No, government wouldn't be better off without political parties. Political parties give people a sense of who they will be voting for. It gives us a vague understanding of the ideology of the person running for office. For example, a democrat is running for governor of Pennsylvania and you didn't know who he is. Based on him being a democrat, you can assume that he's more liberal than the person running against him. If we didn't have any political parties things would be different. If you didn't personally know who a person was, you would have no idea of what he stood for or what his views are for most subjects. People would have to become more involved in politics, just to have a say in government. But, people are lazy. They wouldn't spend the time or energy to become more involved in politics to know every candidate's views. #B-boy Arsenal was here.
James, I agree with you that being in a political party allows voters to get a sense of who the candidate is, but does the politician define the party or does the party define the politician?
I believe the party defines the politician, in a sense that a politician's views may have to conform to the standings and beliefs of the political party. I think of it in the same sense of medieval knights their knight's code and honor. I think politicians lose a lot of their individuality in the process of joining a political party. But I still believe they can retain who they are and portray it to the people by the things they do in office.
I understand were your coming from James. If we didn't have political parties we wouldn't know who we were voting for. It also gives us a chance to know why we are voting for that specific person.
I agree with you James. But more importantly some people aren't just lazy. Sometimes it's just hard to choose which side to be on. For my opinion. :D -Kevin
I think we should not get rid of political parties but need to reform it. Today democrats have Presidential and judicial power but republican have power in the congress, so it is hard for Democrat's to pass law or make a final decision on an issue in congress, because of that the two parties are always opposing each other which becomes an obstacle in passing laws or making final decision in Congress. We should have political parties but if one party wins election they should be given the power of all three branches of government (The Executive, The Judicial and The Legislative.) All the power given to one party will make it easier for them to pass laws and make decisions for the benefit of the people. I think this system will benefit people a lot, because if they don't like the party that is in power, the people can vote for the other party in next election and give them a chance to govern them. Also if we don't have political parties it will lead to kind of dictatorship, because it will be hard to find out who is running the government and the people who are running the government have no opponent and will lead to one party system (Totalitarianism).
I agree that the two parties are always opposing each other that nothing gets done, like passing laws, etc. Then wouldn't having no political parties, make it easier for the government to do those things?
Muhammad you take a very European approach to the situation. The most popular political party runs all of government. What happens in this situation if the power party refuses to give up the power?
I agree with you when you stated that it's hard for laws to be passed in today's government. Also that finding a way to reform it rather than getting rid of it. However, i must agree with Mr. Kail. What will happen if a party refuses to give up the power? Wouldn't that lead to totalitarianism? Better yet wouldn't it lead this country from being democracy to being an absolute monarchy?
I think the government would be better off without political parties because they are destructive, and they only focus on having powers. They want to run the government instead of helping them. Having political parties doesn't benefit the people because both parties are too busy disagreeing on what should be done, that nothing gets done. Without political parties, I think the government will be able to get the job done a lot quicker. Most people don't know about the people who are running for the position, so usually they will just side with what they believe. An example would be, a Republican voting for every Republican that is running. That would effect the future outcome because, what if the person who won the election is doing a bad job at improving the economy and helping the people. Also, anyone can run for president. They don't necessarily have to be on a party to run for president or other positions. We don't need to know if the person who is running for a position is a Democrat or Republic because all we need to know is what their theme is(major point).
Good points Hien. i agree that politicians give up on their own values to follow party lines, but without parties how would individuals get the money and support to run a campaign?
I agree with you on the point where the people may only vote for the candidate in their political party so it's like a blind choice. But, if there are no political parties how will the candidates become known? Wouldn't the same thing just happen again? Where the people trying to run for office will group together with people who have similar views for the support and money for an election? Wouldn't that just lead to political parties to arise again? But only as many small third parties? Also what would happen to the federal government and the state governments for that matter? Would it just lead to chaos and anarchy? -James Phillips
I agree, such people need to understand that we cannot just vote whoever we want. But then again wouldn't the political parties help the Government, such as giving out more opinions or open minds for more people to understand their views? May be they can vote proficiently.
