soviet bear in their lives. And want no one to have rights so everyone has rights. /drunkpost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BtownVolvo Posted September 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 K. So the consensus thus far is it would be a utopian world. You gotta wonder if such was the case, what would right/left wing extremists be called?! Just extremists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 It sounds like you're specifically talking about magically getting rid of the two predominant parties, or at least their influence? A big reset? If so, I think parties would still form. You'd have to ban calling yourself anything or working with other people if you were trying to eliminate parties.If you're asking because you're frustrated by the limited choices, I don't think the people who vote strictly for D or R are the primary problem. It's the ones who consider their only choice to be the two major parties, and ignore the other choices because they feel it is a "wasted" vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsk8 Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 But seriously, I think Fudge Brownie nailed it in his first paragraph. The problem is greed, and no matter how you slice it, it's always going to be a problem. Call yourself a dem or a rep, and maybe you're honest, but the majority of it is a mask to push some other agenda. That's the reality of it. And if you change the name or even eliminate it, you'll still have the same thing. I think, if it isn't already, the entire world will soon be governed by big business, in the best interest of the almighty dollar. If they didn't belong to a party I might actually take them seriously. Republicans to me = People who believe in a magic man in the sky and hang on to too old old of values. Democrats to me = Liberal hippies who secretly want soviet bear in their lives. And want no one to have rights so everyone has rights. /drunkpost Drunk post or not, while I might word it differently I agree. And the politicians know this is basically what it boils down to, and those are the strings they pull on us to get our votes. (regardless of what they truly believe about the matters at hand). Sadly, that's honestly how I feel about it. There's really no R or D, just a corporate conglomerate looking to pad some pockets. I think if anything should be made illegal or get eliminated, it would (and should) be lobbying. But try to word that law w/out being a commie. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BtownVolvo Posted September 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 It sounds like you're specifically talking about magically getting rid of the two predominant parties, or at least their influence? A big reset? Not necessarily. I'm thinking if there were no way to affiliate with a party and instead was represented by what positions they stand for. It's silly to put yourself in one of two categories when you could differ from issue to issue. I think that's mainly my proposition. Like I said, this is purely a hypothetical and isn't even remotely feasible, just something I've been tossing around in my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikS Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 Not necessarily. I'm thinking if there were no way to affiliate with a party and instead was represented by what positions they stand for. It's silly to put yourself in one of two categories when you could differ from issue to issue. I think that's mainly my proposition. Like I said, this is purely a hypothetical and isn't even remotely feasible, just something I've been tossing around in my head. You watching the TX gubernatorial debate tonight? http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/30/final-debate-showdown-looms-dallas/ Not like she has a chance, but I'm sure she will be the more rational one in the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts