Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Political Parties are Dumb
Thread: Political Parties are Dumb This thread is 2 pages long: 1 2 · NEXT»
Gnomes2169
Gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted November 11, 2020 01:21 AM bonus applied by Corribus on 11 Nov 2020.

Political Parties are Dumb

So. Political parties are dumb. And I am piggybacking off of a post that Cor made in the VW, of all places, so that we can have a discussion in the OSM this subject in a place thatís typically a bit more serious.

So: Political parties in general should not be the be all and end all of an ideology. Heck, even political ideologies are little more than a label, an umbrella for people to stand under, or a cause to rally behind. Personally? Iím closer to a Social Democrat than anything else... but thatís not my entire ideology. I believe in the responsible use of firearms, and the right to own one for an individual even if the efficacy of the tool as a weapon of self-defense is questionable at best. I donít think that the state should endorse censoring extremist viewpoints, even if I can recognize that fascism is primarily spread through unfiltered and publicly proclaimed dangerous ultra-nationalism.

The umbrella of that ideology doesnít fully cover my beliefs, because it never could. Ideologies and parties are, primarily, about just one or two major issues, with the bigger and more broad ones dipping their toes into the pool of tangential or completely unrelated topics. Inevitably, a person should encounter situations where their umbrella doesnít stop other ideologies from wetting their feet. And thatís fine. Itís, in fact, healthy to have diverse thoughts, and to sometimes step out into the rain to truly understand how other people think, and how they come to hold the beliefs that they do.

Single issue political parties which understand and embrace this, I am fine with. They exist to try and champion an ideology that is threatened, or a cause that is underrepresented, in order to bring it to the public consciousness and increase awareness of an issue, which I can applaud. They are basically just advertisements for alternate umbrellas that you can use. The major problem, I feel, is those major political parties that attempt to appeal to everyone by attempting to tackle every major issue, because every party that does so also attempts to create a brand, to cast themselves as something to which you can belong and stay under to keep yourself dry. (Which, in this analogy, means that you never have to question your personal ideologies if you subscribe to these parties and just espouse their brand.) They try to build loyalty to the party, rather than any particular ideology. They try to tribalize their constituents, to turn them against people who affiliate with other political parties, or who actually hold to a firm, self-formed ideology.

And as their people give more into tribalism, the party becomes more extreme to make their constituents even more loyal to their brand. Itís a simple, rather insidious tactic, and it works. In the US, the amount of people who donít even think about ideology and just vote for the brand grows every year, and ever more violent individuals get bred as their parties change ideological disagreements into assaults upon the brand. People proclaiming constant, wide sweeping evils belonging to exclusively ďTHE LEFT-WING GLOBALISTSĒ(tm) or ďTHE RIGHT WING FACISTSĒ(tm) are either active sellers of these brands, or have fallen for them hook-line and sinker, and are at the point where arguing about actual ideology no longer matters, because everything from the other side is purely evil and must be opposed because itís a threat to their side. The ideologies of their brand can and do shift to appeal to more people outside of the brand, increasing diversity in the group in a way that does not matter, because the loyal adherents do not change, since their loyalty is to the brand, and their ideologies change to suit it.

The most disturbing part of this, to me at least, is how it shifts and warps the media. Since the media are made of people that can be influenced by these political brands like everyone else, the media will become part of a brand without explicit and purposeful attempts to counterbalance that influence (like BBC or NPR attempt to do... to varying degrees of success.) With a media source like Fox or CNN that buys into the tribalism, that brand is just broadcast further and further. Shareholders who subscribe to the brand give more money to the network, encouraging them to become more tribal and extreme, etc. Itís not that these sources created the division, but they do actively feed and profit from it, and they donít try to discourage it in any way.

But the media is where you need to get your information from in any effective or reliable way. So even someone not subscribed to a brand of politics has to engage with them, and has to work quite a lot harder than they might normally have to in order to sus out the kernels of truth from all of the brand slogan BS thatís thrown around.

The only way to counter all of this is, of course, to the one thing the political brands donít want you to do, and educate yourself and others about what each ideology actually stands for. You have to understand other people, and show empathy and actual compassion for even people you disagree with, because disagreement does not make that person your enemy. Just the simple question of ďwhy?Ē doesnít change peopleís minds, but it gets them to actually think about why they believe the things they do. Which is really all that you can do to try and get the ball to start rolling.

