Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by TheSurvivingJesusTwin, Sep 13, 2015.
Would the country be better off if there were no political parties?
The answer is no. You are still left with the religious fanatics.
Factions will always exist
I think more shit would get done.
true, but it might be easier to find common ground on a greater number of issues. now no matter what the issue is it has to be opposed by half the country because there's no tolerance for cooperation about anything. if republicans have a good idea, it must be opposed by democrats. if democrats have a good idea, it must be opposed by republicans. so nothing gets done.
Some of the most prosperous times in our history have been when the president and congressional majority were from different parties. When that happens, only the shit that has to get done tends to get through the legislature. The party system and gridlock are not always a bad thing.
I think the greater problem is there is no centrist party and we are left with two groups that pander to the extreme and the center where most of the country is has to pick between two groups that don't speak to their opinions.
We would be better off if the parties didn't validate the fanatics.
I get that argument definitely, but It's been a looooong time since there's been the kind of cooperation you describe. I can barely remember it.
And I completely agree with your second paragraph. It's why I posed the question.
The Reagan Era worked well for prosperity and we had split parties.
there is only one political party currently
Exactly, that was 35 years ago.
the best thing we could do that would immediately fix 90% of our governmental problems is term limits.
good bye to the career elite self dealing ruling class that we created despite the warnings from our founding fathers.
we have the gub we deserve
This. They should also outlaw professional lobbying.
One thing at a time.
Yes, that's why Washington didn't belong to one.
We beep more not less. Not enough people are represented.
Maybe you're more in favor of having multiple parties with proportional representation like with the parliamentary system? It's what pretty much every other western democracy has.
There would be somewhat less ideology if you eliminate partisan primaries and general elections, but you cant stop corruption.
Example: Atlantic City, NJ has non-partisan Mayoral elections. Both Republican and Democratic Mayors, including a Black Republican, who would never have been elected as a Republican in a partisan election, were convicted of corruption.
Corruption is out of the scope of the matter. It's not going anywhere no matter what we do.
No. It wouldn't make a difference because whether you have an official political party or not, people will group into platforms that are nothing less than political parties.
Not only. All the same people we see aligned to the right and to the left would find themselves going for candidates that fall into the same category they do now. Candidates would look like NASCAR drivers and would have all sorts of logos identifying special interests they align with. In the end, we'd get the same old crap. Similarly minded would all caucus together once in office and it would be exactly what we have today.