I can't make much sense of that - in what sense are they representing me if they side with their party, or on the other hand why are they a member of a party if they don't side with it, but instead take a view which includes that of the constituents who voted against them?
If whoever is elected represents you, why aren't they all classed as 'independent'?
I've never understood the staunch support of a political party to the extent that you label yourself one or the other. Is it really like that - people go out of their way to identify as a party member?
Is it not a hindrance in finding common ground and working together?
On this side of the pond, I find that people "support" a party, rather than consider themselves a member of one (even if they are).
Considering we only have 2 political parties in the US, if you oppose the policies of the party in power you only have one other option. I'm a libertarian and don't have a team I root for, but it's a fact that plenty of hyper-wealthy people support the Democrats.
Personally speaking, I despise both of our parties, and their worst constituents. That said, as an independent I have to deal with both of the parties. If I know I'm going to vote a certain way in an election then I'd like to have a voice in who the devil-that-I-choose is without affirming that I'm okay with the party. Maybe that makes better sense.
Because it doesn't matter. Quite often, those parties are two sides of the same coin.
If they didn't list party affiliation on ballots, people would instead vote based on what? The names they like most? That's about how informed some voters are, unfortunately. It takes effort to get informed, and the entities that should inform them, often fail to do so.
So if the opposition only has 5% support, while the establishment has close to 95% support (for the sake of the example).
I'd argue the opposing party 5% support would likely have a matching resource pool of their size. Meaning the establishment might run 95% of all ads as ads supporting the establishment and only 5% of ads would support the opposing party. So I struggle to see how that would help the opposing party?
Obviously, it isn't that cut and dry, but America is a good example actually. Because they have 2 major parties and several third parties. But those third parties never make any meaningful growth even after running ads because they only represent >5% of the available political parties.
Why must it be either a Democratic or Republican candidate? This seems to be a major weakness in American politics, that a failure with one party leads to people endorsing the other, regardless of their positions and merit. I know it is easier said than done, but it looks like there is room for more parties.
Conveniently there are no laws (currently) that compel people to support or vote only for either of the two big parties.
A subtle point that seems to be lost on most of my fellow citizens. Mind, it seems to be a regrettably common misconception elsewhere in the world too.
reply