TED Conversations

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed.

A No-Party Party

Most people I know are getting heartily sick of both Republicans and Democrats. I mean, Congress had a 13 percent approval rating in March of this year. Our political system is obviously broken. Nothing has changed in years it seems like, despite promises along the lines of hope and change from both parties.

So how about a new party, with a base platform of "We're all ears." Willing to listen to anybody, take everything with a grain of salt, and actually work with the good of the country in mind. Instead of demonizing the other candidate, they take what he says and improve on it. Instead of pet causes, the whole basis for the party is compromise, or in other words getting things done. Sure, maybe nobody gets exactly what they want, but they're not getting it now anyways.

Fundraising by kickstarter with a max donation of 500 dollars, advertising by youtube and social media. What do you think? How could we make this party actually work and go national? What would you like to see in a No-Party Party? I'd like to see honest people in government.

Share:
  • thumb
    Apr 9 2013: I dont know how many times the 'systems' versus 'people' debate/question would come in different ways.
    Systems are operated by people; they are abstract concepts that woud only find expression in the perception and practices of people. I think the issue in the US is about people and values/character or lack of it.
    • thumb
      Apr 9 2013: I think it is same in every country that follows democracy.
    • Apr 9 2013: Honestly, I think so too. Politicians are probably representative of the state of the country, if on a more corrupt scale. I'd like to believe otherwise, but I agree with you that if we're having these kinds of problems due to unethical politicians, even if we change the system we'll end up with the same problem later. I was just wondering if the dream of honest politics could become a reality.
  • Apr 13 2013: This Party exists and it is called "The US Pirate Party" and it is part of an International Movement called Pirate Party International present in 60 countries across the Globe. In Europe, Pirate parties are already present at various Power level from European Parliament to TownHalls. PIRATE defends Human Rights Declaration of 1948.

    http://uspirates.org/
    http://www.pp-international.net/
    http://piratetimes.net/pirate-parties-worldwide/
  • Apr 9 2013: Its a noble idea, but would it be seen as just another "independent party" that I for one am afraid to vote for, because it takes votes away from the better of the two mainstream candidates? I would tend to be more in favor or the theory proposed by Lawrence Lessig. We must eliminate elections being bought by the highest bidder, and somehow make all donations be small and public. No invisible donations. No super PACs. And we must have term limits. The bulk of our politicians care ONLY about being re-elected, and spend most of their time and energy focused on that. The rest of their time is spent getting things done that they have agreed to do for huge donations. The fact that most all retired congressmen and women become lobbyists is disgusting. Its all a giant game of accumulating money and power for these folks, but that sad part is that all the money and power is being taken from we the people. I love the new mini-series on NefFlix, "House of Cards". I'm sure it is very accurate at depicting the reality of Washington, which is sickening. I do believe that President Obama is the most decent, ethical president that we've had in a long time, but the bottom line is that in the USA of today, NO politician, no matter what his party affiliation, can make it to that high level of the game without having sold at least part of his soul to the devil so to speak.
    I think we can fight for term limits, and donation reform, but the main thing is to not become so discouraged that we give up trying to make things better. They can get better.
  • Apr 12 2013: In general I am for small government. The main point I care about though is avoiding destruction from centralized power sources. I would decrease federal government power to see if more localized power can appropriately handle problems needing a birdseye view. If our government was actually doing good things I might not have as much of a problem with them.

    I will say this though: if you can find a way to get this type of party into Congress I would vote for all that I could. Government should be filled with people that are focused on unbiased views and facts of what actually works. It sounds like that's what you're trying to communicate in your premise. If so, I agree.
  • Apr 12 2013: I don't agree with the idea that government should be getting a lot of stuff done, and certainly not through compromise. Sometimes the best decision to make is inaction. Look at what the government has come up with in the last 30 years. I'd rather they have simply stayed in bed. As for compromise, to use a silly example, if the decision is between chopping off your hand and not chopping off your hand, then compromise means just chopping off the fingers and leaving the palm.

    The crux of the problem is that government is influenced heavily by bribes of money and power. Removal of those benefits might be the only way to have a successful government.
    • Apr 12 2013: Interesting view. So I take it you support a very minimalist government? I can get behind that. As long as people are responsible on their own and don't need the government to fix things for them, it's a good idea. I'm afraid that our society is starting to get away from that though.
  • Erik B

    • 0
    Apr 10 2013: This idea will work however its not the whole picture. There is also the voting habits of people to consider. Why do people vote the way they do? What perceptions govern their choices in life? Reaching that understanding for all people can contribute to a better democracy. We can reach that understanding by communicating and debate. I thought that one way to change congress is for members to argue in favor of their opposition point of view so as to start the conversation on how we approach these complex issues that govern our lives. See my youtube video for more info: http://youtu.be/gFUBrQtZjrE
    • Apr 11 2013: I like that idea, making the opposing politicians argue for the other side. That would help them actually listen to each other instead of instantly attacking anything the other one says.
  • thumb
    Apr 9 2013: The connection between big money and elections must be severed. If there were no donations allowed from corporations and a strictly regulated and monitored cap per donor the automatic effect would be a return to "We the People" focus. I like something like $1000 per elector with a tax deduction to sweeten the pot and provide some degree of monitoring that is independent of the main political parties. By lowering the cost of running elections there would also be less barriers to the emergence of new parties. But there would be much less money to spend on attack ads...The end of democracy as we have come to know it...anyone concerned about that!
  • Apr 9 2013: We keep doing that and it keeps not working. Do you want another "W"?
  • Apr 9 2013: Scott: you're on to it but heading in the wrong direction. What we need to do is fight fire with fire. I mean that once the SCOTUS determined corp are the same as ppl (deserving of free speech) and that means a giant uphill battle. The first race is the money race. In order to win that we don't need a party we need a 501corp that can get its hand on lots of donations and start funneling it to candidates who want to make a diff rather than candidates who wanna make a killing ($$$). A PAC that is rep of the vast majority of America. I like this one ( mostly because my buddy Doug and I thought it up) since it conjures up a good strong image. The People's Interest Group.... PIG. We wallow in the mire, they throw us table scraps, we're treated as dumb brutes. All underdog issues. All things most Americans can relate to when dealing with "Da Man". Give it some thought. Let me know what you feel about a PAC able to donate regardless of party affiliation and only interested in progress
    • Apr 9 2013: It's a good idea, but it seems like it'd be too easy for that PAC to become just like any other PAC. I suspect most of the PACs today at least started with that in mind, but they've gotten entrenched into party affiliations. Also candidates that don't toe the party line but still belong to the party are going to have problems. They need to be independent to really break away.