Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

What if we did this?

Abolish political parties and their affiliations. Elect individuals based on their INDIVIDUAL character and beliefs. Let Ms. No-Name and Mr. Everyman have a chance to be elected. Actually LISTEN to what they have to say, what they plan to do, and how they want to do it. Leave out the dem/repub/libertarian labels.

Basically, treat candidates like they are interviewing for a job - which is just exactly what they are doing.
Do you think that would change how America is governed?

Answer Question

Asked by plylerjones at 8:06 AM on Apr. 2, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 11 (508 Credits)
Answers (22)
  • I like the way you think! I also would add... every one who wants to run for office should be given a lie detector test. Not necessarily to see if he/she is lying about something specific, but to see if they are a liar at all!

    Answer by my4lads at 8:24 AM on Apr. 2, 2009

  • I think it would change the way America was governed, to a point. People will still form alliances to get agenda passed and then eventually we would be back to parties...

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 8:25 AM on Apr. 2, 2009

  • That would be wonderful and to go along with it, I think everyone should have to take a political quiz before they go in the voting booth. If you pass you can vote, if you don't you can't. The only thing worse than not voting is voting when you haven't got a clue what's going on.

    Answer by Dawn4175 at 8:27 AM on Apr. 2, 2009

  • i agree dawn4175... I told DH during the past election that after people voted they had to give 5 good political points why they voted for the person they did and 5 political points why they didn't vote for the other canidate or their votes should be tossed out... Also I think that people should leave out what party the can't tell you how many times I heard 'well he's ____ party so I'm going to vote for him.. People need to take voting more seriously it's almost as if they think it' better to vote when they don't fully understand who or what they are voting for then it is to just not vote and screw it up

    Answer by theheartbaby at 8:47 AM on Apr. 2, 2009

  • It's idyllic. Do you know this country was not founded with political parties. IN fact, most (if not all) the founding fathers were adamantly AGAINST them. Yet as people began finding themselves on "sides" of an issue, party affiliations began. Read a bio on John Adams or a book on the Election of 1800. There's a case to be made that Adams lost his re-election bid BECAUSE he did not embrace the political party he was considered aligned with. His refusal to play nice and do as Hamilton and the Federalist wanted simply because they were of the same party pitted the Federalist party (of which Adam was technically speaking a part of) against him in campaign efforts. Hamilton and his ilk heavily campaigned against Adams in favor of Thomas Pickney. You can read about it on web sites like this: or in pile of books focused specifically on the Election of 1800. (cont)

    Answer by ldmrmom at 8:53 AM on Apr. 2, 2009

  • (cont) George Washington is the only President who could defy party affiliation and still be successful in a campaign. Even he ended up pushed and prodded to pursue certain courses of action based on party positions.

    Answer by ldmrmom at 8:55 AM on Apr. 2, 2009

  • I think we should pay politicians once a year after April 15. From Jan 1 thru April 15, a tax assessor's dept. should see what their taxes should be and then pay them the rest, rather than paying them twice a month and letting them file on their own. We should have the deficit down in 5 years minimum.

    Answer by Anonymous at 8:58 AM on Apr. 2, 2009

  • While I agree with the sentiment behind removing political parties, it would be nearly impossible to do. So much of the campaign funding comes from political parties. Candidates would be hard pressed to voluntarily remove themselves from that money. And you couldn't force them to do it, the law would never get passed.

    As for "testing" people at the polls, that is unconstitutional, unfair and discriminatory. You will have people screaming Jim Crow from the rooftops if you tried.

    Answer by Imaginaryfriend at 9:07 AM on Apr. 2, 2009

  • I think all politicians should be paid a flat $100,000/year and NO MORE. That would put them at the top of the middle class the way THEY count it, (Upper class the way the rest of us look at it!)and they should be limited to 2 terms only, the way the President is. And no lifetime pensions afterwards, They do the job, get paid and leave, then they can take back their old jobs or get a new one, whatever. Political jobs were started as PUBLIC SERVICE and have evolved into lifetime sinecures for fat old geezers who do nothing for anybody but sit there and guzzle at the public trough. If they don't do their job at any time during the 2 terms they should be easy to fire and replace with someone who will do the will of the people, READ the documents they sign, and so forth.

    Answer by Anonymous at 9:12 AM on Apr. 2, 2009

  • Term limits is an interesting concept. I had a professor once describe it like this:

    It's the person standing there with a Twinkie in one hand and the other hand holding off the offending food by pushing back on the wrist as he yells "No! Stop! Don't make me eat it!"

    If people would just stop voting for lifetime politicians and vote based on record and responsibility we wouldn't need limits. The populous seems to think "two terms is enough" for everyone EXCEPT the guy or gal THEY keep voting back into office.

    Answer by Anonymous at 9:17 AM on Apr. 2, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.