Submitted 2 hours ago by qtpie@piefed.social to [deleted]
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.
George Washington didn’t want political parties either. So whatever you are it’s patriotic af.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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
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.
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.
New Zealand switched from first past the post to mixed-member proportional in 1992. Despite a two party system at the time.
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)
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.
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.
This is my favorite type of democracy. Why even have representatives in a digital-first world?
Following Washington's guidance is what I call it.
Simone de Beauvoir would call that the aesthetic attitude.
Anti-partisan maybe?
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”
Patriotism. Democracy. Representational Government. Freedom. Liberty. Take your pick.
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.
A nation of toddlers all screaming for something different and being unable to come together on a single point.
VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 minutes 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.