... Anyway, enough rambling and jumbled philosophy, off to the folkís place. Tah!
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Blizzardboy
Blizzardboy


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
posted November 11, 2020 01:33 AM
Edited by Blizzardboy at 01:47, 11 Nov 2020.

I don't agree. Yes, I'm a registered independent, and lean far left (I'm a UBI supporter), but political parties are not dumb. As soon as you dissolved parties new ones would form naturally before the end of the year as a means of organizing people with a common platform. This is just basic, instinctual human social behavior. You might as well complain about people having 2 legs or 2 eyes.

Besides, it isn't just about ideology. Some of it just comes down to business and logistics. People grouping into parties makes it much easier to organize campaigns and do fundraising and outreach and promote certain candidates.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted November 11, 2020 04:17 AM

Here is the post of mine that the OP is referring to:

To be clear, policy disagreement had little to do with why I gave up my political party affiliation - although being a centrist made it easy. I gave it up because I found myself voting for candidates ONLY because they had the same political party affiliation that I had. Giving up my party affiliation was liberating. It forced me to actually think of candidates as people with views that didn't fit into a box. I had to research them. I wanted to research them, and consult multiple sources to do so. It also just made me feel more empowered, like I was voting for a candidate because I wanted to, not because my club said they were the best fit for me.

I don't talk politics with my parents, but they are Republicans and they vote Republican. They are also not stupid people. They surely voted for Trump. If I asked them why, the conversation would probably go something like:

Why did you vote for Trump?
Because he is the Republican candidate.
Yeah but why did you decide he was the one you wanted to vote for?
Republicans vote for Republicans.
Who did you vote for sheriff?
The Republican.
Why?
Because he's a Republican.
But what does he believe in? What makes him a good sheriff?
...

Sure, the conversation would be peppered with pieces of information that they learned from Fox News, which is on the TV all the time at their house, but that would be more or less the gist of it. Republicans vote for the Republican candidate, full stop. Republicans watch Fox New and only Fox News, full stop. If I bring up some piece of information contrary to Trump that was aired on CNN, my dad would tell me in no uncertain terms that he doesn't watch CNN. My dad would probably call it fake news, and maybe throw in a communist or socialist or two for good measure, because fake news is what Trump says it is, and what Trump says is affirmed on Fox News, and Fox News is all my dad - not an uneducated man, mind you - a good Republican, watches and trusts. Never mind the fact that the Republican party is not the Republican party he grew up with, or even the Republican party of the Bush years. But my dad is a Republican, dammit, and whatever the Republican party says is good for him is good for him, and that's so who he votes for.

Political parties are poison to reason, thought, and an open flow of ideas. We lock ourselves in intellectual cages because we are, at our psychological cores, tribalists. We like to belong to a club, and only our club is good. Worse, our clubs don't even just disagree on policy issues any more. We disagree on basic facts, we exist in different realities, realities created by our self-selected media sources. Compromise isn't even possible on policy, because we can't even agree on what is real or not. When Kellyanne Conway infamously word-vomited about how they have alternative facts, I thought it was a joke, but it's not. It's the new paradigm.

My wife asked me the other day how evangelicals can vote for Trump when he seems to be the antithesis of everything that's Christian. I answered that it's because they are Republican, and their Republicanism, not their religion, determines where they get their information. They watch Fox News because that's what Republicans watch. And Fox News feeds them a reality that's different from our reality. They don't make decisions based on the same information that we make decisions based on, so of course their conclusions make no sense to us. Their (beliefs) facts are different from my (beliefs) facts. But to be sure, there's not necessarily a flaw in their logic when they say they love Trump. Two people can arrive at different conclusions with the same logic if their input information is different. If their media source tells them Trump is a good Christian, and they don't trust media sources that tell them differently, are they wrong to vote the way they do?

Of course the facts are the facts. There is only one objective truth out there - we operate only on what we think or believe the facts really are. We can only have mutually agreeable beliefs on truth versus fiction if there are nonpartisan and authoritative sources of information. But those don't exist any more - or, rather, we do not know how to access them - or, more so, we place trust in sources we think are authoritative, but actually aren't because these sources artfully blend fact and opinion, or they have agendas beyond giving us truthful information. Media is big business, and Fox News makes a lot of money by convincing Republicans that Fox News is the only reliable source of information.  