I think the government would and wouldn't be better off without political parties. One reason why I think the government would be better off is because the government can’t get anything done. For example schools can’t get proper funding’s because all the money is going to the political parties so they can get in office. Another reason why the government would be better off is because they wouldn't be corrupt. For example a person won’t be able to any to get anybody they want in office so they can run the country through the person they got elected. I think the government wouldn't be better off is because wouldn't have a black president. For example if there weren't any political parties Obama wouldn't have been elected president. Another reason why they wouldn't be better off is because the people wouldn't be able to elect who they want to lead them. For example if there weren't any political parties the government would pick people who they think are good for the people and that person might be good to have that job. In conclusion these are my reasons why I think the government would and wouldn't be better off without political parties.
I like what you say about both sides here. Gridlock does hurt government and on the same line parties help people like the president get into power. If you do not pick a side though you should make a claim on what could be done to fix the problem.
Donald I disagree with you on the point where you said the government wouldn't be corrupt if there were no political parties. Our country wouldn't be a utopia. Perfection among human beings doesn't exist, we are all imperfect and at times are bound for corruption. But, I agree with you where you said if there weren't and political parties the government would just elect officials who may not have the best interests of the people at heart. If that were the case what powers would the people now have?
Briana Bookhard I am on both sides of the question. I do think government would be better off without political parties, but then I dont. I dont think government would be better off because having political parties in my opinion give citizens of each working class to vote for someone who actually will help. Without political parties may the country be a dictatorship? I think so. The government may not work without being a dictatorship. Some things don't work without a different variety of different opinions (votes). But then again I think the government would be better off without political parties. There can be interest groups. For example: the govenment makes laws then simply get the feedback of the how the citizens take it. I think the government wouldnt be better off more than I think that they will be better off.
Interesting perspective. Would a government without political parties be a dictatorship, and isn't a government with only two viable parties close to being a totalitarian state?
I think the government would be better off without the political parties. The first reason why I think the government would be better off without political parties is money spending. The money these parties are spending could go to better things like schools, homeless people, and the cure for a serious disease. Another reason why the government would be better off without political parties is education. For example you don’t have to have a high school diploma to become a senator. My third reason why the government would be better off is because of corruption. You can get a person to get elect for an important government position and run the government through them. My final reason why the government would be better without them is because you can’t get anything important done. For example you can’t focus on gun control regulation because these political parties are running campaigns and spending a lot of money on nonsense. These are the reasons why I think the government would be better off without political parties.
I agree, but not having political parties will lead to dictatorship and one party system. Also it will be arduous to choose a leader or candidate because people have different opinion and views and will lead country into chaos.
I like that you bring money into the scenario. Just remember that political parties are not mentioned in the constitution and are thus not part of the government. It is not as if parties are running campaigns with tax dollars.
I agree with you "Sir Charles". Political parties are wasting money. Money that can be put in good use. Mr. Kail is right in a way about the parties not using TAX dollars to support their campaigns.Still, all the money they use to get notice they can use to help rebuild America.
I agree with you Christian because the money that is being spent could go to schools and the cure of a disease. These problems are more important than who would run the country.
Would government be better off without political parties? For this question I am quite unsure, for I am still debating. To answer yes, I think political parties are a waste of time and "money". As we had explained in class, political campaigns are extremely expensive especially when only one candidate can win. Those who have lost, the money could have gone to something more beneficial. Whether it is medical research, education, houses, etc. Political parties are in fact corrupted. Although they may address the problem and oppose a solution they often lose track in doing what is actually needed to be done as they go against one another. On the other hand, political parties allow citizens to choose a leader who is willing to present himself and help. Which is the soul purpose of elections, it separates ourselves from monarchy, dictatorship, and all those other bad systems. We American citizens should not blame political parties and who ends up running, because we are giving the opportunity to "choose" who leads us. Which also explains why i think we need political parties. But in the end, I am still debating between the two. I'm in the middle! Oh no!
