Four Republican backbencher candidates who failed to qualify for the first 2024 GOP presidential debate this week slammed the Republican National Committee over its rules, with multiple contenders calling them “rigged.”

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Political parties should be outlawed, not just split up. It should be a crime to include a party affiliation next to a candidate’s name on a ballot. (Or an indication of which is the incumbent, for that matter.)

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I fully agree. This vote by tribe sh*t HAS to stop. Humanity SHOULD be better than f*cking tribal yawping.

      • hoodatninja@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        As much as I am against the two-party system I am not in favor of sacrificing our right to assembly, especially in the context of assembling over shared politics, on the altar of “hopefully that’ll make elections go better.”

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I made zero statements about restricting peoples’ speech. Merely that humanity should be more intelligent than basic tribalism.

          If a basic competency test offends you, I really do not know what to say…

          No one has mentioned overt political gatekeeping. Just basic competency that we ask of all citizens. If that is too much to ask, then I’m afraid you have no idea what contributes to a competent leader…

          • hoodatninja@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            To make political parties illegal is an attack on free-speech and the right to peaceful assembly. You would have to directly violate the first amendment in order to ban political parties.

            I hope you are not being literal with your concept of a “competency test.”

    • Dr. Bluefall@toast.ooo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The issue I always find in the proposal to ban political parties is: how do you stop people from just reinventing them under a different name?

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It absolutely would happen. Even if we somehow wiped the idea from everyone’s mind, people would start to group up again because it’s simply more effective than going it alone. We learned that as a species a long time ago.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Obviously, you can’t stop people from freely associating (see the First Amendment).

        But that’s not what’s important. What’s important is that the current two major political parties have been given a whole bunch of special privileges that make them quasi-official parts of the government, and all those need to be permanently stripped away.

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We also need to change the voting system too. Approval voting is ideal for a no-party system. All candidates getting approved by some min number of people get elected.