The more it goes on, the more we become slaves to political parties and the media forces that feed them, the more the walls of our self-constructed bubbles crystalize. The more resistant to non-complimentary information we become. The more we hate the Other Side, the more polarized our political beliefs, the more extreme our viewpoints, the more outlandish our perception of reality, the more it is disconnected from the real truth, a truth we probably won't ever know or won't trust if it is shown to us. The more persecuted we feel when we are challenged or criticized. The more we find comfort in extreme views or even less credible sources of information. The more trouble we have even judging a good source of information from a bad source. The more we find truth in conspiracy.

The closer we get to autocracy or anarchy.

Political parties are poison. As thinking citizens of a free society it is our responsibility to think critically of the information that is fed to us. Seek out good quality, non-partisan new sources. Failing that, at least read from as many media outlets as you can. Democrat? Watch Fox News. You may hate it, but at least it gives your views context. Republican? Watch anything but Fox News. Try to do it every day. When I wake up, I go to about 20 news sites, including Fox News, just to see what's there. If you watch only one media source, the same one every day, every week, every month, you're part of the problem. If your preferred media outlet interviews a political candidate and doesn't ask at least one challenging question, they aren't doing their job. Complain to them. If you don't, you're part of the problem. Research the candidates before an election, think about whether they actually stand for what you believe in. If you don't, you're part of the problem. Give a candidate from another party a chance, go to their website, read what they have to say. You might not agree with it, but you might find that some things they say make some sense. If you don't at least go in with an open mind, you're part of the problem. The independent press is the fourth arm of government. Embrace that. Celebrate it when they give politicians a hard time. It's their job. It makes Democracy function. Demand it loudly and often. If you don't, you're part of the problem. Don't fall for conspiracy theories. If you repost something without seriously considering whether it makes sense, or comes from a reliable source of information, you're part of the problem. If you go to the voting booth and you vote for the "Republican Ticket" or the "Democrat Ticket", you're part of the problem. Be informed. If you don't recognize half the names on the ballot, and you vote anyway, you're part of the problem. Talk to other people about their views. If theirs don't agree with yours, ask why they believe what they do. Listen to their answers, and think before you respond. Consider the possibility that their facts may be better than yours. If you don't, you are part of the problem. Especially, trust in evidence for political claims and actions. If evidence isn't presented, demand it. If you don't, you are part of the problem. If a media outlet doesn't demand it, they are part of the problem. And if you keep trusting that outlet as credible, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Don't be part of the problem. Don't join a political party. Don't get your information from one place. Don't be a dupe or a stooge or a sap or a lemming. Think. Question. Educate yourself. Trust in credentialed experts. Be open minded. Demand accountability. Treat people with respect and dignity. Be slow to mete out judgement. Be fair.

And wear a snowing mask.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
evildustructor
evildustructor


Known Hero
Pizza Man dominos pizza yummy
posted November 11, 2020 04:23 AM bonus applied by Corribus on 11 Nov 2020.

this is copy paste from a vw thread where corribus reply was taken from

enojyed the read

I do think neutrality is very important in having a healthy argument as well as keeping yourself in check. However, some points struck me as faulty - I fear there can never be a fully neutral side in any political climate. TV and media simply are the sole source of information for those people, and to get their attention political work from the ground up must be done.

Corribus said:
Political parties are poison to reason, thought, and an open flow of ideas. We lock ourselves in intellectual cages because we are, at our psychological cores, tribalists. We like to belong to a club, and only our club is good. Worse, our clubs don't even just disagree on policy issues any more. We disagree on basic facts, we exist in different realities, realities created by our self-selected media sources. Compromise isn't even possible on policy, because we can't even agree on what is real or not. When Kellyanne Conway infamously word-vomited about how they have alternative facts, I thought it was a joke, but it's not. It's the new paradigm.



Agreed, despite us most probably having striking ideological differences in our politics and general way of thinking. I think embracing this kind of mentality disconnects us from the reality we want to achieve. It is true that the sense of belonging fulfills us as human beings, but there must be a connection to make a democracy truly work. Tribalism is something that we, in my opinion, should strive to move forward from, not embrace - despite it arguably being an integral part of our nature.