It is alright to be in the middle, but what do you think should be done? Some people argue that politicians should be in office for longer terms, such as a six year presidential term with not being able to run again. This would make less elections and less campaigning time. What do you think?
I am sort of in the middle now that I read this, you make good points. It's true that the money could be used to benefit other things, but then again we need to have choices to vote for. Still debating on political parties myself.
All in honesty, that sounds like it would save so much more money but then again it destroys the purpose of having political parties run, especially for those who eagerly wants to set changes.
Yes, I do believe the government would be better off without political parties. I believe it would be better off because people sometimes get into politics for all the wrong reasons. Many big businesses have a lot of influence on political parties, leading to corruption. I think George Washington said it best when he described his views on politics. Men will at one point of time abuse the power because of greed. As we discussed earlier in class, there are about 600 thousands people that are homeless in America because the government is "iffy" about raising the minimum wages mainly because they don't want to step on the toes of the big businesses that fund their campaigns to be re-elected . Another reason i believe that government is better off without political parties is that people sometimes make the wrong decisions when voting a candidate into office. People tend to vote more with their hearts instead of their minds and also in the US people change their mind on which political party they want to be apart of. Some parts of the UK have members of the government elect their leaders. Here they would say “the people don't have a voice in their government“ but think of it this way. Would you rather have members of the government who knows what is best and would help the country, or have the people (who hardly vote in big elections) vote for who they believe connects with them and would help them? Political Parties are all based on lies and deceit. They say one thing but as soon as their candidate is elected into office they change completely.
Sam, good points, but would the elimination of parties end the corruption? Without parties candidates would still need to cater to votes in order to get elected.
I agree with your comment about big businesses, and some of their influences leading to corruption. And UK's way of government actually sounds like a pretty good idea; it would make sure that the people who are voting are the ones who actually know what is going on in the government. More than half of the people in the U.S don't even vote, and plenty of those who do, have no clue about the views of the person they vote for.
That's a good point you made there, Mr. Kail. Candidates will still need to cater to votes in order to get elected. The elimination would not end the corruption at first because that's what people in the US are use to. "Money is Power". Back to the candidates catering to get votes. An average election campaign cost about 50 million dollars. In 2008 the Obama campaign raised about 75 million dollars. 75 million dollars!!! In the 2012 Presidential election Romney and Obama raised a combined 2.0651 Billion dollars. What i'm trying to say here is, why waste all that money on an election when they can help revive the economy.
I agree with your comment Sam because like what ivelise also mention about the "big businesses", it leads to corruptions. Large business and companies will do their best for their benefits, and that can lead to a bad person in office, etc.I also agree with political parties being removed because of people's ridiculous reasons to vote for that one person. It destroy the purpose of having those people campaign, and money us gone to waste at that point.
I agree with you Sam because a lot of big businesses have a lot of control in political parties and that causes the people to elect the unworthy person but without political parties we wouldn't have a black president.
I think government would be better off without political parties because they focus more on power than the people. For example, George Washington mentioned that people in political parties were ambitious and power-seeking in his speech. There are people in some parties who don't really know anything about the person running for president and so they vote based on what party they're in. This is bad for the government because the wrong candidate could win; someone whose views aren't in par with most of the civilians. Also, the democrats and republicans disagree so much that nothing gets done; one suggests a law to be made but the other doesn't approve because they're in different parties. Without political parties, that won't be a problem. A person can still run for president, they don't need to be in a political party. Political parties try to run the government, unlike interest groups who just want to be heard and have their views considered.
I agree with you, but without political parties it will be arduous to choose a candidate. Political Parties gives people an understanding about their views and platform and also debates between the nominees help people to determine who their leader will be.
