Non-Partisan Elections

Pretty much agree, This should only be instituted when all candidates run on minimal, equal campaign budgets mandated by the state.

Which is to say, this shouldn't happen.

Getting people to vote for candidates instead of parties makes its own kind of sense, but people will just vote for the most well-known name instead. A good idea that won't work.

We have supposedly "non-partisan elections" for the Mayor's office and City Council in Houston, but it doesn't help matters when the President puts out commercials endorsing this or that candidate. Come election time, it's pretty clear who swings for what team.

We just had a City Council member publicly switch parties (from Dem to GOP), when it's supposed to be a non-partisan council to begin with. Pissed off a lot of people, but I think he's setting himself up for a mayoral run anyway, and we're supposed to be the home city of President Bush Sr. (when he's not in Kennebunkport in the summer. Wussy. Can't take the heat.), so, yeah, partisanship plays a huge role in elections here, even if they don't say so.

Yes, God forbid that people actually have to know what a candidate stands for, instead of looking for their party's line and clicking straight across.

I'm of the opinion that parties should be done away with entierly, and this is a step in the right direction.

Would you support this if it was done all at once, across the nation?

I ALSO think parties should be done away with, but it's in Man's nature to seek and consolidate power, and we'd just have them by another name (Lobbies? Advocacy Groups?)

We will never get rid of the Dems or the GOP. Never. The only way I'd see it is if someone fucked up huge enough to shame the entire party... then they'd just change their name.

[/sarcasm on]

Wait, you mean that the voters will actually have to learn WHO the candidates are, and what they stand for?

There will actually be a thought process involved? And individual voter education?

That's just crazy talk!!!!

[/sarcasm off]

Grifter, have you ever voted for a non-Republican?

Will voters actually learn about the candidates, or will they

1) Not vote at all

2) Just pick someone, probably the name they are already familiar with.

Yup, I actually have. I will admit, not in a national election, but in local and state, I have.

Some of the local/state Republican's are just two scoops of stupid down here.

Hehe, I like that phrase. Gotta steal that one...

If that is the case (which, regrettably, it probably is) then the voters are the one's that lose out. Not the politicos.

I don't see how anyone could accept the proposal that "less information on the voter ballot is good."

I am not one for "spoon feeding" the masses. I think that each person should take it upon themselves to become educated.

Ignorance is not bliss.

This leads to each individual being able to shape their own, independent, ideas.

It is at that time, through education of the issues, that people form their ideological beliefs.

Then they can be Dem/Rep, conservo/liberal, whatever, by making and informed decision. Not just being "sheeple".

Again, this works great in Ideal World, but can you honestly say you know the positions of every single politician you've ever voted for and haven't just gone with the party line?

And what about those instances that Dev mentioned where you HAVE heard about the main (Democrat and Republican) candidates in a minor election and found them both lacking. Perhaps you know you want to vote against both of them, but don't want to inadvertantly cast your vote for the American Nazi Party?

If I have voted for them, I have researched them.

If you HAVE heard about the main guys, but not the "other" guys, then EDUCATE yourself about them.

Does this work in the real world? No, of course not.

That's the problem.

Society keeps consistently LOWERING the standards so that people will not feel "left out". Screw them. If they do not want to feel "left out", then they should STRIVE to achieve, not expect standards to be lowered for them, so they fit in.

Perhaps it's just an old Army thing, but one should always strive to set the standard, not simply meet it.

If that attitude would permeate the "masses", we would not have a lot of these problems to begin with.

Why am I not suprised you see this as elitist and anti-democracy?

I don't think it's either.

Knowing which party people belong to is perhaps the most important piece of information that can be given to a voter (unless you're a f*cking traitor like Jim Jeffords). Depriving the voter of that info will not energize them into doing research into all the candidates. In fact, it will create more confusion and more apathy.

It's not just the "uneducated" who don't know the ins and outs of all political candidates on a given ballot. And it's not just "lazy" people.

If you're, say, a brain surgeon, you've got more important things to do than take your time researching every candidate running in a local senatorial race. Life does not always stop for us to do the research we should be doing. The next best thing is to vote your will, according to what you know. While not infallible, party affiliations give you a vague idea of which politician in a given election would best serve your interests.

Actually, I'm in complete agreement with Devin here. This does not bode well for anyone but an ultra-elitist, be they Democrat or Republican.

BUT---
I'd like to see the primary system(s) done away with, or radically revamped.

My State is a prime example of a tragically dysfunctional primary system.

I agree with Devin too on this. I think part of this is because the Republican party will do everything they can next election to get Bloomburg off the ticket. Whether they bring Rudy back, or find someone else, Bloomburg has done more damage to the Republican party in New York City than anyone I can think of. With this, he can run on his name, and not against a party. I think it's just a grab by him for something, anything, that will stop his slide toward Gray Davis.

I agree 100% with this statement.

However, I can't even begin to imagine how you see my views as elitist, or anti-democracy.

I want people to be educated, to learn for themselves, to better themselves and those around them with knowledge. That's elitist? To wish someone BETTER circumstances than they already have? That's elitist?

And anti-democracy? The very essence of democracy is CHOICE. I feel that, if you are not spoon fed who the parties are, perhaps that will spur just a few people to actually learn about the candidate and make an INFORMED choice. Personally, I could give a crap less if they vote Dem/Rep/Green/Beach/Bar-b-q, whatever. Just ANYTHING that will spur them, just a little bit, to become involved.

If you go to the polls to vote, for anything, and you are not educated about the issues, or the people, you do a dis-service to not only yourself, but to the local/state/federal municipality that you are voting for.

I really hate to say this, but after looking at my reasons for being for this, I can imagine how Devin, and some others are so against this.
There are many out there that AFTER they become informed, may not vote the same party they always have. There goes the "grassroots" support base that the Dem's have always enjoyed. Because as soon as someone betters themselves, and educates themselves, and elevates themselves, the less they rely on the government to give them things, and take care of them.

The moment someone becomes educated, and decides to strive for better than what they have, the less reliance they have for their "security blanket", and the more responsibility they take for themselves.

As soon as that happens, they have little use for the politician that is going to "help them", and "take care of them." The more use they have for the one that is going to "help them, to help themselves".

Ok, yeah, I can see now where this might be a VERY scary thing for the Dems out there.

By the way, Yes, it is.

If you have 5 minutes to sit on your ass and watch Seinfeld, you have 5 minutes to educate yourself about the world around you. It's a choice, and a responsibilty that each individual makes for themselves.

Yeah, and five minutes will give you exactly enough time to find out the basics about the two main candidates. But what about the other guys?

Parties exist as a means of political shorthand. Perhaps you know plenty about the platforms of the Libertarian Party and support them, but just don't happen to know the name of the guy running for that party in your local race.

You still may be a more educated voter than the guy who knows every scandalous bit about the local Democratic and Republican candidates and chooses to vote based on which candidate has fucked up less.

And the crack about people who are more educated becoming more conservative is absolute nonsense. I don't have the stats handy, but I'm pretty sure most highly educated people in the US (read: those with graduate degrees) tend to skew liberal.

But that's even beside the point. I fully support myself and don't need a "security blanket," but I'm liberal. I believe this is the case for pretty much every liberal posting on this board, actually. You seem to paint every liberal as selfishly wanting the government to provide for them, when this is absolutely not the case.