However, how does not being a member of a political party, despite all its faults, help the situation? A fence-sitting mentality surely gets an upper hand in discussions but still I can't help but think it doesn't do any good in a fair political climate. The american system is very unique in its ways, considering the winner-takes-all electoral college and how the registration and party structures work - I would probably describe it as one of the least fluid ones in the western hemisphere. The mentality not to pick a side might work for a private person, but for a political organizer this mentality is probably harmful for the democracy itself, which is why I personally do not stand behind it. I feel like the democratic and the republican ballots will for a long time be how the system works and influencing the democracy in good ways outside of the two-party system will be an extremely hard mission considering the frigid system in place, and any good aspiration for political change has to - most probably - be done within those parties.

Why I personally regard it as strategically bad is because every person might be a possible organizer in a workplace or in a democratic arena. Recommending to people not to be part of a party once in their lifetime might be good for their health, or good to try to see the whole political spectrum from an unbiased viewpoint, but straying too far from the system will just give more power to both the parties and increasing the divide between average people and professional politicians. While I would not personally endorse a party such as the democratic one, I think I would probably sign up for it - it would simply be the only way for me to go (from what I can see) as I am politically organized myself where I live. Working within the system and trying to make your voice heard for change (or the preservation of the current status if that is one's preference) is the best alternative there is for the democracy to work. Clear cynicism has, in my opinion, no place in politics trying to move society forward, which we can see from basically every successful politician there is - every single one of them has some kind of a plan forward. And of course only the minority strives to be a career politician, but personal responsibility still stands clear as a good part of working democracies.

I fully agree with the notion that factionalism serves no direct purpose and is dangerous for the democracy, but at the same time I feel a clear platform for information must exist for these commandments to work. As you say, today's media climate is rather chaotic to say the least - but asking people to not pick a side and do their own research runs with the big risk of people gathering around conspiracy theories. I feel the system behind the wheels must be of a whole other nature for the self-education mentality to work. Facts are always facts (peer-reviewed studies and such, "facts" as in findings through the scientific method), and one opinion is probably of a more correct nature than another until the opposite has been proven scientifically. Some matters are of course much more complex, but I feel the general issue usually has a factually correct answer despite it all. For self-education to work, there must be a pretext of one actually being capable to do so without finding "alternative facts" (like how youtube's recommendations radicalize people, both young and old, with ease) - I think the whole education system has to come to some sort of reform as it is obviously not enough as is. The responsibility to stay correct lies as much in schools, colleges and universities as in yourself. Rationality has to be omnipresent for individualism to work, and to spead rationality I feel some sort of collectivist action is the way to go - schools need funding to spread neutral and scientific information on basic political science and how to collect and process data.

But yes, in today's political climate, not all opinions even reach the top level arenas at all - probably due to various interests of both external entities as well as in-party organizing. I keep faith in that the system someday will change for the better, and until then, I fear in-party organizing and keeping in touch with local politics is unfortunately all there is to work with. Which is not much by any means, considering the general apathic, or uninformed, stance the average person has towards everyday politics. And to be fair, I can't blame them.

Political parties in themselves are not to represent all of one's opinions, but simply more than the other side, if it wasn't this way then the democracy would be defunct. It is a poison, but a necessary one since the system is built around it and is currently the sole way for the american democracy to work, unless a revolution would be had - which simply put would be completely undemocratic as most people support the current system (despite its flaws). If most people were to leave their respective parties, bigger interests would occupy the power instead of the people.

Slow and steady thinking and clear rationality requires both respect and dignity, but people have either learned to dismiss it as it hasn't worked, or simply weren't aware of the importance of it to begin with. I fear people's faith in respect and dignity has probably diminished with a whole lot of different factors behind it, and amongst them lies influences such as misinformation in social media (traditional media too) and problems with today's education. Shortly put, I think reorganizing the education system, making sure all people got work to do and educating people on e.g. the weight of workplace organization would do a whole lot of good for the political climate as well as the democracy.

In an utopian world rationality would take place everywhere though, we're far from there but I'm certain that point can be reached.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
evildustructor
evildustructor


Known Hero
Pizza Man dominos pizza yummy
posted November 11, 2020 05:19 AM
Edited by evildustructor at 05:32, 11 Nov 2020.

