How do you relate to either party?

[legion]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

There is no provision whatsoever for political parties in the Constitution. As such, I fail to see how they're allowed to dictate so much of what happens in government and particularly with respect to elections. Abolishing these "machines" would be a great populist first step in regaining control of government, although I've pretty much given up hope of that ever happening in the USA.

The Constitution was designed assuming that each state would act much like political parties do today. The framers fully expected to have 13 candidates for president (one from each of the 13 original states). Much of their effort was put into how to choose one of those as president without alienating the other 12 states. And what happened? Political parties formed that reached across state lines. Mostof the framers concerns never materialized, and we have a Constitution that is ill-prepared to deal with what has pretty much been the political reality in this country (that the political parties run the show).

[frogger]

I never have heard of the assumption you stated above. Any reference(s) for that?

[legion]

Originally Posted by frogger

I never have heard of the assumption you stated above. Any reference(s) for that?

Fair question, but no.

It was something one of my college history professors asserted and I pretty much took as truth. I have no idea if this was something that he thought up or read elsewhere.

[Zeke]

Sounds like a pretty good idea if there are 13 states, not 50. We better keep moving forward, not back into the 18th century.

[mikester]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Why do we need to relate to either party?

I vote issues & candidates, not parties. Never have. Lifelong independent.

However, as time goes on I find myself increasingly more and more aligned with the Republican platform (in general) than the Democratic one. That's not to say there isn't plenty about the Republicans that disgusts me - there is.

There is no provision whatsoever for political parties in the Constitution. As such, I fail to see how they're allowed to dictate so much of what happens in government and particularly with respect to elections. Abolishing these "machines" would be a great populist first step in regaining control of government, although I've pretty much given up hope of that ever happening in the USA.

The political parties we have today to me are like Unions for voters. They all get together and try to get as much of what those who are active want. The folks who are not active or not a member can take a hike.

It stands to reason that folks with like desires would organize but with our two party system each party is made of members who have very dissimilar desires.

For example; neither party can say they are both 100% against abortion - they both have significant numbers in either direction. I don't believe we will ever be able to totally agree on that one.

Still, if a political candidate is a member of a party then he basically has some interest in that party and at some point will "tow the party line" on some topic instead of voting for his constituent's best interests. So, that is why it matters to me to some extent what party they are in. These days however it seems that neither party could be labeled "conservative."

[bivenator]

Much to my dismay, I am completely and utterly finished with the 2 party system. I am neither Rep or Dem and have always voted issues. Now with my vote, I will cast only for a third party candidate. I know that they will not be elected but if enough groundswell support for a viable alternative is shown, maybe in my lifetime a third party will emerge.
Call me disenfranchised.

[the]

Originally Posted by rammstein

What is his stance on gay marriage?

Wide.

[p911dad]

Me?, I am going to my boss's big Christmas party, that is a must go to party! Lots of good stuff, big manhattans and french wine. Huge shrimp and a monster standing rib roast. And a designated driver(wife) to boot!!

[David]

If the Republican party was really about small federal gov't and states rights and not about legislating morality, I'd be a Republican.

The simple fact that they want to outlaw a woman's right to make decisions affecting their body keeps me from voting Republican. Then along comes pro-choice Rudy. I could vote for him.

[frogger]

Repub party for small federal government? I can barely remember those days.

[Nathans_Dad]

I'm pretty unhappy with the Republican party right now, they have made a whole lot of major errors in the past few decades.

When it comes down to it though, I just cannot at all bring myself to support how far left the Democrats have become. I guess it's sorta the least of two evils for me.

[tabs]

Both political parties represent the status quo. Nobody gets to be President that represents change.

[sammyg2]

The concept that two opposing parties with different agendas will balance out was on purpose and by design.
it'd detailed in the federalist papers. It is intended to handcuff the politicians to a certain extent preventing then from making too much change. Only when the change is so necessary that both parties want it and support it will a fast and easy change be made.

I'm a republican.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by legion

The Constitution was designed assuming that each state would act much like political parties do today. The framers fully expected to have 13 candidates for president (one from each of the 13 original states). Much of their effort was put into how to choose one of those as president without alienating the other 12 states. And what happened? Political parties formed that reached across state lines. Mostof the framers concerns never materialized, and we have a Constitution that is ill-prepared to deal with what has pretty much been the political reality in this country (that the political parties run the show).

I disagree. The 12th amendment screwed it up. The initial system was a general free for all with President going to the one with the most votes and VP going to the one with the 2nd greatest total. This ensured that the VP would be an automatic opposition to the sitting president. Presidents couldn't count on the VP to work with them. The 12th amendment put the 2 together on the ballot, and this ENSURED that the party was what you were voting for, not the men. Remember how a ticket used to be "balanced" by the VP? Northern Industrialist balanced by a Southern plantation owner?

I would like to see the repeal of the 12th amendment and go back to the free for all.

[frogger]

Mud wrestling for President. What a concept. We would've had women Presidents from the get go.

[sammyg2]

In federalist papers, #76, Alexander Hamilton (one of the guys who designed and wrote the constitution) said:

The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In the first, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the suffrages of the party, will be more considered than those which fit the person for the station. In the last, the coalition will commonly turn upon some interested equivalent: "Give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that.'' This will be the usual condition of the bargain. And it will rarely happen that the advancement of the public service will be the primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations.

Basically he was advocating the two (or more) party system suggesting the the wants and needs of a party are more relavent than the wants and needs of a single man.
In order to satisfy a party, that single man would have to represent many instead of just himself.

Having opposing parties fighting it out was intentionally designed into our constitution and in the design of our government.