Blog Discussion Group Four
Blog post due at 11:55pm on Sep. 25 and comment due at 11:55pm on Sep. 28.
Political Parties and Party Systems
Political Parties and Party Systems
- Is the
- Are political parties an adequate or inadequate vehicle for channeling political opinions and actions? Is it better to be an independent voter rather than one who identifies with a party?
- Are political parties important to the functioning of a democracy?
Interest Groups
- Discuss evidence for and against the proposition: “All political conflicts—including ethnic, religions, gender, and generational conflicts—ultimately boil down to class conflicts. Rich people tend to be politically favored and poor people are not, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender, or age.”
- Are interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
2. Political parties are more often than not broad ideological groups that have supporters with roughly the same beliefs as the party. In the case of the United States however citizens feel that the parties available would woefully misrepresent them(https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/4-reasons-why-many-people-dont-vote). Potential voters may feel discouraged from voting at all due to America's winner take all system. This system allows for whoever obtains majority votes in a state receives all electoral votes from that state. This system completely dashes the chances of outside parties such as the Libertarian or Green party and therefore the supporters of these parties often feel as though their vote doesn't count towards anything as it seems to be a futile effort. The problem here isn't so much the party limitations as it is the system. If the U.S's voting worked as the UK's does then there would undoubtably be a better representation of the people because in the UK people vote for parties not members. This means that even if a party didn't receive a majority of votes they will likely still obtain representatives in Parliament.
ReplyDelete2. Political parties have both pros and cons to their existence, however, they are usually generalizing a large variety of beliefs and opinions into essentially two strong parties. Positively, they allow voters to feel as if they are a part of a community and a group that shares their beliefs, regardless of location. For example, in America, there are people from all around the country that are a part of the Republican or Democratic parties. Negatively, these parties take a number of individual beliefs and force them into two generic parties that allow one person, who cannot possibly agree with everything everyone in their respective parties believe, to lead and speak for them. This can be an issue because people may feel as though their chosen party are only in agreement with a small part of their personal beliefs and are fighting on issues that are not necessarily important to the individual or are differing from said individual’s beliefs. Being an individual voter allows for complete control as it does not force a person to vote for someone who may not be fighting for the same agenda during this particular time. One can choose who they feel are representing their personal agenda the most, regardless of political party.
ReplyDeleteI agree that American political parties often have somewhat of an indoctrination process that results in the party members formulating an echo chamber of sorts, however individual voting in the current system just wouldn't be effective. Political polarization is as high as it has ever been in the U.S (http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/). This causes party members to fervently hold on to party beliefs in a almost zealous fashion. In order for individual voting to make progress the gap between the left and right of America must be bridged.
Delete5. Interest groups can be good for politics. In the passage it talks about how in 1968 the divided government became normal and even more thin in the 1990s. In interest groups people can speak what they believe and give suggestions and opinions. These groups can bring a positive outcome to both political parties. Examples of interest groups are associations that will represent people with certain business interests, race ethic, age, and occupations within the society. People will advertise their people and possibly march or rally. Interest groups should be limited to a certain point so that we do not have to many. If we have many, then that could lead to trouble and bad intentions. It could lead to more and more working against each other to make the other not succeed. A lot of arguments could go on.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree that interest groups help bring light and attention to the ideas and concerns of smaller groups of individuals, there should be limits to them. Interest groups are commonly difficult to organize due to locations, class, and ideologies, but once established work closely with the government, though they are in no way a government agency. This close association, without any accountability or foresight, except motive for its own personal gain, the interest group is single minded and individually focused. One constitutional right that some interest groups have chosen to concentrate on is the right to freedom of speech. This issue has now become extremely controversial in the united states and is facing attack from some interest groups that feel "hurt" by what another individual says. Yet those individuals seem to have a difficult time realizing that there are multiple perspectives and that you can never control what an individual things and says, even though some of these groups seem to think they have the right to. In the end, the limit of these groups must come into affect the moment they infringe upon the constitutional rights of other citizens, thus supporting freedom for all, while restricting their abilities to lobby to take away the rights of others.
Delete1. http://class.guilford.edu/psci/guo/course/syllabi183/data105/readings/bashevkin.pdf
I agree that interest groups are good to share the concerns of smaller groups of people to the government. There should be limits to them I believe though because they shouldn't have too much power. Too much power could lead to riots or fighting against the government if things don't go their way. They should be limited to protect the overall public. They also only share their beliefs with a limited number of people so their ideas and beliefs shouldn't stand for all who have beliefs on a certain government policy.
Delete3.
ReplyDeleteAre political parties important to the functioning of a democracy? Political parties play a huge role in the functioning of a democracy since they are the voice of the people. The definition of a political party is a group of people who share similar aims and opinions in politics that try and influence the public to elect their candidates. A democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, and the citizens form the governing body to vote and elect representatives. So political parties are very important when it comes to a democracy because they set up candidates for the population which allow for the people to declare who they want in office.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhile I definitely agree with your comment about the importance of political parties, I am not sure how effective our democracy is currently. For example, when we, the people, vote for a candidate in say, a presidential election, then why should the Electoral College be an overriding vote? As a registered democrat, it is disheartening to live in an overwhelmingly republican state –my vote is almost always overridden by the republican majority and the representative electors. For that matter, what are your thoughts on faithless electors? If a republican majority state has an elector vote against his party, then they have essentially overridden the will of the majority. Regardless, this is exactly what our founding fathers wanted –a system in place so the “masses” would still have a check. The electors provide a stopgap from a popular but unqualified candidate…the so-called “snake-oil salesman.”