Directly speaking, what is the point of the issue if no alternative is presented? Party organizations might be very complex and brings many issues with it, what is the clear and rational alternative to bringing society forward? To me, there needs to be some sort of organ in which people organize themselves in, which in turn does what the people have voted for to some extent. Otherwise there's no need to call society representative of the voices of the people, might aswell just call it an oligarchy.

Censoring hateful ideologies is another interesting discussion topic I'd like to discuss some day

One-issue parties are problematic. One sole voter simply cannot have rational stances on all available issues, so there needs to be a ideology behind a party for the system to be democratic in practice. If there is no grounded ideology behind an one-issue-party, how can you be sure of what the intentions are behind the elected politicians? There needs to be some sort of morality and ethics involved, and those can not claim to represent the people if the party can't represent a direct ideology. Effective representative politics have existed in various states and either big tent or bigger theory-based parties have seen some success in various cases, where people generally have had a favorable viewpoint of said party. Isn't that representative in itself? You may think you won't question the status quo if it works fine, but there will always be political discussions and dynamical ideological debates whether we like it or not. The american party system has always been something heavily debated, even in the US.

Certain big-tent parties have historically had certain tendencies to split up into multiple parties just because of these issues you speak of. And then some might even merge again. In some cases, these new children parties split from the original one will still be like factions within the bigger party - the base ideology will probably still be of a similar nature and agreements might be shared to govern together in a cabinet or other form of administrations. The faction might gain more power as a standalone party, yes, but it is also a big risk splitting from a larger, more influential party. Governing together, whether in majority or minority government, will still include compromises and political agreements.

Single-issue parties can't really represent a proper ideology without automatically expanding their political stances on multiple issues. Most single-issue parties even have an ideology that people are simply unaware of (just because they have to have one to simply function, abstaining on all issues will disrupt the political arena) - example of this being the Piracy movement which gained some attention during the early 2000's, but really did not have a shared ideological basis in where all the different pirate parties existed.

But yes, party loyalism sometimes strays too far and the political philosophy behind a specific party might be altered during its lifetime. The views of a party in general are usually rather prone to change, and some people might keep a stagnated view of a specific party's ideology from a previous application of itself. Politics change with time, despite what I would regard as a ideological stagnation in the last century.

General party politics are extremely hard to discuss, though. US American political parties are extremely different in their nature compared to, for example, British or Norwegian. FPTP/WTA-based democracies are not universally regarded as true democracies worldwide despite their democratic structure. To drive change for another system, I believe movements within parties need to create change themselves and speak up. I can not see another way than in-party organizing if the US wants to expand their democracy. Working within the system is much easier to legitimize democratically, unless an issue gathers extreme media attention - which is hard to get in itself.

Logistical and practical issues exist further - however, structures of the parties themselves and how they interact with society must be changed, in my eyes. The problems still exist.

Gnomes2169 said:
And as their people give more into tribalism, the party becomes more extreme to make their constituents even more loyal to their brand. Itís a simple, rather insidious tactic, and it works. In the US, the amount of people who donít even think about ideology and just vote for the brand grows every year, and ever more violent individuals get bred as their parties change ideological disagreements into assaults upon the brand. People proclaiming constant, wide sweeping evils belonging to exclusively ďTHE LEFT-WING GLOBALISTSĒ(tm) or ďTHE RIGHT WING FACISTSĒ(tm) are either active sellers of these brands, or have fallen for them hook-line and sinker, and are at the point where arguing about actual ideology no longer matters, because everything from the other side is purely evil and must be opposed because itís a threat to their side. The ideologies of their brand can and do shift to appeal to more people outside of the brand, increasing diversity in the group in a way that does not matter, because the loyal adherents do not change, since their loyalty is to the brand, and their ideologies change to suit it.


This type of voting has an ideology behind it, as well. They are confident in their ideological viewpoints, and know that specific party represents them better. This mentality is very frigid, but I believe this just comes from a lack of awareness - or simply put, an intentional lack of awareness. Politics isn't exactly popular all around the world due to its rather inflammatory nature. To make it less inflammatory, I would assume the country in question would probably need a higher standard of public education and better material conditions of the people in general. Misery breeds misery.

