I mean, who would think that independent branches of governments would WILLINGLY cede their power to other branches of government?
Anyone with any sense?
This is how political parties work. And, the “founding fathers” were aware of it too. They just thought that somehow the US was special and would magically avoid this problem.
There’s a difference between voting in a block, and literally passing/interpreting legislation to expand powers of another branch at the expense of your own.
If you vote in a block, you still have your vote. If you pass laws saying actually you can do whatever you want without a law saying you can, you just took your own vote out of the equation.
There’s a difference between voting in a block, and literally passing/interesting legislation to expand powers of another branch at the expense of your own.
Not really. As soon as people are told they have to vote for what the party wants instead of each person individually voting as they believe, then it’s just a matter of where you draw the line. If your party’s leader is president then why wouldn’t you just fall in line and pass everything he wants. If you’re a judge and your party’s president is in office, why wouldn’t you try to find legal justification for everything he wants. Why should there be party infighting between the president and the head of the house? Surely the house should just fall in line and let the President get his agenda passed.
Because parties change power? And you end up setting precedent that is used against you? Not to mention the voting part is literally part of the job they are paid and elected to do?
This is how political parties work. And, the “founding fathers” were aware of it too. They just thought that somehow the US was special and would magically avoid this problem.
Well at least one of them tried to argue against having political parties in order to avoid this problem
The problem is that eliminating political parties is literally impossible. You can’t prevent like-minded people from working together and combining resources to achieve a common goal, and that’s all a political party is.
The problem isn’t political parties. Those are inevitable. The problem is that they structured a system that essentially only allows for two of them to be viable at any given time.
There’s a world where it would help immensely as it would prevent people from just blindly party-line voting up and down the ticket and may force people to start actually researching the people they’re voting for.
But there’s also a world where voters will continue to not care and essentially just make choices at random, causing our entire election system to become a glorified roll of the dice.
My fear is that reality would lean more towards the latter than the former.
Anyone with any sense?
This is how political parties work. And, the “founding fathers” were aware of it too. They just thought that somehow the US was special and would magically avoid this problem.
There’s a difference between voting in a block, and literally passing/interpreting legislation to expand powers of another branch at the expense of your own.
If you vote in a block, you still have your vote. If you pass laws saying actually you can do whatever you want without a law saying you can, you just took your own vote out of the equation.
Not really. As soon as people are told they have to vote for what the party wants instead of each person individually voting as they believe, then it’s just a matter of where you draw the line. If your party’s leader is president then why wouldn’t you just fall in line and pass everything he wants. If you’re a judge and your party’s president is in office, why wouldn’t you try to find legal justification for everything he wants. Why should there be party infighting between the president and the head of the house? Surely the house should just fall in line and let the President get his agenda passed.
Because parties change power? And you end up setting precedent that is used against you? Not to mention the voting part is literally part of the job they are paid and elected to do?
So what? You can wait until the next election and undo whatever they did. Or you can use your power to adjust the system so your opponents can’t win.
Well at least one of them tried to argue against having political parties in order to avoid this problem
The problem is that eliminating political parties is literally impossible. You can’t prevent like-minded people from working together and combining resources to achieve a common goal, and that’s all a political party is.
The problem isn’t political parties. Those are inevitable. The problem is that they structured a system that essentially only allows for two of them to be viable at any given time.
While you can’t actually get rid of parties themselves, I really think taking them off the ballots would help immensly
Maybe, maybe not.
There’s a world where it would help immensely as it would prevent people from just blindly party-line voting up and down the ticket and may force people to start actually researching the people they’re voting for.
But there’s also a world where voters will continue to not care and essentially just make choices at random, causing our entire election system to become a glorified roll of the dice.
My fear is that reality would lean more towards the latter than the former.
I think the latter would still be an improvement, though not as much of one as I’d like
It would lead to too much instability. It would also lead to good politicians getting ousted because they randomly lost re-election.
deleted by creator