The debate "All us political parties should be banned and people should be forced to run as independents" was started by
April 29, 2017, 6:11 am.
6 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 16 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
thereal posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 3 arguments, blue_rayy posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
thereal, makson, Unaluhabe and 3 visitors agree.
PsychDave, historybuff, blue_rayy, neveralone, MrLuke, SalonY, Moonlight and 9 visitors disagree.
What do party interests have to do with money? the money comes from donors, and it is their interests that need to be catered for. banning parties won't ban donors and the problem remains.
you do realize that people join a party because they agree with the party. the candidate doesn't have to cater to the party because they generally agree. otherwise the candidate would just join a different party or create his own.
really, the only one without logic is you if you think banning parties will do anything to the money in politics.
its common sense really, i dont know why you dont understand it.
Of course money would have less influence. If a politician runs for a party, there would be hundreds of other people behind them in that party whose interests also have to be catered for. this means the politician cant execute his decisions as he wants because there are party factors he has to take into consideration. If a candidate runs on his own, sure there will be money involved, but there will be less because the politician would still be running based on his own principles.
In what way would it reduce the impact of money on politics? If you were running against Trump, would you be on equal footing buying ad space?
While it would open the door to more individual differences, it would also likely be challenging to tell the difference between many similar candidates. That's the point of parties. To avoid splintering the vote. More parties might give people more choice, but that is very different from banning parties.
nobody said banning political parties would remove money from politics. i said it would reduce its influence on it. banning parties would also give everybody a fairer chance in running because people would be voting for individuals as opposed to the large orthodox-choice parties behind them.
But cam a party remove a bad candidate? I would argue that there were two bad candidates, for varying reasons, and neither were removed.
a party can remove a bad candidate.
party is the way to gain popularity on a large scale. Look at the GOP convention.
the parties essentially give people a group to stand behind to get things done in office. u may not agree with everything they do but u trust that for the most part they will side with u since ur in said party. though having only two major ones can(will?) rip us apart they are essential if u want anything done.
This is why I tell you to debate like a grownup.
is he wrong? trump was rich. he used that money (and lots of lies) to get himself elected.
money buys political influence. it doesn't matter if you're bribing a party or individuals. money and greed will always play a part in politics. especially in a society that loves money and capitolism like a religion.
this is why i say yourr stupid and dont know anything about politics
How? Would Trump have been poor 8f he wasn't running as a Republican?
this will reduce the involvement of money in politics