I would say sloganeering is extremely useful by the political movements. Just look at how popular orange man became with his various slogans, it's a very effective way to summarize a political viewpoint into some sort of ad-like slogan. Even progressive movements have had some success with sloganeering as well, see the BLM movement etc. The branding is extremely important for the parties to maintain their popularity, otherwise people won't know their agenda (or their supposed agenda, in cases the slogans are means to just highlight a specific problem without presenting a solution to it - which is like you described, astray from the perceived ideology).

And yes, it is saddening to see that people give each other hate for their political standpoints, but with one side sliding further away from the other, the differences and partisanship will only grow as long as the material conditions are as bad as they are.

Quote:
The most disturbing part of this, to me at least, is how it shifts and warps the media. Since the media are made of people that can be influenced by these political brands like everyone else, the media will become part of a brand without explicit and purposeful attempts to counterbalance that influence (like BBC or NPR attempt to do... to varying degrees of success.) With a media source like Fox or CNN that buys into the tribalism, that brand is just broadcast further and further. Shareholders who subscribe to the brand give more money to the network, encouraging them to become more tribal and extreme, etc. Itís not that these sources created the division, but they do actively feed and profit from it, and they donít try to discourage it in any way.

But the media is where you need to get your information from in any effective or reliable way. So even someone not subscribed to a brand of politics has to engage with them, and has to work quite a lot harder than they might normally have to in order to sus out the kernels of truth from all of the brand slogan BS thatís thrown around.

The only way to counter all of this is, of course, to the one thing the political brands donít want you to do, and educate yourself and others about what each ideology actually stands for. You have to understand other people, and show empathy and actual compassion for even people you disagree with, because disagreement does not make that person your enemy. Just the simple question of ďwhy?Ē doesnít change peopleís minds, but it gets them to actually think about why they believe the things they do. Which is really all that you can do to try and get the ball to start rolling.


As for the media: I have no clue - I can only say that I agree on most of the points, I'm by far not qualified enough to assume stuff with media and how it works. I can say I do not enjoy the direct partisanship held in countries like UK and Australia where Murdoch basically holds most of the influence and the media is still considered "free", and well, the same situation appears in the US as well. The influence traditional media holds sure is extreme, but I fear social media might just be as much of a political influencer in cases such as these. I can't say I have any solution other than organizing people politically and trying to spread awareness of different issues you're interested in. Getting direct attention to one issue is hard, and I think just some sort of organization is the best path to take.

To summarize it, political parties might be considered as stupid, but to simply disregard them is directly harmful to the democracy. What other ways exist to organize the people and spreading rational awareness, if not through these kind of organs? In countries where the grade of democracy is higher, then I would say I agree with the notion that party politics are ineffective and you're probably right Other alternatives in educating and organizing are probably more effective (would probably gain more notion), to put it bluntly.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Bad-mannered
Undefeatable Hero
posted November 11, 2020 05:57 AM bonus applied by Corribus on 11 Nov 2020.

i didn't vote for Trump because he's a republican; because he's not, really. i voted for him because he stands against the globalist establishment; which is neither democrat OR republican. they work mainly through the democrats by policy; the republicans, for the most part, work with them as well, with one key exception: firearm rights. firearm rights are constitutional rights; and without them, the globalists would run roughshod over our country; turning it into just another NATO country controlled by them. they HAVE controlled us for decades, which is why we've been involved in wars that didn't benefit the U.S., but foreign nations(one in particular).

Trump is the ONLY president we've had since Kennedy, who DIDN'T work for the globalists. if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated during his first term and i was around to vote then, i would have voted for him to have a second term, as well. i didn't vote for Trump the first time, because i didn't trust any of them to not be globalist puppets. after watching the entire msm attack the man for four YEARS(even the goddamn talk shows, ffs), and by watching his decisions as a president and seeing how they directly conflicted with the typical globalist bs, i found him to most likely be the last candidate in my lifetime, WORTH voting for.

because of Trump, i and countless others, have seen the globalist's power laid bare, and exposed for what it is. they have REVEALED themselves with his presidency, more than any other(even with Kennedy; and that's saying a LOT).
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted November 11, 2020 09:00 AM

As already mentioned, political parties are inevitable, at least in a democracy. However, itís one thing to have them, itís another thing to support them blindly, as if supporting a football team or something.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted November 11, 2020 09:43 AM bonus applied by Corribus on 11 Nov 2020.

