Disadvantages Of Platforming

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

As well, the Progressive Platform saw the necessity of making changes “based on the needs of each generation, where the people must maintain their sovereign power to establish and maintain equal opportunity, and industrial justice” (Progressive Party Platform, 1912). The platform identified the shift on the principles of power in which the republic was founded. As well it recognized that the principles in which the Republic was founded to endure were missing its essence. The idea of political parties defined the responsibility of the government to serve as the platform of the will of the people, instead, both parties were a reflection of corruption and platforms for the acquisition of self-interest benefits. The Platform mainly criticized the fact that the power was been used for the benefit of the few, and which power should be shifted again to the people who put them on

Some common issues that political parties present can include problems with inequality, wrong education of the people, the spread of communal hatred, and the decrease of personal individuality. Issues with inequality originate from the thought that one political party doesn’t have the right to make decisions for the public and many citizens may not support everything that a specific Party supports. Educational issues with the political system are caused by political parties trying to obtain votes through false promises and propaganda, this type of advertisement creates misunderstandings among citizens. The spread of communal hatred is based on the fact that many people believe that religion based parties create hatred against other communities and cause conflict in our country. The decrease of personal individuality has also become an issue, this refers to how political parties expect people to follow them blindly and how these parties refuse to be criticized for their own shortcomings.

US parties are often described as organisationally weak because they are essentially ‘broad coalitions’. For example they contain moderates like McCain republican) and Obama democrat), while also having a more conservative wing. Therefore stronger party organisation would give parties a narrower appeal and potentially alienate large ‘voting blocs’ or proportions of the electorate. This is a reason why it is argued that having ‘organisationally weak’ parties is a necessity in the US political system. It has therefore been argued that symptoms of weak organisation e.g issue centred or candidate-centered election campaigns are deliberate as parties attempt to gain a maximum

Political parties are critical structures in the modern society and universal phenomena in most democracies. In fact, they form major objects of intensive study as they are usually the centre of political and social power. They engage in most activities that are of significant consequence in the lives of citizens and link the common populace to the government. Therefore, it is important to understand political parties fully from every perspective of political systems so obtain their real importance in democracies. A political party is basically a group of citizens who converge as voters, activists, electoral candidates and office holders with a common party label and seek to elect party members into public offices. While modern political

For many years since 1879 citizens of the United States wait in line to vote for the next great president who will help the country stand tall for another four years. But the mistake doesn’t lie in who you vote for, but what you are voting for and supporting. We sometimes ask ourselves, “what does each party do?” or “what are their beliefs for our country?”

Political parties mobilize voters to win elections and implement policy goals. Parties use their stated policy goals (i.e., their platforms) as a way to mobilize voter support. Generally, in order to be successful in a two-party system, parties must have policy goals across a broad range of issue areas to appeal to a broad range of voters.

The growing trend toward party polarization has caused increased stagnation and disorganization in the American political system. The gridlock has caused dilemmas such as government shut down, inability to pass key regulations, and general mistrust between members of opposing parties. As a result, the public heavily disapproves of the interworking of our current political system. To fix this polarization and gain support of the masses, the Republican Party should remake their political platform in four distinct ways:

     A political party is an organization whose aim is to gain control of the government apparatus, usually through the election of its candidates to public office. Political parties take many forms, but their main functions are similar: to supply personnel for government positions; to organize these personnel around the formation and implementation of public policy; and to serve in a mediating role between individuals and their government. Political parties are as old as organized political systems. Two parties in particular, the Populist Party and the Progressive Party are alike in many ways, from their platforms to their general issues. In general, however, the structure and behavior of

The party platforms between democrats and republicans has always caused contention among them. Their values and beliefs is what sets them apart. Many argue that one party goes either too far to the left or too far to the right with viewpoints of governing. Platforms are very important when it comes to governing a country. Depending on what a candidate belief system the country will reap destruction or prosperity as result of whoever in charge.

Today’s economy centers itself around the political parties today that are created with the intent of efficiently demonstrating the many shared opinions of thousands of individuals across the United States. Among them all, the two parties that attract the most attention are Democrats and Republicans who are often seen constantly creating tension among each other and campaigning/competing for political control in our country. But there are other parties such as third or minor parties whom are denied chances to express their views. These parties are considered minors in the increasingly competitive environment of the United States. From a public standpoint, minor/ third parties are considered less attractive because they are formed with the intent

An election platform is a document prepared by political parties in the United States before a presidential election. It outlines the party’s agenda with a main aim of convincing the electorate to vote for the party’s presidential candidate. Election platforms form the basis of parties’ presidential campaigns.

The idea of No Platforming is becoming increasingly relevant in today’s society. Social justice movements are at an all-time high and they are looking to use No Platforming as a legitimate means of activism. However, there are many people advocating for the right to free speech. This leads us to the debate over the use of No Platforming as a means of democratic intervention.

Philip Converse’s article argues against the idea of Democratic theory which assumes that voters hold ideological values that land on the political spectrum, which in turn, are expected to align with a candidate’s platform. I believe in modern day politics, this is becoming irrelevant in Canada due to the tendency for policies offered by major parties shifting towards centrist-oriented. For instance, the 2017 BC Liberal election; the Green party held the balance of power and was expected to join a coalition with the NDP. In retaliation, the BC Liberals rebuilt their campaign platform in the anticipation of another election being held. The new campaign offered many of the identical promises that the NDP proposed. Moreover, this is supported by Converse’s study classifying distinct voters into five categories. He found that voters were unable to precisely and accurately identify and recognize the ideological differences separating parties. This draws into question the legitimacy and political knowledge of the general Canadian voter. As Zaller and Fournier also found, Canadian voters, in general,

In modern society, the issue of free speech vs. censorship often comes up. It is a hot topic among those interested in social issues, and represents two well meaning but very different arguments. The argument for freedom of speech says that communication and connectivity promotes progress, while the argument for censorship says that silence and isolation promotes security.