1
   

Ideal Party System

 
 
Caezius
 
Reply Sat 8 Aug, 2009 06:32 pm
In your opinion, what is the best party system to implement in a represntative democracy?

One Party System
Two Party System
Multi Party System (more than two)
No Party System

Please explain your answer as well, and I guess I'll go first:

In my opinion a nonpartisan government, or a no party system is the ideal form of government. Partisan politics do far more harm than good, especially when the political parties become so entrenched in their fight for power.

Political factions oversimplify complex issues, and systematically impose herd mentalities on all their members. That is to say, political factions cause the gradual erosion of individual thought and analysis. They produce partisans, or party patriots, people who xenophobically go against anything that does not represent the will of the party, ignoring the fact of whether or not it represents the best will of the State. Political parties stand on platforms of issues so specifically complex, that they can't possibly represent more than a handful of that nation's populace. In modern republics, partisanship plays a tremendous role in the functions of government, too large a role for such a destructive conglomeration to wield.

To truly see the destructive properties of political parties one must first understand why they were ever conceived in the first place. Political parties are created when like minded individuals who follow a similar ideology decide to form a gang that consists of even more individuals who share the same ideas. This is the way political parties grow in power, by growing in numbers. Eventually they broaden their ideological scope so much, that they often end up opposing many of their other member's core beliefs in their attempt to increase their member base. Within the inner workings of a political party, everything is done to increase their numbers because as is well known in democracy, majority rules. By increasing their member base they increase the chance that one of their members will hold an influential position, and through this position impose the party's will on the State, instead of the people's will on the State.

The goal for every political party is the attainment and maintenance of enough political power to successfully influence all functions of government, be it legislative, executive, or judicial. In short, every political faction vies for absolute control of government, nothing more than partisan totalitarianism. The only way to successfully beat back this monstrous practice, is through the creation of a nonpartisan republic, the soundest form of democracy there is.

So how do you feel about this subject?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,345 • Replies: 6
No top replies

 
William
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Aug, 2009 06:47 pm
@Caezius,
Caezius;81967 wrote:
In your opinion, what is the best party system to implement in a represntative democracy?

One Party System
Two Party System
Multi Party System (more than two)
No Party System

Please explain your answer as well, and I guess I'll go first:

In my opinion a nonpartisan government, or a no party system is the ideal form of government. Partisan politics do far more harm than good, especially when the political parties become so entrenched in their fight for power.

Political factions oversimplify complex issues, and systematically impose herd mentalities on all their members. That is to say, political factions cause the gradual erosion of individual thought and analysis. They produce partisans, or party patriots, people who xenophobically go against anything that does not represent the will of the party, ignoring the fact of whether or not it represents the best will of the State. Political parties stand on platforms of issues so specifically complex, that they can't possibly represent more than a handful of that nation's populace. In modern republics, partisanship plays a tremendous role in the functions of government, too large a role for such a destructive conglomeration to wield.

To truly see the destructive properties of political parties one must first understand why they were ever conceived in the first place. Political parties are created when like minded individuals who follow a similar ideology decide to form a gang that consists of even more individuals who share the same ideas. This is the way political parties grow in power, by growing in numbers. Eventually they broaden their ideological scope so much, that they often end up opposing many of their other member's core beliefs in their attempt to increase their member base. Within the inner workings of a political party, everything is done to increase their numbers because as is well known in democracy, majority rules. By increasing their member base they increase the chance that one of their members will hold an influential position, and through this position impose the party's will on the State, instead of the people's will on the State.

The goal for every political party is the attainment and maintenance of enough political power to successfully influence all functions of government, be it legislative, executive, or judicial. In short, every political faction vies for absolute control of government, nothing more than partisan totalitarianism. The only way to successfully beat back this monstrous practice, is through the creation of a nonpartisan republic, the soundest form of democracy there is.

So how do you feel about this subject?


You are talking about a benevolent dictatorship, are you not?:perplexed: By the way, welcome to this global ship.

William
0 Replies
 
Caezius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Aug, 2009 07:14 pm
@Caezius,
I wouldn't exactly call political parties benevolent, their intention maybe benevolent sure, but I don't measure them based on their intent, I do so based on their actions.

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronouned the very definition of tyranny."
-James Madison

Do you not agree with the above quote? If not, please explain why.
William
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Aug, 2009 08:00 pm
@Caezius,
Caezius;81977 wrote:
I wouldn't exactly call political parties benevolent, their intention maybe benevolent sure, but I don't measure them based on their intent, I do so based on their actions.

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronouned the very definition of tyranny."
-James Madison

Do you not agree with the above quote? If not, please explain why.


In that context, no.The only alternative is "every man for himself". How could you possibly imagine any kind of society remaining "civil" under such a construct be it national or global, if I am understanding you correctly?:perplexed:

William
Caezius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Aug, 2009 08:47 pm
@William,
William;81984 wrote:
In that context, no.The only alternative is "every man for himself". How could you possibly imagine any kind of society remaining "civil" under such a construct be it national or global, if I am understanding you correctly?:perplexed:

William


Before I answer your question, I must first ask you a few (to clarify a few things)

1. Are you saying that represntative democracy is impossible without some form of party system?

2. Are you saying that political parties are the only thing that keep society civil?

3. You say you disagree with the Madison quote in that context, so in another context do you see it bearing weight?

4. You say the only alternative is "every man for himself" but would you be in favor of such a system if this were not the case?
0 Replies
 
William
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 08:13 pm
@Caezius,
What I am saying is as long as the "power of monetary wealth" hides in the dark and pulls the strings no party system will work. Never has and never will. What you think is a democracy is a very cleverly disguised feudal system. The names have been changed to protect the guilty kings. Ha! Shades of Joe Friday.

William
Caezius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 09:55 am
@William,
William;83134 wrote:
What I am saying is as long as the "power of monetary wealth" hides in the dark and pulls the strings no party system will work. Never has and never will. What you think is a democracy is a very cleverly disguised feudal system. The names have been changed to protect the guilty kings. Ha! Shades of Joe Friday.

William


Well it seems we agree on something. You say in your post that no party system will work, and that's exactly my point. This is why there should be a "no-party system," otherwise known as nonpartisan democracy.

You go on to say that what I think is a democracy is instead a "very cleverly disguised feudal system." I'm not sure which democracy you think I'm thinking of, but it cannot be a nonpartisan democracy. If it is, explain to me how it is a feudal system.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ideal Party System
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/28/2022 at 09:19:54