I think, that the situation is different in countries with more political parties than in the US. The way the US function, while the parties itself are a mix of quite different movements within the actual party, the system is blocking political development. You are either this or that and the number of people who switch blocks are low (albeit probably decisive). There is no way to start something new, actually, because it won't get anywhere.
This is reflected in the media landscape as well.

This is different in other countries with a different political culture. In Germany we had basically 3 parties from the 50s to the 80s, the smallest one (except once) being the decisive one (building a government with a smaller party gives the bigger one more secretary jobs than if there are two equally strong parties involved), then a 4th established, then a fifth during the 90s and 00s and now a sixth. The 2 big parties have continually lost voters to the new parties, and the actual situation is, we have a 30% party, a 20% party and 4 10% parties - and due to the pandemic and its handling that situation may change and change drastically.

This is even more pronounced in other countries like Denmark, where you have a plethora of parties.

The more parties there are, the higher the probability a person will feel at home in one. Additionally, the more parties there are, the smaller they are as well, so the individual is more relevant and has a louder voice within the party, so-to-speak.

However, parties are more or less just drawers. Important is, what's in it, and that's, yes, the program, but also the actual people, the politicians; it's their integrity and their ability that's actually the main thing and that ability includes that to unify, to find compromises that serve a majority of people, and to actually do what they think is the right thing to do. A program is fine, and if there is one you like, great, but it needs the right people to actually implement them (and with 2 parties to pick from it will be a decision for the smaller evil anyway). Imagine, even in a ONE-party state, the USSR, reigned by the CPSU, it was a matter of one person to completely change everything and the course of history, and that was definitely not part of any program, but very much against it.

I've been reading - I think violent flower said it -, she looks to issues, not persons. Screw the "issues". Which issues have you seen actually addressed and resolved, anytime, anywhere, independent from exceptional people who somewhow found the strength to do it? Trump wanted to REPLACE Obamacare with something else immediately, for example - BIG issue, didn't happen.

Sure, issues are important, but you must actually trust the people you vote to actually address and resolve them. It's like a restaurant that has a fine menu, but after you got your drinks and want to order the waitress tells you they are out of everything and you can pick between a burger and a hot dog.

Basically spoken, it's better to elect persons you trust to actually do what they say, when that's halfway ok, than to elect persons that promise a lot you like, but you don't trust to keep it.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Baronus
Baronus


Promising
Legendary Hero
posted November 11, 2020 09:44 AM

Idelogy is a substitue of religion. So better is have orginal than looking like... So Im christian and dont need ideology.
Party is natural political organisation of society so deleting it is utopia. We must some kind of political organisation. Alternative is mafia? Clan? Cast? Better have parties.
Big parties have in fact no ideology. Its business. They simply earn money using public sites which they conquered. Ideology is a propaganda. Of course they using roman formula Divide et impera to society. Conflict generation is a method to grab votes. Propaganda emotions etc. Its for simply voters dont interesting politics. We must rate all using mind.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted November 11, 2020 09:52 AM

@JJ

Even if itís not a two party system, through coalitions and alliences, it kind of works like that because if you are a party that has 8 percent voter base, your political power is insignificant to rule. So, in practice, the difference is not that big.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted November 11, 2020 11:24 AM
Edited by JollyJoker at 11:25, 11 Nov 2020.

Artu, we had 19 elections in Germany after WW2, spanning 71 years, and 46 of those 71 years a party has been in the reigning coalition which had at most 14.6%  in 2009 and on average 9% of the vote over these 71 years.
Could have been more, but that party wasn't willing in 2017 to be part of what's called "Jamaica coalition" in Germany (black Christian Democrats, green Green Party and yellow Free Democrats (liberals)) which would have been the preferred coalition, because the Social Democrats didn't want another coalition with the CDU.
Just as an example.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Minion
Minion


Legendary Hero
posted November 11, 2020 11:39 AM
Edited by Minion at 11:41, 11 Nov 2020.

