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.
Common sense
ranked-choice voting? that would eliminate much of the need for parties anyway
That really does not end up resulting that way.
Non-partisan.
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.
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.
I don’t think there is a term
Pretty sure it’s “common sense”.
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.
Are the examples of single party functional representative democracies? I have no clue…
The USA didn’t have a 2 party system for GW’s first 2 terms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States
I would argue that if the system completely lacked merit, than the USA would have dissolved given the inherant fragility of any newly founded nation.
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”
There is a word anti-partyism, but it doesn’t seem to be commonly used.
The literal answer to your literal question is called “believing that US politics should be non-partisan”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy
The US started as de facto non-partisan democracy. There is a de jure option.https://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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Jewish_bloc_votingThe best answer here @qtpie@piefed.social
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?
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!”
And then I figured that “damn, this is actually the system we have right now!”
Not quite. Liquid democracy lets you delegate your vote to someone who either has the same love of skiing as you do, or same preference to give as much cash as dividend to citizens (UBI/freedom dividend) and a bias to reject frivolous spending without a ROI for your future dividend.
You can change your delegation after disappointment with vote on an issue, and can choose to not delegate your vote on a mandatory military draft proposal.
There is no concept of a parliament majority leader being able to block a proposal from being voted on.
None of those are close to what we have right now.
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 different are all 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.
We can get there with A LOT more violence.
New Zealand switched from first past the post to mixed-member proportional in 1992. Despite a two party system at the time.
The two parties will go away if nobody votes for them. The population is far too complacent for any kind of actual change.
No they won’t. As long as fptp exists, and as long as one party that blindly aligns with fascism and votes no matter what (as we have seen in practice), then all we will see is continued consolidation of power to that one party and a continued erosion of our rights.
We are living this exact scenario RIGHT NOW. One party was apathetic in voting, and the other one capitalized on it.
I dont know how they got rid 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)
Edit: typo
This is something called anarchy (not the form that’s co-opted). It’ll be more of a meritocracy if anything, though.
Anti-partisan maybe?
Following Washington’s guidance is what I call it.
Simone de Beauvoir would call that the aesthetic attitude.
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”
