3 ms·
The problem is political parties, more than voting systems. The best solution would be to ban them completely. Obviously in the US you can't do that in speech,
by yucky 4y ago
The problem is political parties, more than voting systems. The best solution would be to ban them completely.
Obviously in the US you can't do that in speech, so candidates can still publicly align themselves with others or on positions. But when you go to the ballot you should know who you're voting for and not base it on the D or R next to their name. Remove party affiliation from ballots and stop supporting the primary system and that would be an enormous improvement.
No wonder countries won't try it, party affiliation is their most effective means of controlling the narrative that keeps them in power.
- em-bee 4y agoexactly this. i have been making similar arguments here before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25031034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25031034 but i'd like to go even further and eventually eliminate candidates as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32267723 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32267723
- Ekaros 4y agoAffiliation is also what allows them to control members once they are elected. It is the tyranny of leadership. If you go away the group you get kicked out and lose your chance to affect things or get re-elected unless you are extremely popular. What the politician says or thinks doesn't matter at all. It only matters what the leadership of the party they are member thinks.
- landemva 4y ago> The problem is political parties ... ban them completely. Obviously in the US you can't do Political parties are creatures in the election laws of each State. The sections of State law which create (and then regulate) parties can be removed.
- krapp 4y agoBanning political parties would fall afoul of the First Amendment's protections of both free speech and association. You can possibly remove laws which create specific parties but you can't make creating political parties altogether illegal.
- yucky 4y agoAs stated in the above post, there is nothing in election law that requires political parties be recognized in elections. Government does not need to acknowledge political parties on ballots nor is there a requirement to assist with running primaries & caucuses. This doesn't run afoul of their free speech, Candidate A can still say they are buddies with Candidates B,C & D etc. But when people go to the polls, they shouldn't rely on gang colors to determine who to vote for. Names only.
- landemva 4y ago> there is nothing in election law that requires political parties be recognized in elections. State election law in Illinois and others disagree with you. I already posted Illinois. Look in your State laws for major/minor party, and they often set some % for the Governor race. I don't like the way it is coded, but that is the current law for the States I have researched. Political parties get special benefits which encompass keeping down the third parties or minor parties. It's not like a group of randos who play cards and got a bank account to write a check to rent the bingo hall - there are special benefits to the major political parties in the election laws.
- yucky 4y ago>State election law in Illinois and others disagree with you. I already posted Illinois. That's a good point about Illinois election law. I suppose if I were king for a day I would add an amendment to the US Constitution that specifically prevents this.
- krapp 4y ago>But when people go to the polls, they shouldn't rely on gang colors to determine who to vote for. Names only. They shouldn't, but they have an obvious right to if they want.