Ivelise, I agree with you when you say politicians are ambiitous and power seeking. I wonder though if being power hungry is such a bad thing? If no one yearned for power what would our country look like?
Shout out to Muhammad for using the word "arduous" in his response!
Ivelise, I agree with you because alot of these "running against" each other really gets them side tracked and like I have said, although they may address the problem needed to be fixed, they often lose track on doing it because they forget, or its their own way of speech to grab attentions of the people who greatly appeals to it. I also like how you mention about a person can run without being in a political party, because there are alot of people out there who can be neither a Republican or a democrat and can be highly more educated then those who run, I just think it's a waste to lets political parties ruin the opportunity for others.
I agree with you Ivelise because the government focused on how they are going to win the next election rather than how they’re going to help the people. This results into nothing getting done.
I think the government be better off having the Political parties. The two main reasons political parties exist are that they provide a good deal of stability to the government and they help a voter find a canidate whose platform they agree with. I like political parties but I don't particularly like the two party system that exists in the United States. Basically the problem is the two parties just try to appeal to the most number of voters and whichever one who appeals to the most will get the most votes. This is something that I find to be something that can become very contradictory and hypocritical very quickly. The political parties focus much on the locals and the states vote. Unlike the presidential votes altogether. I believe it's better to have the political parties to control the 3 branches of the Government. Their system would be the best for the people to look forward to. In conclusion, I believe the government should pay more attention to them.
Kevin I completely agree with you that the political party structure does bring stability to our government. Do you think our country would be better off with more options, like a three or four party system? How would this change the system?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJames Phillips
ReplyDeleteNo, government wouldn't be better off without political parties. Political parties give people a sense of who they will be voting for. It gives us a vague understanding of the ideology of the person running for office. For example, a democrat is running for governor of Pennsylvania and you didn't know who he is. Based on him being a democrat, you can assume that he's more liberal than the person running against him. If we didn't have any political parties things would be different. If you didn't personally know who a person was, you would have no idea of what he stood for or what his views are for most subjects. People would have to become more involved in politics, just to have a say in government. But, people are lazy. They wouldn't spend the time or energy to become more involved in politics to know every candidate's views.
#B-boy Arsenal was here.
James, I agree with you that being in a political party allows voters to get a sense of who the candidate is, but does the politician define the party or does the party define the politician?
DeleteI believe the party defines the politician, in a sense that a politician's views may have to conform to the standings and beliefs of the political party. I think of it in the same sense of medieval knights their knight's code and honor. I think politicians lose a lot of their individuality in the process of joining a political party. But I still believe they can retain who they are and portray it to the people by the things they do in office.
DeleteI understand were your coming from James. If we didn't have political parties we wouldn't know who we were voting for. It also gives us a chance to know why we are voting for that specific person.
DeleteI agree with you James. But more importantly some people aren't just lazy. Sometimes it's just hard to choose which side to be on. For my opinion. :D
Delete-Kevin
Muhammad F Shah
ReplyDeleteI think we should not get rid of political parties but need to reform it. Today democrats have Presidential and judicial power but republican have power in the congress, so it is hard for Democrat's to pass law or make a final decision on an issue in congress, because of that the two parties are always opposing each other which becomes an obstacle in passing laws or making final decision in Congress. We should have political parties but if one party wins election they should be given the power of all three branches of government (The Executive, The Judicial and The Legislative.) All the power given to one party will make it easier for them to pass laws and make decisions for the benefit of the people. I think this system will benefit people a lot, because if they don't like the party that is in power, the people can vote for the other party in next election and give them a chance to govern them. Also if we don't have political parties it will lead to kind of dictatorship, because it will be hard to find out who is running the government and the people who are running the government have no opponent and will lead to one party system (Totalitarianism).
I agree that the two parties are always opposing each other that nothing gets done, like passing laws, etc. Then wouldn't having no political parties, make it easier for the government to do those things?
