Should the US do away with the political party's and politicians just run for office to be given the chance to make a difference? Who really gives a shit who is Democrat or republican etc. , just get shit done or get the fuck out
I'm with you...I don't think it will ever happen though.
Not sure how this would work. You could officially ban parties, but people would still organize unofficially to promote an agenda/politician.
Instead, maybe we should let foreign nations elect our leaders. The people of Cameroon could elect the US president, and the people of the US could elect the president of Uruguay, and so forth. I think if you randomly assign who elects who, you could end up with some pretty interesting results. Also, all political campaigns are only allowed to run for one week, at the end of which is the election, and election day is a national holiday of whatever country is doing the electing, and whatever country is having its leader elected.
Post-avant-retro-demelodicized-electro-yodel-core is my jam.
The 2-party system worked for 200 years until campaign finance laws were relaxed and big money entered politics. Now, neither party represents the will of the people, just the will of special interests. Get money out of politics and the 2 party system will once again function well. Reverse Citizen's United, ban lobbyists, fund campaigns with public, not private funds, and get corporations and big banks out of politics, and we'll be a democracy again.
This seems like more of a Think Tank subject...
George Washington warned against political parties, as he tried to temper the growing divide between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. This obviously didn't work since the divide led to the formation of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties.
The parties change names and they even change alignments (the democrats used to be the far more right wing of the two existing parties), but the American political system nurtures a bipartisan system.
The United Kingdom and Canada have a parliamentary system that encourages a spectrum of political ideals. There is a much less "us vs them" mentality. People in a region vote for their representative that then represents them in parliament. We have a variety of parties, although due to the prevalent right vs left phenomenon sweeping the Western world, hence we are seeing certain parties "ally" to gain the upper hand. I won't even go into the ridiculousness of the electoral college since I think that the majority of Americans probably see how dumb that system is. It may have worked in the 18th century but it certainly doesn't translate to modern day.
Nonetheless, you have people choosing red or blue and creating a divide that continues to separate the nation when individuals are forced to choose between one of two options. Of course you have Gary Johnson, but if you know how your system works you could see that he is a useless, wasted option. Third parties in the US have only served to disrupt the bipartisan system that you have chosen as your template.
Theodore Roosevelt first did it when he wanted to fuck up Taft. (side note: it worked very well.) Ross Perot did it again and it cost Bush the election. (which led to changes in the requirements for participation in debates.)
And Bernie supporters flocked to Gary Johnson or Jill Stein to avoid voting for Hillary or Trump. Bernie could have run as an independent and cut the left wing vote in half. But he is a very intelligent person who knows how the system works. He saw the lesser of two evils and threw his support behind Hillary.
If anyone voted of Stein, your efforts would probably be better suited to chatting up the white girl in dreadlocks at your local Whole Foods, because you obviously haven't looked into how your political structure works. Protest votes may get you laid by the girl you work at the organic coffee shop in Seattle but you're just pissing in the wind when it comes to the world of politics.
The American political structure reminds me a lot of the later stages of Republican Rome. One faction would gain power and then annihilate the opposing faction. After a period of complacency, the other faction would gain power and do the same. I mean... there's less neck stabbing and more gerrymandering, but the same thing seems to be happening in the modern American political system.
Know your political system. And then think about what you want to achieve. Evaluate your options and make an informed decision. You are probably not going to change anything soon, so work within what is available to you. And pay more attention to to the midterm elections! You have a senate and a house of representatives. This is kind of like a parliamentary system, however if only 30% of the population votes, then you are destined to bow to the will of elderly white people (because...newsflash..those are the people voting.)
The first step however, is probably just admitting and accepting the fact that your system is probably not the most effective in the dissemination of ideas. Then maybe look at how other countries work and pick and choose the facets that you think would be beneficial to accept.
Damon I think you are missing the very point of the electoral college. The design is in and of itself another check and balance. The US is not and never has been a "democracy" it is a republic. The constitution would never been ratified if it allowed a strict majority of votes to choose the President. Even in the early days when Presidental powers were nowhere near those that are now accepted. In fact if congress would have done their job years ago and made the hard choice of accepting their responsibility we wouldn't have near the chaos we are now faced with. In truth it is not the two party system that caused our current predicament it is congresses desire to hold their jobs by never taking the responsility of performing their constitutional duties