Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Political Parties
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 13 (580525)
09-09-2010 4:41 PM


What are the benefits of political parties? Are such things detrimental to the successful operation of true democracy (representation of the people by those elected by the people acting in the best interests of the people)? Should the formation of political parties be outlawed? When a representative swears to uphold the interests of the people yet aligns themself with (and works for) only a fraction of the people regarded collectively as a 'party', do they go against their representational duties and rightly-so forfeit their capacities to act on behalf of all the people?
Why do we still use these silly things? Or, am I just mistaken on their function and benefits?
Jon

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can\'t..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2010 4:48 PM Jon has replied
 Message 7 by DavidOH, posted 09-13-2010 12:15 PM Jon has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 13 (580527)
09-09-2010 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
09-09-2010 4:41 PM


What are the benefits of political parties?
Fundraising and consensus-building.
When a representative swears to uphold the interests of the people yet aligns themself with (and works for) only a fraction of the people regarded collectively as a 'party',
I don't get the sense that any elected officials in the United States see themselves as "working only for the people of their party." Republican or Democrat I think that elected officials see the purpose of their office as one where they represent and govern on behalf of their entire constituency, not just the ones that voted for them (or are going to.)
I don't think Barack Obama considers himself only President of the Democrats.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 09-09-2010 4:41 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 09-09-2010 5:06 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 09-09-2010 6:07 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 13 (580528)
09-09-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
09-09-2010 4:48 PM


The Difference: Thinking and Doing
All representatives have the power to represent the entire constituency, but do all work for what is really in that constituency's best interest or just for what is in the best interest of their party? They may represent everyone, but that does not mean they act on behalf of everyone's interests.
I don't get the sense that any elected officials in the United States see themselves as "working only for the people of their party." Republican or Democrat I think that elected officials see the purpose of their office as one where they represent and govern on behalf of their entire constituency, not just the ones that voted for them (or are going to.)
I don't think Barack Obama considers himself only President of the Democrats.
What they think they're doing is different from what they actually do. If political parties allow to form a disconnect between these two things, then their value is negative and they should be gotten rid of.
Jon

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2010 4:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2010 5:24 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 8 by frako, posted 09-13-2010 1:58 PM Jon has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 13 (580529)
09-09-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jon
09-09-2010 5:06 PM


Re: The Difference: Thinking and Doing
They may represent everyone, but that does not mean they act on behalf of everyone's interests.
It's not possible to act on behalf of the interests of an entire group of people that, among themselves, have dozens of competing interests. Ultimately you're going to have to either ignore those competitions entirely or take a side with one faction.
What they think they're doing is different from what they actually do.
I don't think Barack Obama has acted like President of Just Democrats, either. He hasn't done Republican stuff (well, except that he has, I guess) but that's not what he was elected to do. He was elected to enact the Democratic agenda, but the benefits of that agenda don't apply just to Democrats.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 09-09-2010 5:06 PM Jon has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 5 of 13 (580534)
09-09-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
09-09-2010 4:48 PM


You ain't from Texas, are ya, Frog? Our Rethuglicans down here sure don't think that way.....
Humor:
Two old ladies, Louise and Mabel, were out for a Sunday afternoon drive when they saw two young men ferociously masturbating under a tree in a pasture. After a very quiet moment, Mabel asked, "Louise, did you see those two Democrats jackin' off in that field?" Louise said, "Mabel!! That is such a vulgar expression! But yes, I did see those two perverted men abusing themselves. What on Earth, though, makes you think they are Democrats?" Mabel answered, " Well, Louise, if they'da been Republicans they'da been fuckin' somebody else!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2010 4:48 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Omnivorous, posted 09-09-2010 6:55 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 6 of 13 (580539)
09-09-2010 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coragyps
09-09-2010 6:07 PM


That ain't humor, that's a full blown parable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 09-09-2010 6:07 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
DavidOH
Junior Member (Idle past 4455 days)
Posts: 11
From: Cincinnati, OH, USA
Joined: 09-12-2008


Message 7 of 13 (581073)
09-13-2010 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
09-09-2010 4:41 PM


Point of view
I think that the politicians would say they are always working on behalf of their full constituency. If you ask most people about particular actions, the people would say that the policitian is working for the party or a special interest.
My opinion is that the politician is obviously working for the party when the party leadership threatens/influences members of Congress to vote the "party line." The parties can deny Representatives committee leadership positions, campaign support, etc.
Another obvious situation is when one politician campaigns on behalf of another.
I love the concept of campaigning for office. I would love to be paid by my current employer to interview, etc. for my next, better paying job. How well did Senators Biden, McCain, and Obama and Governor Palin represent their constituents while traveling the country campaigning & fund raising?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 09-09-2010 4:41 PM Jon has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 8 of 13 (581083)
09-13-2010 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jon
09-09-2010 5:06 PM


Re: The Difference: Thinking and Doing
i think things could be made better and simpler if a polititian acts against the interests of the people say laundering money stealing money making it easier for the rich to get richer and the poor to get porer he should be tried for treason and hung or shot. if this where implemented the parties in power would not hold so much power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 09-09-2010 5:06 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 09-13-2010 2:04 PM frako has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 9 of 13 (581085)
09-13-2010 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by frako
09-13-2010 1:58 PM


Re: The Difference: Thinking and Doing
if this where implemented the parties in power would not hold so much power.
The parties in power make all the rules.
I would guess they wouldn't be in favor of this.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by frako, posted 09-13-2010 1:58 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by frako, posted 09-13-2010 2:14 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 13 by onifre, posted 09-14-2010 4:45 PM Coyote has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 10 of 13 (581086)
09-13-2010 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coyote
09-13-2010 2:04 PM


Re: The Difference: Thinking and Doing
i know tough in my country it could probably be done witout the support from a party by means of a referendum 4000 signatures to get the support from the state to gather 40 000 signatures and after that the peopole would decide, there is a loop hole in this though cause tis would mean they only haveto debate the law and then decide to pass it or not but if a high enough % of the people would wote on the referendum and a high number in favor of it 80% and above it would mean politicale suecide not to pass the law, so they would probably send it to the high court where they would say its not constitutional so the politicians could wash their hands from the proposal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 09-13-2010 2:04 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by caffeine, posted 09-14-2010 3:28 AM frako has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 11 of 13 (581164)
09-14-2010 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by frako
09-13-2010 2:14 PM


Re: The Difference: Thinking and Doing
What law are you actually proposing though? I think it's probably alredy illegal to steal and launder money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by frako, posted 09-13-2010 2:14 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by frako, posted 09-14-2010 6:14 AM caffeine has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 12 of 13 (581165)
09-14-2010 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by caffeine
09-14-2010 3:28 AM


Re: The Difference: Thinking and Doing
it is ilegal but i would propose that it would be considerd treason if a politician di it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by caffeine, posted 09-14-2010 3:28 AM caffeine has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 13 of 13 (581224)
09-14-2010 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coyote
09-13-2010 2:04 PM


Re: The Difference: Thinking and Doing
The parties in power make all the rules.
The class in power makes all the rules.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 09-13-2010 2:04 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024