Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

744

Shouldn't all candidates be independents representing their region, who then vote in the senate etc. and do whatever the f they want?

So then why do we have political parties? Am i naive or missing something?

Shouldn't all candidates be independents representing their region, who then vote in the senate etc. and do whatever the f they want? So then why do we have political parties? Am i naive or missing something?

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 5 pts

Because people are stupid and can't think beyond "RED vs BLUE"

[–] • 2 pts

This.

People like things simple. Nobody is going to listen to “I agree with 90% of what my opponent believes, but here’s the 10% difference that makes me better.”

Basically, everyone is either too busy, too lazy, or too stupid.

[–] • 3 pts

Political parties used to have ideological identities. Now they are simply corporations and ideas to placate the masses.

Parties like Democrats and Republicans are like sports teams. People still identify with them. The kleptocracy long ago, bought both parties. Today, the idea of party affiliation is only an idea corporations use to sell the illusion that things are the same: you can identify with one or the other. Since the underlying reality is the same, the kleptocracy has total control. It makes no difference which one you root for. They both are owned by the same corporations

[–] • 1 pt

Because it concentrates the power of the many into the hands of a few good liars.

[–] • 0 pt

Political party is just a group of people getting together to help each other get elected.

[–] • 0 pt

A bit like a criminal syndicate or a gang. Probably more gang like, they have their "colors" and slogans.

It basically makes it much easier for those people and corporations who wish to buy favor of the legislature to do so. Now, they only need to "donate" to the party that gains power (usually by donating to both). This has been shown to be a very lucrative investment strategy with returns well into the thousands of percent.

[–] • 1 pt

There's also the fact that winner take all election systems basically make collusion into two parties the optimal strategy.

[–] • 0 pt

it is the best way to fill their pockets.

[–] • 0 pt

Because political beliefs aren't random nor evenly distributed, they clump in memeplexes which manifest as religions and parties. I don't know why opinions on climate change and gun control are closely correlated, but they undeniably are connected and parties exploit this to win elections.

[–] • 0 pt

In general It's not supposed to really mater who is president or which party is in charge. The pres is only supposed to deal with foreign affairs n whatnot.

We as citizens, shouldn't be affected by the changes in figure heads.

We are supposed to have rights, and a DOJ that supports our expression of said rights, an executive branch that doesn't infringe on those rights.

Government isnt supposed to be involved in the free market. Gov't Subsides shouldn't exist. Judicial decisions like Citizens united; where corporations are people, shouldn't exist. Policies like too big to fail shouldn't exist. We are constitutionally not supposed to have a private bank issuing a baseless currency with intrest. Article 1 sec 8-10 is there for a reason.

Parties are a moot point under the current level of corruption.

Revive ole Americana

[–] • 0 pt

The Constitution is a winner-take-all system. It is not a parlimentary system with a low limit to get seats. Instead the biggest winner takes ALL. Hence grouping up into parties is mandatory. Those parties will combine and combine forever until there is only 2. It is a 'feature' of the system, hard coded into it.

edit:What a bunch of fucking idiots in this thread. How the fuck can I be the only person left on earth who knows this?

[–] • 0 pt

To fit the Hegelian dialectic.

[–] • 0 pt

Competition was the original idea.