DeleteI am interested in others thoughts –is our system effective? What are anyone else’s thoughts on our Electoral College system?
5.
ReplyDeleteInterest groups are good for politics. They share common concerns and try to influence government policies based off those concerns. According to the article I read, " interest groups work closely with members of Congress and the administration to draft legislation and policy initiatives, provide information both to government and the public on a broad range of topical issues, and contribute significantly to political campaigns"(https://www.cliffsnotes.com/cliffsnotes/subjects/american-government/how-do-interest-groups-play-a-role-in-american-government). These groups represent concerns of their group and represent the right of free speech. These should have a limit. No special interest group should be stronger than another. They all have the right to free speech, so they should be able to voice their concerns but not be stronger than government itself.
Interest groups can work with or against politics. They work together to promote a good idea and influence new beginnings for our government. An interest group can be an economic organization or group that will lead to a new beginning and something that is worth fighting for and debatable. On the lop side of this they can also cause chaos with riots and big groups coming together to protest for what they want to argue about and not agree with. The part where no special interest group should be stronger than another, I see as being something that is true. One can not overall rule one another, but it will happen, one group will have more advantage and be on top of the other that is working toward politicians and the government. We need good positive ideas coming in and being promoted within us the people, politicians, and the government.
Delete1.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the U.S. is dominated by a “power elite” and that we are in fact, a plutocracy –“ruled” by the rich. As philosopher Noam Chomsky states, “Moving up the income ladder, influence increases slowly, but it’s only at the very top that it has real impact.” For a person to gain political power in the U.S, they must have an enormous amount of money to be able to reach the masses. This money must come from somewhere and is derived by a combination of wealthy donors that have a similar agenda, the political party they come from and personal wealth –this means our system is heavily weighted to the rich and to those that serve the interests of the rich. Even our electoral system supports this division from the rich and the poor –as evidenced when a candidate wins through electoral vote alone (and loses the popular vote). It’s my belief that the “masses” do have some impact, in that we are able to elect our legislative body, but that impact is small due to this unequal weighting of the rich vs. the poor. In this fashion, it is my belief that all democracies have some form of “power elite.” There is no way to get your message out there without some form of financial backing and this backing has to come from somewhere –making a prospective candidate immediately beholden to someone and their interests.
-Quote taken from https://www.salon.com/amp/noam_chomsky_america_is_a_plutocracy_masquerading_as_a_democracy_partner
I agree with the points about the United States being ruled by the rich and that wealthy donors have a heavy influence on the political scene. Our society is too materialistic and focused on money and have made the world into a place where a person cannot get far, or even survive without having money. We need to find a way to balance the scales again so that politics can be a just and fair decision rather than a battle of who has the most wealth.
DeleteInterest groups #5:
ReplyDeleteAre interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
Interest groups can be economic or non-economic. These groups are people that share common interests, working together to promote that idea or interest by influencing the government. "Economic interest groups provide some sort of economic advantage to their group while non-economic groups fight for a cause instead of material gain" (https://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/american-government/interest-groups/section1/page/3/).
These groups are bad for politics, labor unions drive up the costs of unskilled labor, while some special interest groups pour tons of money into one particular candidate during the elections to get them elected or re-elected. These groups also make it much harder for any other political party (ie: independent parties) to get elected into an office.
These interest groups do not always have the best intentions of society as a whole in mind, they often go after certain projects or concepts. They should be limited to what they can and can't do, however, limiting things (ie: only registered voters can donate to campaigns) would cause funneling of money through one person.
Interest groups may not necessarily be bad for politics but they do bring some pros and cons to the table. It would be bad for politics if a certain interest group was promoting a non-qualified, unprofessional candidate against someone who had all the tools to get the job done. They can be good for politics because this group of people can bring forth new ideas or practices to the government that would be beneficial to the population as a whole. I completely agree with you that these interest groups should be restricted in some way but that would create a lot of unneeded funds.
Delete3. Political parties are very important to the functioning of a democracy. No matter if the system is based on a single member or multi-member district elections, the citizens want to have a choice, voice. Even systems with a dominate party, such as the one which has and will continue to represent Japan, there is no prohibition of opposing political parties. This relies on the citizens loyalty to continue the tradition of that dominating party. Another important reason for parties is to give the citizen and party to relate to, to fill like there interest are being heard and embracing a particular idea for the direction of the country. With this democracy and a relatable voice there is also a less likely chance for revolts, which was one of the great points of the mid 20th century within the parliamentary-plurality systems.
ReplyDelete1. http://class.guilford.edu/psci/guo/course/syllabi183/data105/readings/lijphart.pdf
I agree, the citizens of a particular area want a voice in elections. Having a system with many representatives makes it easier for candidates to find a voice in the person they wish to elect into office. Relatable parties make citizens happier and give them more of a voice in elections, which does reduce to risk of revolt. Parties are a huge part of a functioning democracy.
Delete