• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is partisan politics too partisan?

Do you believe that partisan politics divides people unnecessarily?

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
I think it is unnecessarily divisive. The big problem with partisan politics is people become enslaved to their party and ideology and go along with the party without actually rationally thinking about the issue. The start from "the Dems/Repubs are right, let me rehash their talking points and tell you why you're wrong." It makes people hate the other side and some will believe anything negative about their opposition. There is nothing wrong with believing in an ideology or strongly supporting a party, but be rational about it and don't just agree or tote things because the party says so or because it advances your agenda. One key giveaway is when people bash the other side and attack the opposition not for their views, but because of who they are.
 
X Factor said:
Partisan politics can be too divisive, obviously, but I also think differing points of view, and the willingness to stand up for what you believe are good things.
Click to expand...

They are. I full heartily agree. But when being in a side blinds you to reason, that's a problem. (I don't mean you personally)
 
digsbe said:
I think it is unnecessarily divisive. The big problem with partisan politics is people become enslaved to their party and ideology and go along with the party without actually rationally thinking about the issue. The start from "the Dems/Repubs are right, let me rehash their talking points and tell you why you're wrong." It makes people hate the other side and some will believe anything negative about their opposition. There is nothing wrong with believing in an ideology or strongly supporting a party, but be rational about it and don't just agree or tote things because the party says so or because it advances your agenda. One key giveaway is when people bash the other side and attack the opposition not for their views, but because of who they are.
Click to expand...




Maybe people don't like the natural results of a war they declared 30 years ago ? Well, be careful what you ask for...........................
 
Bonzai said:
Maybe people don't like the natural results of a war they declared 30 years ago ? Well, be careful what you ask for...........................
Click to expand...

And what does this have to do with the content of my post? Is there anything you disagree with specifically or would like to discuss?
 
sangha said:
I think your questions said more than that, but I accept that was your intent

The fact is, our political system was designed to be a two party system. While people can (and do) have a wide variety of views and ideologies, in the end our problems are "solved" through the political process which is dominated by two parties.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, our system was never designed with political parties in mind. If I remember correctly, one of the founders stated specifically that political parties would screw the whole thing up.

So we have a multitude of opinions and two parties to represent them. Does that mean that they are or are not "representative" of the people? I'd say yes and no. The two parties certainly do not do a comprehensive job of representing everyone's opinions, but they do a fairly decent job of representing those in the middle of the ideological spectrum. Though we often like to think that, for any given issue, there's a "republican" position and a "democratic" one, but the truth is that there is diversity within each party as well as between the two parties.

That's because people are different. Different people have differing life experiences that have led them to have a different world view than others do. Simply having a polite discussion isn't going to change the fact that these differences can be huge. Then add in fact that people are not quite the rational beings we like to imagine we are and that leaves me with little hope that there is a simple way to resolve difficult and troubling differences amongst the various groups of people.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. The reason I tend to disagree is that I personally don't agree with either party on the ideal approach to most issues. I see other issues (such as abortion) as too complicated and subjective to justify having public policy on those issues dictated at the federal level at all. It does more to distract against larger problems in society than it does to undo any social wrong no matter which way the policy is dictated.
 
Bonzai said:
Maybe people don't like the natural results of a war they declared 30 years ago ? Well, be careful what you ask for...........................
Click to expand...

Awww such a victim
 
digsbe said:
And what does this have to do with the content of my post? Is there anything you disagree with specifically or would like to discuss?
Click to expand...



Yes. I disagree with your use of the word "unnecessarily"--------------The Right wanted total war, they've got it, and now they want to whine about "mean people" ?.................Oh, Christ......................
 
X Factor said:
Trying to do what? Make Bonzai happy? Definitely not. Still won't quit my day job though.
Click to expand...

Well if you weren't trying to make him happy, why did you imply that he's determined not to be? I'd try to make him happy and see the result before I declared him a malcontent.

Not that I disagree with you, mind you. This place has enough disagreeable malcontents that if they're not being paid to come here and screw up the conversation by the people that want to disenfranchise us, then they're giving away their good work for free.
 
SocialEngineer said:
On the contrary, our system was never designed with political parties in mind. If I remember correctly, one of the founders stated specifically that political parties would screw the whole thing up.
Click to expand...

Yes, it wasn't their intention to have political parties, so my use of the word designed was clumsy. However, by creating a winner takes all system, they made it impossible to be any other way. Such as system makes it inevitable that parties will form with the purpose of capturing 50% +1 of the votes. More than two parties, and that becomes either a death knell for two, or political paralysis



Perhaps. The reason I tend to disagree is that I personally don't agree with either party on the ideal approach to most issues. I see other issues (such as abortion) as too complicated and subjective to justify having public policy on those issues dictated at the federal level at all. It does more to distract against larger problems in society than it does to undo any social wrong no matter which way the policy is dictated.
Click to expand...

Most people do not agree with any party on all issues. However, people's worldview does lead them to cluster around certain ideas, like how some people view the states as better arbiters of some policies. I see no reason to think that having 50 partisan debates would be any less "distracting" than having one. In fact, I disagree that people having strong opinions on important issues are "distractions" at all.
 
Bonzai said:
Yes. I disagree with your use of the word "unnecessarily"--------------The Right wanted total war, they've got it, and now they want to whine about "mean people" ?.................Oh, Christ......................
Click to expand...

So, in response to the right's effort to divide the populace against its self, your response to fight against that is to work twice as hard to divide people?

Are you hoping to divide people so much that they go so far off the edges of the political spectrum that they wrap around or something?
 
SocialEngineer said:
So, in response to the right's effort to divide the populace against its self, your response to fight against that is to work twice as hard to divide people?

Are you hoping to divide people so much that they go so far off the edges of the political spectrum that they wrap around or something?
Click to expand...

No, the idea is to let the republican party push itself farther and farther to the right, leaving the center (which is where the majority of the voters are) for the democrats
 
SocialEngineer said:
So, in response to the right's effort to divide the populace against its self, your response to fight against that is to work twice as hard to divide people?

Are you hoping to divide people so much that they go so far off the edges of the political spectrum that they wrap around or something?
Click to expand...

I have a feeling you and I are going to disagree about a few things but I do sincerely appreciate the sense of humor.
 
SocialEngineer said:
So, in response to the right's effort to divide the populace against its self, your response to fight against that is to work twice as hard to divide people?

Are you hoping to divide people so much that they go so far off the edges of the political spectrum that they wrap around or something?
Click to expand...

I am hoping to match my enemies' goals.................They've shown me no mercy and I have decided to show them the same.....................
 
sangha said:
Yes, it wasn't their intention to have political parties, so my use of the word designed was clumsy. However, by creating a winner takes all system, they made it impossible to be any other way. Such as system makes it inevitable that parties will form with the purpose of capturing 50% +1 of the votes. More than two parties, and that becomes either a death knell for two, or political paralysis
Click to expand...
True enough, but the party structure is not established by the constitution at all. There's nothing that mandates the existence of political parties at all.

In fact, these days there are more people that don't vote than people that do, mostly because people have lost faith in the party system. If those people were to form a third party, that party would steamroll both of the existing ones.

And runoff elections are already possible if no candidate wins a majority. There's nothing that says that states can't amend their constitutions to create that dynamic. Some already have it if I'm not mistaken. Adopting that policy alone would allow for the end of two-party dominance. If they had public campaign financing based on which party voters register with, where crossing a certain threshold of registered voters guaranteed an equal portion of campaign funds, it would eliminate special interest control of the election process at the same time.

Most people do not agree with any party on all issues. However, people's worldview does lead them to cluster around certain ideas, like how some people view the states as better arbiters of some policies. I see no reason to think that having 50 partisan debates would be any less "distracting" than having one. In fact, I disagree that people having strong opinions on important issues are "distractions" at all.
Click to expand...
The opinions aren't the distraction. The refusal to respect the right of someone to disagree with you is the distraction. Having 50 partisan debates allows for the decision to be made locally so that those municipalities can have what they want locally without forcing it on people universally. If you don't like what your state government does, you can move. If you don't like what the federal government does, all you can do is secede or revolt (neither of which are without partisan consequence themselves).

It also allows for the different approaches to succeed or fail on their merits. If people disagree on the best approach to solve a problem, it's valuable to society if all the approaches are allowed to be tried and tested on their merits. If one approach provides better overall results than another, there's no rule that says the state with the inferior approach can't voluntarily adopt another approach after seeing how well it works.

Gay marriage is a pretty good example. With states allowed to adopt the policy on its merits, other states may see that it's not a bad idea after all. Maybe the societies in those states collapse in a heap instead, proving the arguments of the religious right. Who knows until society is allowed to try those things and validate them on their merits, and why try something on the whole country at once when half the people think it's a crappy idea?
 
X Factor said:
I have a feeling you and I are going to disagree about a few things but I do sincerely appreciate the sense of humor.
Click to expand...
Disagreement is inevitable. It's only harmful to society when you lose your sense of charity and respect for people. A collective sense of humor about how ridiculous things have become may be the biggest chance we have of saving this ****ed up country.

Bonzai said:
I am hoping to match my enemies' goals.................They've shown me no mercy and I have decided to show them the same.....................
Click to expand...
Let me know how that works out for you.
 
SocialEngineer said:
True enough, but the party structure is not established by the constitution at all. There's nothing that mandates the existence of political parties at all.

In fact, these days there are more people that don't vote than people that do, mostly because people have lost faith in the party system. If those people were to form a third party, that party would steamroll both of the existing ones.

And runoff elections are already possible if no candidate wins a majority. There's nothing that says that states can't amend their constitutions to create that dynamic. Some already have it if I'm not mistaken. Adopting that policy alone would allow for the end of two-party dominance. If they had public campaign financing based on which party voters register with, where crossing a certain threshold of registered voters guaranteed an equal portion of campaign funds, it would eliminate special interest control of the election process at the same time.

The opinions aren't the distraction. The refusal to respect the right of someone to disagree with you is the distraction. Having 50 partisan debates allows for the decision to be made locally so that those municipalities can have what they want locally without forcing it on people universally. If you don't like what your state government does, you can move. If you don't like what the federal government does, all you can do is secede or revolt (neither of which are without partisan consequence themselves).

It also allows for the different approaches to succeed or fail on their merits. If people disagree on the best approach to solve a problem, it's valuable to society if all the approaches are allowed to be tried and tested on their merits. If one approach provides better overall results than another, there's no rule that says the state with the inferior approach can't voluntarily adopt another approach after seeing how well it works.

Gay marriage is a pretty good example. With states allowed to adopt the policy on its merits, other states may see that it's not a bad idea after all. Maybe the societies in those states collapse in a heap instead, proving the arguments of the religious right. Who knows until society is allowed to try those things and validate them on their merits, and why try something on the whole country at once when half the people think it's a crappy idea?
Click to expand...



Maybe because the Middle Eastern book of farout fairytales is true afterall ? Right. That's sounds "scientific".........................
 
SocialEngineer said:
True enough, but the party structure is not established by the constitution at all. There's nothing that mandates the existence of political parties at all.

In fact, these days there are more people that don't vote than people that do, mostly because people have lost faith in the party system. If those people were to form a third party, that party would steamroll both of the existing ones.

And runoff elections are already possible if no candidate wins a majority. There's nothing that says that states can't amend their constitutions to create that dynamic. Some already have it if I'm not mistaken. Adopting that policy alone would allow for the end of two-party dominance. If they had public campaign financing based on which party voters register with, where crossing a certain threshold of registered voters guaranteed an equal portion of campaign funds, it would eliminate special interest control of the election process at the same time.
Click to expand...

No, the two party system isn't mandated, but think of it as putting two people in a room with a gun loaded with one bullet. Tell them you're locking them in for 30 days. You don't have to mandate murder, but I guarantee that when you come back thirty days later, there will be a skeleton with a bullet hole in it's skull.

As far as non-voters goes, there certainly are a lot of people who are turned off by the political system, but I don't think you could get them to vote for the same candidate. They have just as much diversity in their opinions as the people who do vote.

And you can jigger with how states allocate electors as much as you want, but in the end the game is won by one player. Therefore, it makes sense to get 50% +1. That creates the dynamic that practically guarantees two (major) parties.

The opinions aren't the distraction. The refusal to respect the right of someone to disagree with you is the distraction. Having 50 partisan debates allows for the decision to be made locally so that those municipalities can have what they want locally without forcing it on people universally. If you don't like what your state government does, you can move. If you don't like what the federal government does, all you can do is secede or revolt (neither of which are without partisan consequence themselves).

It also allows for the different approaches to succeed or fail on their merits. If people disagree on the best approach to solve a problem, it's valuable to society if all the approaches are allowed to be tried and tested on their merits. If one approach provides better overall results than another, there's no rule that says the state with the inferior approach can't voluntarily adopt another approach after seeing how well it works.

Gay marriage is a pretty good example. With states allowed to adopt the policy on its merits, other states may see that it's not a bad idea after all. Maybe the societies in those states collapse in a heap instead, proving the arguments of the religious right. Who knows until society is allowed to try those things and validate them on their merits, and why try something on the whole country at once when half the people think it's a crappy idea?
Click to expand...

I guess this is where we have vastly different conceptions of human nature. I don't think people are nearly as rational as you seem to think they are. IMO, people's opinions and views are informed by their emotions at least as much as by reason. That being the case, there will always be people who take advantage of that fact by using emotion laden appeals, making a totally rational and unemotional discussion impossible.
 
Perotista said:
Apparently you forgot to add the poll. I have no doubt that today partisan discourse is indeed framed in a way as to prevent solutions. I also agree, that some issues are used to distract the voters from other issues that can be more harmful to this nation that the hot button issue being discussed.

I think you only have to look at the senate. Both Reid and McConnell are too busy being partisan Republicans and Democrats than being an American. Both in my opinion put their party way above country. This leaves me longing to the days of a Mansfield and Dirksen, a George Mitchell and Bob Dole or even Daschle and Lott. All of the a fore mentioned could work together for the good of the country. They could give and take, compromise to get things done. Sure all of them could dig in their heels depending on the issue, but for the most part, each would concede some to get some.

It seems all too often with Reid and McConnell, they want it all, all of the time. The my way or the highway. If Reid is for something McConnell is automatically against it and vice versa. I swear, at times it seems both of these two gentlemen would rather see this country go down in flames than to give one inch.

End of Soapbox.
Click to expand...
Politics has become all about the base, so it's not nearly as important what one does, as long as it pleases the base and and/or hurts the other side. Virtually nothing positive can happen, so pleasing the base has really devolved into thwarting the other side.

Compromise is weakness, moderation is treason, practicality is evil.

The fringe was called the fringe for a reason, they existed on the margins, now the fringe rules, but as you would expect, they do it very, very badly, leaving plenty of room for special interests to get their non-partisan thievery done while everyone is duking it out over partisan nonsense.
 
sangha said:
No, the idea is to let the republican party push itself farther and farther to the right, leaving the center (which is where the majority of the voters are) for the democrats
Click to expand...

This is the perfect example of why people need to keep their sense of humor. Over a hundred million people in this country think pro wrestling is fake, and partisan politics is legit. If I couldn't laugh at that, I would almost certainly flip my **** on a level that Nicholas Cage would be like, "Dayum! That dude's crazy."
 
Bonzai said:
Maybe because the Middle Eastern book of farout fairytales is true afterall ? Right. That's sounds "scientific".........................
Click to expand...

Science is about forming a hypothesis, testing it in a controlled environment, and evaluating the results to either invalidate or justify the hypothesis. Having 50 experiments running with multiple controls and multiple test variables sounds pretty ****ing scientific to me.

But what do I know? I've only finished my electrical engineering degree this semester.
 
SocialEngineer said:
This is the perfect example of why people need to keep their sense of humor. Over a hundred million people in this country think pro wrestling is fake, and partisan politics is legit. If I couldn't laugh at that, I would almost certainly flip my **** on a level that Nicholas Cage would be like, "Dayum! That dude's crazy."
Click to expand...



There is something seriously wrong with the people here............................................
 
sangha said:
I guess this is where we have vastly different conceptions of human nature. I don't think people are nearly as rational as you seem to think they are. IMO, people's opinions and views are informed by their emotions at least as much as by reason. That being the case, there will always be people who take advantage of that fact by using emotion laden appeals, making a totally rational and unemotional discussion impossible.
Click to expand...
Do you consider yourself to be rational?
 
SocialEngineer said:
Do you consider yourself to be rational?
Click to expand...



I can understand people hating me.............When they tell me their invisible friend hates me too is when I knew they had a very bad problem...............................
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
Politics has become all about the base, so it's not nearly as important what one does, as long as it pleases the base and and/or hurts the other side. Virtually nothing positive can happen, so pleasing the base has really devolved into thwarting the other side.

Compromise is weakness, moderation is treason, practicality is evil.

The fringe was called the fringe for a reason, they existed on the margins, now the fringe rules, but as you would expect, they do it very, very badly, leaving plenty of room for special interests to get their non-partisan thievery done while everyone is duking it out over partisan nonsense.
Click to expand...

That may have been true before, but now there are more people that don't vote than people that do. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that people have lost faith in the civil discourse and the party system's ability to direct it in a positive way. So few people gravitate strongly towards either party today, that if another party emerged that could get even half of those voters, they would annihilate both parties.

The only reason that doesn't happen, in my opinion, is because the mass media is controlled by the same corporate interests who control the political parties. They turn every grass roots movement into a partisan wedge issue (even though the people in those movements are rarely partisan), and they keep us convinced that a vote for a third party is a vote for the "enemy".

In reality, a vote for either one of the parties is a vote for the enemy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom