If it were the Dems in control, would you favor 1-party rule?

[prolesunited]

From this administrations actions, it is clear that they want to establish a one-party system. And, we have the people in their party cheering them on from the sidelines.

My question is, if it were the Dems/progressives/leftists on top, would you be in favor of one-party rule? Why or why not? Would your attitude be different if we were talking about real Republicans as opposed to neo-Cons?

[onebigbadwulf]

1. Hellz no

I want to see a 10 party rule.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

2. Well, ideally,

we want to see a 7 billion party rule...

[tedoll78]

3. No.

I'd want Dems and Greens competing. As far as the GOP, I'd like to see them go the way of the dinosaur, with the Religious Reich finally pootering out and the Libertarians having scattered influence.

But that's just my preference.

[JailBush]

4. NO!!!

I would never favor one-party rule. If we HAD to have one-party rule, I'd prefer a Democratic dictatorship to a Republican dictatorship. But we desperately need competition.

Honestly, I'm only supporting Democrats as the lesser of evils as it is. I've thought about joining the Green or Libertarian parties, but the Green Party of Seattle is a sick joke, and local Libertarians are either just as corrupt or they're simply stupid.

I'd love to see ONE GOOD party for starters. That could help us reform the Democratic Party, and a reformed Democratic Party might help us stomp the Republicans into oblivion. I'm so sick of those traitors, I don't even want them around as curiosities.

[roughsatori]

5. No, I would like power divided among the Dems, Greens, Socialists

With a few other parties with less votes and Reps. to keep things developing.

[bonemachine]

7. I would prefer proportional representation...

One party systems are always bad.

[newyawker99]

51. Hi bonemachine!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DUreader]

6. The only thing worse than 2 party rule would be 1 party

Things are already bad enough

[pansypoo53219]

8. no

cause they would get fat and lazy and only give a shit about their campaign contributors.

[JNelson6563]

9. Yes! Of course!

And we could open re-education centers for the neo-cons! It would be a Utopian society.

haha

In reality I just wish they would un-morph back into real Republicans instead of over-zealous idealogues with a brain-washed following.

I don't believe it will happen though. The neo-con-ness will not be undone anytime soon, I'd wager not in my lifetime. The greed is too addicting and they'll never give it all up willingly. It may take a long, horrid period to seize it.

I foresee a rough century ahead.

Julie

[Terwilliger]

10. democrats...absolutely!

:bounce:

[prolesunited]

11. YOU are in favor of a one-party

rule of Democrats?!?!? Surely you jest.

[Terwilliger]

24. watch that capitalization! small d!

If we were all democrats, we'd simply be independent agents with the common goal of shared governance.

[prolesunited]

25. Thanks for the clarification

Knowing you, I knew I had missed something there. :hi:

BTW, I like your answer. :-)

[PretzelzRule]

12. No Way

The more parties the better. Many people don't fit squarely into one or the other of the two major parties we have now.

We also need an opposing party (or parties) to help remind us of what NOT to become.

[Cleita]

13. No.

This is what we have now with the other party.

[mmonk]

14. no for one party rule

and I wouldn't be so bothered now except for the unelected neocons directing this country away from its principles. I want to restore the republic.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. No, I absolutely want pissed off GOP senators...

It is their right and duty to balance the government's agenda.

[The Magistrate]

16. Yes, Ma'am

We have it in my city, and it seems to work well enough....

Any single party would split into factions, and these would reproduce the competion of seperate parties, absent pistol fire, anyway.

My view might be different if not for the complete take-over of the Republican Party by fundamentalist factions, whether Christian or Free-Marketeer.

[Isome]

17. In a word: NO!

Despite the damage done by mute Republicans, I couldn't stand idly by and allow their party to be eliminated in favor of ours. Like another poster said, I'd like them to shed their mutated brethren: the cheap-labor-at-any-cost, war mongering, democracy-by-force-exporting imperialists. Two or three other parties, with a voice, wouldn't be a bad idea either.

[Shigley]

18. God no!

I don't think that even this administration wants a dictatorship, even if they want to be in power indefinately. A desire for power isn't limited to fascists, it's the nature of politics. They're certainly lurching towards it(the "PATRIOT" Act scares the hell out of me), but I can't attribute an inhuman level of malice towards even my bitterest foes - call me an idealist, but I think that 99.9% of people honestly want to make the world a better place when they get involved in politics, it's just that too damn many of them have picked the most unworkable ways to do it, and Bush seems to be the head of that group right now.

However, one-party rule is NEVER a good idea. If you thought power corrupted in the current system, just wait until politicialns don't even have to pay lip service to ethics or public service. Power does corrupt, and no dictator can stay benevolent for long - whether they intentionally abuse their power or they merely become so out-of-touch that they can't help but harm the public, a dictatorship is a remarkably bad idea.

And what exactly do you mean by "real Republicans"?

[prolesunited]

20. You don't think there's a difference

between traditional (real) Republicans and the neo-Conservatives who are currently in power?

[PVnRT]

19. No

One-party rule is tyranny, period.

[Aidoneus]

21. no

on the side, lumping together "Dems" and "leftists" is just bizarre.

[prolesunited]

22. It was more a matter of

grouping things together on the opposite end of the spectrum. Why do you find it so bizarre?

[Pastiche423]

23. No

[EV1Ltimm]

26. no.

we need two forces locked in a never-ending battle to the death in order to appeal to what is best for everyone.

[prolesunited]

27. Umm...

Does it have to be to the death? :shrug:

[raysr]

28. Equal

I believe there should be no minority or majority, even up, that way they would HAVE to work together. I also think the concept of "president" has run it's course to a fault. If things were that way there would be no special interests and corruption.

[cyclezealot]

31. One party rule.

It is not just that Republicans manipulate one party rule through gerrymandering Congressional district, used Homeland Security to investigate the fleeing Texas Senate Democrats, bug Mayor Streets' office, impugn the motives of the opposition,force religion upon its citizens, jeopardize civil liberties; but the worst aspect of Republican rule is its control over the media.
The United States is supposed to represent Free Speech. The only way to enjoy Free Speech is if you have the cash to own the media. You do not have to ability to get out your message in an unbiased manner you do not live in a free society. Liberty is useless if you have no tongue with which to speak. That is America's greatest travesty to our supposed freedoms.
If only our message had the 'ability to compete in the market place of ideas and we were still beaten, then we could not complain, except for our inability to communicate. That is not the case.

[EV1Ltimm]

30. well, death from old age of course.

[fabius]

29. NO! I would prefer Democrats vs. Greens.

Seriously, an opposition party is needed. Look at the stupid things that happen when one party has all the control. Don't get cocky and think Democrats will be infallible when we hold all the cards - look what happened to LBJ.

[Cascadian]

37. Speaking for me.

I would like to see the Democratic Socialists, the Cascadian National Party, both Green Parties (Yes. There are 2. I don't know why!), and even the Communists have more of a shot in our process than they do now.

John

[RandomKoolzip]

32. No, but something we have to come to grips with is...

That the other side DOES want a one-party system. THEIR system. The republicans and their demented cousins, the neocons, want the democrats to go the way of the Whigs. And judging from the results of most legislation passed in the last three years, our own leaders are willing to accede their territory to the neocon machine. Why does our democratic leadership not realize that they are in the process of being discarded through the bowels of corporatism run amok? Why doesn't Tom Daschle go on TV and shout that he is being reamed via redistricting and intimidation and that it really hurts and jesus christ just put up his FISTS AND START FUCKIN SWINGING? Why all the false decorum, the facade of "dignity?" As John Lennon once said, "When you're drowning, you don't say, 'pardon me, but could you please kindly throw that life vest out to me?', you scream!" (I'm paraphrasing, guys...I'm too lazy and "in the zone" to check the real wording...)I'm willing to wager dollars to donuts that the next democrat politician in the House or Senate who starts making REAL waves, who tells in gory and specific detail just what kind of amoral thugs they have to deal with in the GOP, will become a kind of hero to many; witness Paul Wellstone's continued popularity after his suspicious death, which of course brings us round again (!)to the original point: We are at war for our survival.

I want there to be a dialectic at work in the halls of government, not a corporate state run as a fixed dog race, which is what the neocons currently in power plan on implementing.

[leftofthedial]

33. I favor ZERO party rule.

n/t

[Cascadian]

36. Hear hear!

A democracy is not about one party dominating the political landscape.
A democracy is the embodiment of pluralism.

John

[moondust]

34. Sure, why not.

Dem party from Breaux to Wellstone is sufficiently broad to accommodate all rational political thought. Lunatic fringe to the right of that just needs rehab. :evilgrin:

[Cascadian]

35. Absolutely not!

Not even the Democrats should be able to create one-party rule over America. It would be just as bad as Republicans in one-party rule. No political party should be dominant over a country that is considered a democracy. It is the height of arrogance.

I have always been in favor of reforms that would give parties such as the Greens, Democratic Socialists, Libertarians, and even the Reform Party and Cascadian Nationalists more exposure and more of a chance to participate in the electoral process than just the old two-party system we have now. You all know that it is right thing to do and reflects better on us as a nation.

Look at the other countries that have multiparty systems like Canada, Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, and Spain among others that have such a system in place. We need that here!

John

[Iverson]

38. don't favor it now, wouldn't favor it then

The nation is served best by many viewpoints and many possibilities.

[Spirochete]

39. No

As Ambrose Bierce said, a party needs an opposition to keep it from running amok by hamstringing it.

[incapsulated]

40. Oh, c'mon!

It would be fun! We would be like a new aristocracy! We could have our own military police and turn people in for not joining the party! Think of all the rethugs we hate that we could torture...eh, I mean interogate, in our very own secret prisons!

You people are no fun anymore.

[ComerPerro]

41. Fuck no

That's why I consider myself better than the fascist assholes that promote Bush.

I don't care if its my party in power, I don't want a one party government!

Shit, I wouldn't be so upset by Bush being in office if his presidency was actually legitimate. (However, I would still want to see him punished and removed from office for his crimes and abuse of power).

[prolesunited]

42. Interesting results

I bet if this question were asked in Freeperville, I bet not only would they want to eliminate our party, but they probably would be in favor of shipping us to another country, putting us in camps or simply killing us outright. Funny how our strengths often are our weaknesses.

[tom_paine]

44. Yes, they are the spirtual descendants of Nazis and Commies

(the followers of Totalitarianism, either left or right, both wind up in the same pre-programmed automaton state)

[tom_paine]

43. NO!

The America of thr Founding Fathers' vision (though many fought against faction/parties, what evolved was in keeping with said vision, IMHO) was a moderate one...check and balances to keep the accrual of too much power in one set of hands, bespeaks a moderate nation in which the passions of the extremes balance each other out.

A One-Party State with Democrats in control would eventually become just as corrupt and disgraceful in it's own way as Bushevik Amerika is becoming (has become) today.

NO! NO! NO! NO!

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[FlaGranny]

45. The replies in this thread

have reassured me that I am in the right place, among people who really care about all the things that are right.

[prolesunited]

46. Things that are correct

not "right." ;-)

I definitely agree with the sentiment.

I would be in favor of a multiparty system to allow more voices to be heard in addition to run-off voting to allow more parties to have an actual say in how things are run.

[ibegurpard]

47. Not only no but HELL NO!

you think the corruption is bad with TWO parties? Try one.

[Resistance Is Futile]

48. Absolutely not

All monopolies of power are dangerous.

The GOP must be destroyed as a political force, however. No democracy can survive the existance of a major party which has the destruction of democracy as its primary objective.

[Iris]

49. Abolute power = absolute corruption

[Uzybone]

50. Hell No

there are lunatic lefties too. Id like power split between moderates, liberals and socialists.

[Darranar]

52. How about Greens versus Socialists?