DeleteMuhammad you take a very European approach to the situation. The most popular political party runs all of government. What happens in this situation if the power party refuses to give up the power?
DeleteI agree with you when you stated that it's hard for laws to be passed in today's government. Also that finding a way to reform it rather than getting rid of it. However, i must agree with Mr. Kail. What will happen if a party refuses to give up the power? Wouldn't that lead to totalitarianism? Better yet wouldn't it lead this country from being democracy to being an absolute monarchy?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHien H.
ReplyDeleteI think the government would be better off without political parties because they are destructive, and they only focus on having powers. They want to run the government instead of helping them. Having political parties doesn't benefit the people because both parties are too busy disagreeing on what should be done, that nothing gets done. Without political parties, I think the government will be able to get the job done a lot quicker. Most people don't know about the people who are running for the position, so usually they will just side with what they believe. An example would be, a Republican voting for every Republican that is running. That would effect the future outcome because, what if the person who won the election is doing a bad job at improving the economy and helping the people. Also, anyone can run for president. They don't necessarily have to be on a party to run for president or other positions. We don't need to know if the person who is running for a position is a Democrat or Republic because all we need to know is what their theme is(major point).
Good points Hien. i agree that politicians give up on their own values to follow party lines, but without parties how would individuals get the money and support to run a campaign?
DeleteI agree with you on the point where the people may only vote for the candidate in their political party so it's like a blind choice. But, if there are no political parties how will the candidates become known? Wouldn't the same thing just happen again? Where the people trying to run for office will group together with people who have similar views for the support and money for an election? Wouldn't that just lead to political parties to arise again? But only as many small third parties? Also what would happen to the federal government and the state governments for that matter? Would it just lead to chaos and anarchy?
Delete-James Phillips
I agree, such people need to understand that we cannot just vote whoever we want. But then again wouldn't the political parties help the Government, such as giving out more opinions or open minds for more people to understand their views? May be they can vote proficiently.
DeleteI think the government would and wouldn't be better off without political parties. One reason why I think the government would be better off is because the government can’t get anything done. For example schools can’t get proper funding’s because all the money is going to the political parties so they can get in office. Another reason why the government would be better off is because they wouldn't be corrupt. For example a person won’t be able to any to get anybody they want in office so they can run the country through the person they got elected. I think the government wouldn't be better off is because wouldn't have a black president. For example if there weren't any political parties Obama wouldn't have been elected president. Another reason why they wouldn't be better off is because the people wouldn't be able to elect who they want to lead them. For example if there weren't any political parties the government would pick people who they think are good for the people and that person might be good to have that job. In conclusion these are my reasons why I think the government would and wouldn't be better off without political parties.
ReplyDeleteI like what you say about both sides here. Gridlock does hurt government and on the same line parties help people like the president get into power. If you do not pick a side though you should make a claim on what could be done to fix the problem.
DeleteDonald I disagree with you on the point where you said the government wouldn't be corrupt if there were no political parties. Our country wouldn't be a utopia. Perfection among human beings doesn't exist, we are all imperfect and at times are bound for corruption. But, I agree with you where you said if there weren't and political parties the government would just elect officials who may not have the best interests of the people at heart. If that were the case what powers would the people now have?
DeleteBriana Bookhard
ReplyDeleteI am on both sides of the question. I do think government would be better off without political parties, but then I dont. I dont think government would be better off because having political parties in my opinion give citizens of each working class to vote for someone who actually will help. Without political parties may the country be a dictatorship? I think so. The government may not work without being a dictatorship. Some things don't work without a different variety of different opinions (votes). But then again I think the government would be better off without political parties. There can be interest groups. For example: the govenment makes laws then simply get the feedback of the how the citizens take it. I think the government wouldnt be better off more than I think that they will be better off.
