General Question

luigirovatti's avatar

Do you think if the people of Earth could choose their own candidates for Parliament/elections instead of the political parties (if they didn't already somewhere), there would be less chaos in the planet's democracies?

Asked by luigirovatti (2157points) 1 month ago

Take USA, for example. There’s been for as long as we can remember conflict between Republicans and Democrats. As far as I know, others with their own party weren’t even remotely considered as worthy of the GOP and GDP’s time. I say, the people SHOULD vote their own candidates for the election, and for the parliament itself.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

7 Answers

stanleybmanly's avatar

The United States is unique in that at its very founding the rich founders of the country well appreciated that control of the not so rich by themselves would be an all but impossible goal if all were granted the right to the vote. It turns out that a solution was arrived at. What does it matter if the rabble can vote if you own the candidates? Our 2 party system merely facilitates the dictate that the rich get richer. Why? It narrows the process to a mere 2 candidates which must be purchased. These candidates are all but exclusively members of the ruling class prior to election, or rapidly promoted to said class at time of purchase. The “chaos” arises as the people who voted for what they believe are “their” choice watch their interests consistently undermined—even ignored. Great effort is extended by those benefitting in the effective camouflage of those interests from said voters to an astonishing degree. And thus, here we are.

Darth_Algar's avatar

No, there would not be. If anything I’d expect more chaos as each voting citizen wrote-in their own candidate and no one would ever gain the requisite majority of votes. Our system, flawed as it is, does at least keep things relatively stable (the last 4 years of Emperor Tang notwithstanding), even if it does favor the elite.

zenvelo's avatar

But I only know of a few hundred people, and none of them are known by more than a thousand or so. How is that going to be enough for anyone to get elected to Congress or to the state assembly?

Zaku's avatar

I don’t know how you define “chaos” in this case.

But I think that yes, political parties should not select the only viable candidates we have to vote for. It means we always get candidates that are agents of those parties, and the main parties are the ones controlled by the wealthiest and most powerful, which is why we have so much corruption and two-faced representatives, laws get written by and for corporations, etc..

luigirovatti's avatar

@Zaku: It’s reasonable to define “chaos” as the riot happening outside of Capitol Hill the 1/6.

AK's avatar

Letting people choose the candidates is a recipe for disaster. It opens up an entire pandora’s box of awful scenarios. First up, the ‘candidates’ will now have an option of buying people’s votes, without any fear of repercussions. People will then discover that they can ‘bargain’ with candidates. It won’t be long before some ‘candidate’ realizes that he/she can control people by brute force….
You are asking this question on the assumption that people in general are smart, ethical and are good in making character judgements. Truth is people in general are selfish, opportunistic and always on the look out for extra economic benefits (to put it mildly). They will trample over their own kin, if it means they get to enjoy a better life….that is how we people are….can’t trust us at all….

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther