Genuine question. I feel like there’s too much division and that people should find common ground. I really don’t like the two-party system in the US either.
nonpartisan democracy
What is it called when you believe the U.S. political parties shouldn’t exist?
Submitted 1 day ago by qtpie@piefed.social to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Comments
daggermoon@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
George Washington didn’t want political parties either. So whatever you are it’s patriotic af.
Pechente@feddit.org 1 day ago
I think parties are fine but a multi party system usually works much better since parties will have to make coalitions and will usually shit on each other a bit less.
Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
GW specifically didn’t want the US to devolve into a 2-party system.
IMO single party or multi party system can both result in a functional representative democracy.
TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 6 hours ago
Nonpartisan. Though there are not really movements against this, just small nations that ban parties.
I will push back on your opinions, though. “Division” is not a moral or political quantity. It is not itself good nor bad. Trans people were universally oppressed for centuries. Now they have some protections. This is a consequence of struggle against transphobia, that struggle is inherently a division. There are transphobes and pro-trans people. The pro-trans group should win. For them to win we need to support them materially and in as effectively as possible, which means through organized work. Progress against oppression only occurs through division and struggle. And the best vehicles for this are organizations - basically parties or very similar apparatuses.
The two-party system is a symptom of deeper problems and they shouldn’t be summarized as division. The two-party system is really just a very effective way for the ruling class (business owners) to achieve their ends while still providing a venue for “the political”, often struggles and oppressions that they personally exacerbated. For example, some of the earliest institutional racism in what would become the US emerged due to worker solidarity and struggle. The ruling class decided to divide and conquer: they created a race-based system, defining a new class corresponding to “black”, who would be the most exploited, and exploiting everyone ekse skightly left. This is not theater, as the oppressed are facing actual oppression, but it is cynical: it’s really about profit maximization and controlling workers. The two-party system makes this kind of thing a constant endeavor, you can spend all of your time invested in struggles imposed by the ruling class and exemplified in the parties, and in doing so never focus on the underlying system that creates it. But of course not every oppression makes its way into this attempt at distraction, as when the oppression is bipartisan (no division in that case but still bad!). For example, both parties are in favor of the genocide of Palestinians and both actively ensure that it happens. A few decades ago both were purely transphobic and did nit evdn exhibit today’s liberal cooption of the struggle (notice that it has slowed down).
Most importantly, the two-party system prevents popular politics that runs counter to ruling class interests. Their greatest opponents are the left, so the US political system prevents left parties from functioning abd becoming popular. Want to run as a third party? Well the Dems will gladly do a last-minute change to how many signatures you need to gather to get on the ballot. They can meet the number because they will pay people to collect them, but you have to have already prepared a horde of volunteers. Organize a socialist party? They might just plain kill you.
It is not the existence of parties that is the problem, but the stifling of left parties, of those that can challenge the systemic causes of oppression.
VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
You know, I don’t think there is a term.
So, I’ll coin it: Washingtonism.
Our first President famously advised against political parties. He also stepped down after two turns, establishing a tradition that later became part of the Constitution after FDR won his third term.
He also had slave teeth.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I don’t think there is a term
Pretty sure it’s “common sense”.
School_Lunch@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Political parties are inevitable with fptp elections. It will always come down to 2 candidates. Any 3rd candidate will only split the vote with whoever is most similar. People tend to naturally organize themselves into groups based on who they agree with most. I don’t know if its possible to get rid of political parties all together but having more than 2 would be an improvement. The only way to do that is to change our elections. Either ranked-choice voting or runoffs when no one gets more than half the votes could allow for people to vote 3rd party without throwing away their votes.
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
Political parties coalesce in a representative government anyways. “Hey Sally, can you support my bill to buy flowers for the White House, and I’ll support your bill to buy guns for the army”
IronKrill@lemmy.ca 22 hours ago
Common sense
bobagem@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
The literal answer to your literal question is non-partisan.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy The US started as de facto non-partisan democracy. There is a de jure option.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy Direct democracy would probably give less power to political parties, but there still could be voting blocs. An example: en.wikipedia.org/…/Orthodox_Jewish_bloc_voting
Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
The best answer here @qtpie@piefed.social
Kolanaki@pawb.social 1 day ago
Non-partisan.
iii@mander.xyz 1 day ago
It’s hard to assign a name to a negative, as the alternatives are so plenty. Maybe describe the improvements you might like?