Interesting perspective. Would a government without political parties be a dictatorship, and isn't a government with only two viable parties close to being a totalitarian state?
DeleteI think the government would be better off without the political parties. The first reason why I think the government would be better off without political parties is money spending. The money these parties are spending could go to better things like schools, homeless people, and the cure for a serious disease. Another reason why the government would be better off without political parties is education. For example you don’t have to have a high school diploma to become a senator. My third reason why the government would be better off is because of corruption. You can get a person to get elect for an important government position and run the government through them. My final reason why the government would be better without them is because you can’t get anything important done. For example you can’t focus on gun control regulation because these political parties are running campaigns and spending a lot of money on nonsense. These are the reasons why I think the government would be better off without political parties.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but not having political parties will lead to dictatorship and one party system. Also it will be arduous to choose a leader or candidate because people have different opinion and views and will lead country into chaos.
DeleteI agree that political parties are spending so much money when it can be used for other benefits. Like school and etc. Also, nothing gets done.
DeleteI like that you bring money into the scenario. Just remember that political parties are not mentioned in the constitution and are thus not part of the government. It is not as if parties are running campaigns with tax dollars.
DeleteI agree with you "Sir Charles". Political parties are wasting money. Money that can be put in good use. Mr. Kail is right in a way about the parties not using TAX dollars to support their campaigns.Still, all the money they use to get notice they can use to help rebuild America.
DeleteI agree with you Christian because the money that is being spent could go to schools and the cure of a disease. These problems are more important than who would run the country.
DeleteSarah Phun
ReplyDeleteWould government be better off without political parties? For this question I am quite unsure, for I am still debating. To answer yes, I think political parties are a waste of time and "money". As we had explained in class, political campaigns are extremely expensive especially when only one candidate can win. Those who have lost, the money could have gone to something more beneficial. Whether it is medical research, education, houses, etc. Political parties are in fact corrupted. Although they may address the problem and oppose a solution they often lose track in doing what is actually needed to be done as they go against one another. On the other hand, political parties allow citizens to choose a leader who is willing to present himself and help. Which is the soul purpose of elections, it separates ourselves from monarchy, dictatorship, and all those other bad systems. We American citizens should not blame political parties and who ends up running, because we are giving the opportunity to "choose" who leads us. Which also explains why i think we need political parties. But in the end, I am still debating between the two. I'm in the middle! Oh no!
It is alright to be in the middle, but what do you think should be done? Some people argue that politicians should be in office for longer terms, such as a six year presidential term with not being able to run again. This would make less elections and less campaigning time. What do you think?
DeleteI am sort of in the middle now that I read this, you make good points. It's true that the money could be used to benefit other things, but then again we need to have choices to vote for. Still debating on political parties myself.
DeleteAll in honesty, that sounds like it would save so much more money but then again it destroys the purpose of having political parties run, especially for those who eagerly wants to set changes.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do believe the government would be better off without political parties. I believe it would be better off because people sometimes get into politics for all the wrong reasons. Many big businesses have a lot of influence on political parties, leading to corruption. I think George Washington said it best when he described his views on politics. Men will at one point of time abuse the power because of greed. As we discussed earlier in class, there are about 600 thousands people that are homeless in America because the government is "iffy" about raising the minimum wages mainly because they don't want to step on the toes of the big businesses that fund their campaigns to be re-elected . Another reason i believe that government is better off without political parties is that people sometimes make the wrong decisions when voting a candidate into office. People tend to vote more with their hearts instead of their minds and also in the US people change their mind on which political party they want to be apart of. Some parts of the UK have members of the government elect their leaders. Here they would say “the people don't have a voice in their government“ but think of it this way. Would you rather have members of the government who knows what is best and would help the country, or have the people (who hardly vote in big elections) vote for who they believe connects with them and would help them? Political Parties are all based on lies and deceit. They say one thing but as soon as their candidate is elected into office they change completely.
