Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
A part of the reason the Constitution is the way it is on Presidential Elections is that the Founders actually envisioned a system in which there would be no parties. This was the reason for having the candidate with the most electoral votes win and the runner-up become vice president. Of course they also didn't imagine what happened in 1800, when both parties ran secondary candidates hoping they would then dominate the top spots, only to have a tie and the opposing major party try to elect the appointed VP rather than the main candidate.
Did I say party? Oh yeah, it took almost no time at all before one of the guiding lights of the new nation had put together a grass-roots movement that grew into the two-party system. As thinkers they tended toward the brilliant, but as politicians they were as cutthroat as any of today's leaders, and probably more so.
|
Interesting, I did not know that, that idea of not having parties. Interesting to me since I am very sympathetic to the idea myself and often have said that I think all political parties should be forbidden and banned, dissolved - I could imagine for not that different reasons like the founders rejected the idea as well (or did they just not imagine the possibility of parties?) . I only think however, that this can only be had at the cost of enforcing and preventing party bans by the use of force, and that alone makes the idea probably unrealistic for many people, since even the worst possible government and ruining of economy and finances and eroding basic principles of law, constitution or cultural values still seem to be better and more acceptable for most people than using force to push such government - which nowadays base on strong lobby-building and party's power interests overruling national and common interest, not to mention individual networking peoples' careers and ambitions - and parties in general out of existence.
Again my question to you: did the founders just not imagine that there could be parties, or did they indeed recommend not to have parties, trying to prevent them?