It would be nice to see a total abolition of parties, in fact in most democratic constitutions the word 'party' is never mentioned.
People should vote for other people, not for parties.
Abolishing the formal definition of parties wouldnt help, because like-minded people would still team up and form de facto parties, so nothing substantial would change.
> People should vote for other people, not for parties.
In Germany, you have both. There are two votes, the first one is for people, the "direct candidates". The second is for the whole party, which again is represented by a list of candidates determined by in-party elections.
I would like to take this concept even one step further.
People should not vote for other people. They should vote for ideas and concepts.
Isn't that why parties were invented in the first place? I mean, at least in theory.
More parties can mean more extremes in parliament, and more coalitions that depends on making concessions to extremists.
It may be more democratic in theory, but in practice it does not push politics toward the center, but instead enables the extremist fringe.
We're ultimately going to converge against a leaderless system,
without parties, politicians and all that other nonsense. Technology
will eventually enable functioning anarchy, and we're just seeing
the start of it.
Problem there is that there is no such thing as a person who holds every single one of your views. By voting for the guy who, say, believes the internet should be hands off, you could also be voting for a guy who believes something like abortion is eeeeeevil, or that fiat money is bad, or that minorities should be marginalized, what have you.
Hence the voting for people, since you have to choose which of the pluses and minuses are more important to you.
: Best current example: The copyright industry and their increasingly
desperate death throes.
It's the worst example of party politics.
That doesn't keep people from de-facto running as party representatives, though. They can't put their party affiliation on the ballot, but they can say in their speeches which of the national parties they prefer, and parties can issue press releases explaining which of the candidates they support. So it tends towards a two-party, first-past-the-post situation.
If you have a proportional system, where you can more truly state your preferences yet have your vote count even if your first preference doesn't succeed, you end up with more diversity. Downsides include greater tendency for coalition governments and potentially less clear mandates for decisive governments.
This is a self fulfilling prophecy.
People should vote for third parties more often! The mainstream ones suck!
No way, and "waste" my vote? I'd rather hold my nose and pick someone who has a chance!
(6 months later, when the guy voted in is officially hated)
Man, people should vote for third parties more often, this guy is horrible..
And it's this conversation and line of thinking that ensures that (in the USA), it's the same old crap, day in and day out.
There's a saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results..