I, for one, like the ideas of liquid democracy.
potoo22@programming.dev 1 day ago
Finally! I found the name for what I’ve been thinking of. Thank you!
Yeah! I think liquid democracy is practical with today’s technology, especially if it is encrypted correctly with verification and privacy in mind.
pennomi@lemmy.world 1 day ago
This is my favorite type of democracy. Why even have representatives in a digital-first world?
Tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
There was a very interesting tool/game someone made in Finland. You got shown the same problems the actualy Ministers of Parliament have to vote on, and all attachments that are available for public.
The idea was that it shows that direct democracy can work just fine.
I spent an evening trying to make my mind on whether I want to support expanding a ski centre in Lapland or not. Both sides had very good arguments! In the end I ended up thinking “Damn, this is a huge amount of work! If there was a system like this in place in Finland, I’d definitely want to outsource my part. I’d find someone that thinks more or less the same way as I do and I’d pay them to do the research and use my vote. It would make sense that people would sell that service to several citizens at once, bringing down the cost per person. I would not want to spend several hours each day researching something like ski centres 800 km away from my home – yet if only few do and vote, then the result is really random. So, I would definitely want someone to represent me.”
And then I figured that “damn, this is actually the system we have right now!”
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It’s a sign of above average intelligence. The two party system is what has destroyed the United States. Democrats and Republicans and the citizens who fear anything but are equally responsible.
kmartburrito@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I don’t know how the hell we’re going to eliminate our first past the post voting system. The two entrenched parties, by design, will want to hold onto that power, and it will require their cooperation to both make change while simultaneously making the active choice to let go of power.
Doesn’t seem likely to happen, which is depressing.
BTW, I’m not disagreeing with you, just felt my reply made the most sense here.
nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
New Zealand switched from first past the post to mixed-member proportional in 1992. Despite a two party system at the time.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I dont know how they got rich of monarchs when they hoard all the power, but somehow they’re mostly gone (at least de facto, since “monarchs” in constitutional monarchies are not true monarchs)
Maybe it goes a bit beyond just asking nicely. See Euromaiden Revolution (it was about corruption and foreign influence not fptp, but same principle applies)
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The two parties will go away if nobody votes for them. The population is far too complacent for any kind of actual change.
Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
We can get there with A LOT more violence.
afalcone@feddit.it 1 day ago
ranked-choice voting? that would eliminate much of the need for parties anyway
Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 21 hours ago
That really does not end up resulting that way.
brashboy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Anti-partisan maybe?
themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Patriotism. Democracy. Representational Government. Freedom. Liberty. Take your pick.
humanspiral@lemmy.ca 23 hours ago
Anti-zionazi??? The single issue that determines candidates for office in both parties is loyalty to Israel. DNC approval more important than RNC. The Green party only ever saying/doing anything 2 months before elections is as close to proof of being a RNC vote splitting organization.
We have the technology for liquid democracy. Every citizen has the right to vote on every issue, or delegate their vote to anyone they trust, who can delegate further. Sure, an administrator should exist for purposes of instant reaction to emergencies, and subject to continuous confidence votes when out of emergencies, but liquid democracy is only actual democracy. What we have is who gets the most money/zionist media love to make them look good when kissing babies or making promises of improving lives, but just implement zionazi warmongering once elected.
mugita_sokiovt@discuss.online 1 day ago
This is something called anarchy (not the form that’s co-opted). It’ll be more of a meritocracy if anything, though.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
They will always exist, its natural for form alliances.
Seems like you just want to get rid of fptp and the emergent property of the two-party system under fptp. So maybe you can call yourself an “Advocate for proportional representation / multi-member districts”
devolution@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Being normal. That’s what it’s called as a two party system is just bound for failure if one party does not uphold the social contract.
Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 1 day ago
Following Washington's guidance is what I call it.
chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 1 day ago
A nation of toddlers all screaming for something different and being unable to come together on a single point.
theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Simone de Beauvoir would call that the aesthetic attitude.
Juice@midwest.social 11 minutes ago
Idealism