Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

we all know this...........

I'm ok with it

A guy was talking to me about a hypothetical thing he'd like to see enacted (not that he thinks it ever would be).  He suggests parties would be prohibited, resulting in the removal of "R" and "D" next to candidates' names.  This, he thinks, would remove the party-line voting and force people to vote strictly on the platform a candidate runs on.  He estimates a significant amount of current voters would just not vote, not being herded through the D or the R door as they're conditioned, but those who do vote would vote on issues rather than party loyalty. 

I see the appeal here, and I agree that removing a party affiliation from candidates would disorient the public and force interested voters to actually know something about the positions of the candidate.  Where I think it's La-La-Land is....

...it's crap. 

My take:

--Parties are inevitable.  To get anything done in Congress, there has to be some measure of widespread agreement.  When people agree on a range of issues, they're a party whether they have a name and a national convention (etc.) or not.  Eventually, a candidate would be identified with "the guys who voted for all this stuff and against all that stuff" as opposed to being identified with "the other guys who voted for all this other stuff and against all that other stuff."  Which would wind up being exactly where we are now, sans convenient names.  It may even wind up effectively being more like multi-party countries, rather than the no-party thing he's shooting for.  

--Parties are necessary.  As mentioned, it takes widespread agreement to do anything.  Also, parties raise money and contribute to campaigns, and without that, I don't see how many candidates could raise the $ necessary to get their name out there and make voters aware of their stances, which is the purpose of this proposed system.  

What do you think?  I think this is an example of a good idea, but that has no realistic mechanism.  Or at least this form isn't it.  Curious if anybody else disagrees with my critique, in which case, tell me what I'm missing.  

My Dad used to go down to the local McDs for breakfast every morning and sit with 3-4-5 other guys.  I went with him, once.  My Dad, who was quite conservative, was the most liberal of the lot.  By far.  The other men were mostly complaining about "guvmint" and the VA, they'd get going on the VA and it would never stop.  And of course they lit up about thiose "other folks", I suppose 40 years early they would have said "Negroes" or worse, probably worse.  Everything was someone else's fault.

Today, those folks are "on line".  Their voices are amplified and public, and garner others of like mind, or near like mind, and yet others to combat them.

Humans are very tribal.  Ever been to some party where you were the only white dude?  It's pretty fun.

A guy was talking to me about a hypothetical thing he'd like to see enacted (not that he thinks it ever would be).  He suggests parties would be prohibited, resulting in the removal of "R" and "D" next to candidates' names.  This, he thinks, would remove the party-line voting and force people to vote strictly on the platform a candidate runs on.  He estimates a significant amount of current voters would just not vote, not being herded through the D or the R door as they're conditioned, but those who do vote would vote on issues rather than party loyalty. 

I see the appeal here, and I agree that removing a party affiliation from candidates would disorient the public and force interested voters to actually know something about the positions of the candidate.  Where I think it's La-La-Land is....

...it's crap. 

My take:

--Parties are inevitable.  To get anything done in Congress, there has to be some measure of widespread agreement.  When people agree on a range of issues, they're a party whether they have a name and a national convention (etc.) or not.  Eventually, a candidate would be identified with "the guys who voted for all this stuff and against all that stuff" as opposed to being identified with "the other guys who voted for all this other stuff and against all that other stuff."  Which would wind up being exactly where we are now, sans convenient names.  It may even wind up effectively being more like multi-party countries, rather than the no-party thing he's shooting for. 

--Parties are necessary.  As mentioned, it takes widespread agreement to do anything.  Also, parties raise money and contribute to campaigns, and without that, I don't see how many candidates could raise the $ necessary to get their name out there and make voters aware of their stances, which is the purpose of this proposed system. 

What do you think?  I think this is an example of a good idea, but that has no realistic mechanism.  Or at least this form isn't it.  Curious if anybody else disagrees with my critique, in which case, tell me what I'm missing. 

I agree with your take.  

People don't like the parties but, IMHO, that is simply because it is easier to blame them than to look at where the responsibility really lies which is with the voters.  

Frankly, voting based on R/D IS voting based on issues.  When you consider how many campaign promises end up being broken, voting strictly based on R/D makes MORE sense than voting based on what the candidates say.  

Also, people aren't loyal to parties forever.  I think that Trump is a symptom more than a cause but there has been a massive shift over the last ~20 years of white working-class voters from D to R.  I'm sure @OrangeAfroMan would tell us that they are voting against their own interests.  I've seen that argument from leftists but that isn't how THEY see it.  They have switched parties en-mass because, as they see it, the R's now more closely align with their interests and beliefs than the D's.  

Some cities don't label candidates by party, it doesn't seem to matter much.  Maybe it does and I don't notice it.

I figure most candidates PROMISE x Y and Z and deliver very little if any of that.  In reality, most individual members of Congress has limited power to get much done other than to vote how they are told.  Can anyone here name a real maverick in Congress today?  

Thomas Massie.  Matt Gaetz was.

On the other side -- Joe Manchin, maybe. 

Sinema was too.

McConnel is now.

To be fair though, prior to 1994 specifically there were a LOT of "Conservative Southern Democrats" in the House and Senate. 

The Democrats held a majority in the House from the 1954 election up until the 1994 election.  During that 40 years of Democratic control of the HoR they also controlled the Senate for all but six years (1981-1986). 

That sounds like a big deal but, back then, it really wasn't.  Actual ideological control of congress flipped multiple times within that stretch as coalitions usually consisted of:

• Conservative coalitions of (some of the) Republicans and the Conservative Southern Democrats vs
• Liberal coalitions of (some of the) Democrats and Liberal Northern Republicans. 

Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party ended that by effectively nationalizing the Congressional election in 1994.  That made it more difficult for Southern Democrats from conservative districts to run as conservative at home but vote liberal in DC. 

Around 30 years ago Lincoln Chafee was a Republican in Rhode Island and Dick Shelby was a Democrat in Alabama and, realistically, Chafee was the liberal and Shelby was the conservative. 

Both of those types have effectively gone extinct.  Liberal northern Republicans like Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee switched to D while conservative southern Democrats like Shelby switched to R. 

Good points, and I was thinking more specifically of the presidential elections.  My grandfather was voting for guys like JFK and LBJ, and by then his actual beliefs were pretty much the antithesis of those democrats' platforms/ideology.