@artu

I have to disagree with that. With two political party system you sometimes only need to be against what the other is proposing without bringing anything of your own to the table. No political party in a system like ours (with almost 10 political parties) can do such a thing, they need to have a compelling platform of their own.

Coalition and alliances work way better, all get at least one agenda through or they won't join the government. It ain't perfect but it definitely gives a positive thing to vote for, and not just cast a vote against another party.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
CountBezuhoff
CountBezuhoff


Supreme Hero
Time for peace
posted November 11, 2020 11:51 AM

artu said:
@JJ

Even if itís not a two party system, through coalitions and alliences, it kind of works like that because if you are a party that has 8 percent voter base, your political power is insignificant to rule. So, in practice, the difference is not that big.


Not true, such parties very often end up kingmakers. And whoever was made king needs to heed their opinion and compromise, or else his reign is going to be cut short.

The Count
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted November 11, 2020 11:56 AM
Edited by artu at 11:57, 11 Nov 2020.

Look, Iím not saying they are identical but the difference is not extreme, since coalitions are kind of like what JJ refers to as ďwhile the parties itself are a mix of quite different movements within the actual partyĒ regarding the US system. Also they have the senate and the congress, and neither Democrats nor Reblicans automatically support every bill, you still have to convince the individual politicians.

Turkey had been through a lot of coalitions, too. They have their ups and downs regarding to efficiency, everything being constatly part of a negotiation slows things down a lot.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted November 11, 2020 12:03 PM

It doesn't cover the same array of issues. Without the Green Party in Germany, environmental issues would have never been covered by the established parties.
And that it takes more time is the point made by proponents of more autoritarian forms of government.
It's a good thing that some things take time, especially when they come with grave changes.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted November 11, 2020 12:09 PM

Fair point but imagine cases where swift change is urgent, exactly like the environmental issues. What if the negotiations with the Green Party stuck?
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted November 11, 2020 12:56 PM

You see what happens then now, in the pandemic. When there is really pressing stuff there are emergency provisions to somewhat shorten the democratic process - also not free of footfalls, I might add.

Imo, the fact that it's NOT the same whether you are a movement within a party or your own party, is exactly the reason, why we have had more parties in Germany over the years. When you are a movement within a party that isn't represented by the official party line, it's like you are not existing. You have no forum. And you must keep the party discipline. When you are your own party, IF you are in any parliament you do have a forum. And you can vote with whoever you want and on issues, not on party discipline.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JoonasTo
JoonasTo


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
posted November 11, 2020 02:40 PM

This is a good discussion but Iím on a phone so Iíll cut this short.

Voting for people doesnít work because the parties demand loyalty from their MPs.

You can vote for a person who thinks XYZ but this person may not be allowed to vote for XYZ because the party demands him/her to vote XYA. This is why you vote  for parties in most parliamentary elections.

So the real change has to happen inside the party. In party meetings and votings which decide how the party, as a whole, is going to vote. The ones holding the right to vote in these do not have to be MPs. Usually they are representatives of the different suborganisations, generally different districts, youth organisations, etc. but this can vary.

This is why if you are planning on voting for a person, you should first and foremost check the party they represent and their rules and common practices first. Because as Ųong as they are in a party, their opinion does not matter.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted November 11, 2020 03:18 PM

This somewhat misses the point, at least mine.

In most elections the party doesn't even matter. Local elections are exclusively personal (even in Vietnam, on a local level you don't need to be member of the party to be eligible for election). You vote the guy(s) or gal(s) who you deem fittest for the job at hand and whose ideas come at least near what you find ok.
Then there are presidential elections - the elections where you vote for the executive head of the political entity you are part of, say, Trump or Biden.
And then there are elections of parliaments - those are the party stuff mostly, but even there you vote for a specific person as well.

Party disciplin is not that important on the local level, since the party leadership will have no clue about what is happening on a specific local level. It's only important in the big houses. Still, a politician will not try to garner votes by openly toting for positions that are against the party line.

The bottom line is, the party line is fine and all, but in the end it all depends on the qualities of the actual people you vote.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted November 11, 2020 04:15 PM

It is nice to be able to award QPs for once rather than just take them away. Nice discussion. Hope it stays that way
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 2 pages long: 1 2 · NEXT»
Post New Poll †† Post New Topic †† Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1116 seconds