ReplyDelete-Pittsburgh Falls To Wichita State, 73-55-
Sam, good points, but would the elimination of parties end the corruption? Without parties candidates would still need to cater to votes in order to get elected.
DeleteI agree with your comment about big businesses, and some of their influences leading to corruption. And UK's way of government actually sounds like a pretty good idea; it would make sure that the people who are voting are the ones who actually know what is going on in the government. More than half of the people in the U.S don't even vote, and plenty of those who do, have no clue about the views of the person they vote for.
DeleteThat's a good point you made there, Mr. Kail. Candidates will still need to cater to votes in order to get elected. The elimination would not end the corruption at first because that's what people in the US are use to. "Money is Power". Back to the candidates catering to get votes. An average election campaign cost about 50 million dollars. In 2008 the Obama campaign raised about 75 million dollars. 75 million dollars!!! In the 2012 Presidential election Romney and Obama raised a combined 2.0651 Billion dollars. What i'm trying to say here is, why waste all that money on an election when they can help revive the economy.
DeleteI agree with your comment Sam because like what ivelise also mention about the "big businesses", it leads to corruptions. Large business and companies will do their best for their benefits, and that can lead to a bad person in office, etc.I also agree with political parties being removed because of people's ridiculous reasons to vote for that one person. It destroy the purpose of having those people campaign, and money us gone to waste at that point.
DeleteI agree with you Sam because a lot of big businesses have a lot of control in political parties and that causes the people to elect the unworthy person but without political parties we wouldn't have a black president.
DeleteI think government would be better off without political parties because they focus more on power than the people. For example, George Washington mentioned that people in political parties were ambitious and power-seeking in his speech. There are people in some parties who don't really know anything about the person running for president and so they vote based on what party they're in. This is bad for the government because the wrong candidate could win; someone whose views aren't in par with most of the civilians. Also, the democrats and republicans disagree so much that nothing gets done; one suggests a law to be made but the other doesn't approve because they're in different parties. Without political parties, that won't be a problem. A person can still run for president, they don't need to be in a political party. Political parties try to run the government, unlike interest groups who just want to be heard and have their views considered.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, but without political parties it will be arduous to choose a candidate. Political Parties gives people an understanding about their views and platform and also debates between the nominees help people to determine who their leader will be.
DeleteIvelise, I agree with you when you say politicians are ambiitous and power seeking. I wonder though if being power hungry is such a bad thing? If no one yearned for power what would our country look like?
DeleteShout out to Muhammad for using the word "arduous" in his response!
Ivelise, I agree with you because alot of these "running against" each other really gets them side tracked and like I have said, although they may address the problem needed to be fixed, they often lose track on doing it because they forget, or its their own way of speech to grab attentions of the people who greatly appeals to it. I also like how you mention about a person can run without being in a political party, because there are alot of people out there who can be neither a Republican or a democrat and can be highly more educated then those who run, I just think it's a waste to lets political parties ruin the opportunity for others.
DeleteI agree with you Ivelise because the government focused on how they are going to win the next election rather than how they’re going to help the people. This results into nothing getting done.
DeleteI think the government be better off having the Political parties. The two main reasons political parties exist are that they provide a good deal of stability to the government and they help a voter find a canidate whose platform they agree with. I like political parties but I don't particularly like the two party system that exists in the United States. Basically the problem is the two parties just try to appeal to the most number of voters and whichever one who appeals to the most will get the most votes. This is something that I find to be something that can become very contradictory and hypocritical very quickly. The political parties focus much on the locals and the states vote. Unlike the presidential votes altogether. I believe it's better to have the political parties to control the 3 branches of the Government. Their system would be the best for the people to look forward to. In conclusion, I believe the government should pay more attention to them.
ReplyDeleteKevin I completely agree with you that the political party structure does bring stability to our government. Do you think our country would be better off with more options, like a three or four party system? How would this change the system?
ReplyDelete