Should America Do Away With Political Parties?

[NMaa949]

On what charges?

Treason!

[Absolute Anarchy]

No. Everyone has the right to political freedoms.

[Saluterre]

Nope. We need to become a multi-party system. To quote Gore Vidal: "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand..." There are parties that have the interest of the common man in mind, such as the Green Party (close to a modern European social-democratic party), the SPUSA (close to a 1900's European social-democratic party) and the CPUSA (close to a modern, liberal, eurocommunist party.) But even the largest of these (the Greens) has no more than 300,000 members, less than .1% of the population.

STEWART ALEXANDER 2012!

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

When America was founded, there were no political parties. George Washington thought political parties were dumb. Until Democrats and Republicans appeared, I think that there were not any stupid issues like we have today and there was a lot less bickering back then then there is now. I believe the America from its Independence was the Golden Age of the United States.

I am wondering. Since there were initially no politcal parties other than Whig/Federalist, and everyone was pro- life, shouldn't we ban political parties so there is not so much quarrelling? Instead of voting for someone who is a Democrat or a Republican, we should vote for people for what they believe in, not for their party.

Would it be better if America was a No- Party State?

I just found the hidden conservative agenda in the OP! Is there a prize?

In answer, no, because it would become so ridiculously partisan that nothing would get done.

Multi-party, yes. Every man for himself, no, just no.

[Ifreann]

On what charges?

Treason!

None of them have committed treason. Anything else?

[Meryuma]

We should have either no political parties or an unlimited number of political parties (or better yet, the state not existing).

[Samuraikoku]

None of them have committed treason. Anything else?

Heresy?

[Ifreann]

None of them have committed treason. Anything else?

Heresy?

[Xeng He]

If it's representation you've got in mind, then eliminate the geographic criteria and replace it with allegiance-based criteria.

So rather than having "the Senator from Missouri", you have "the Senator representing the republicans/democrats/libertarians".

[Napkiraly]

Political parties are an inevitable part of democracies. The only way to get rid of them is to ban them, and that would go against political freedoms. Even then, quarreling would still occur between politicians. The best way to solve things is to reform the system to make politicians more accountable, crackdown on corruption, and most importantly educate the people.

[Aglorea]

Political parties are okay. They keep things from getting too democratic, which is, after all, in the spirit of the founders.

[Xeng He]

I just found the hidden conservative agenda in the OP! Is there a prize?

In answer, no, because it would become so ridiculously partisan that nothing would get done.

Multi-party, yes. Every man for himself, no, just no.

...so the men that basically agree on a thing wouldn't pull together?

[West Vandengaarde]

Without political parties, you have a flood of unnotables, a flood of trash, a flood of the useless people in society getting into government and not only that, no one's ideas are well-publicized because no one has the money to get ideas out but the rich. At least we have moderately humble candidates now. But without parties? You have no candidates who you know except the ones who can afford to get their names out. It wouldn't work. I realize some people vote just based on party, but why is that a problem? Most parties stick to a platform anyways. It makes things easier.

[Cetacea]

each member is a party of one who is free to make coalition arrangements with other single member party and thus act as a voting bloc

[Risottia]

When America was founded, there were no political parties. George Washington thought political parties were dumb.

And Americans shourd NOT have poriticar parties, because their Grorious President In Aeterno said poriticar parties are dumb.

[Farnhamia]

When America was founded, there were no political parties. George Washington thought political parties were dumb.

And Americans shourd NOT have poriticar parties, because their Grorious President In Aeterno said poriticar parties are dumb.

Did you bite your tongue?

[Fradonia]

When the country was founded, there were in fact parties. They wernt as organized as they are today, but they existed. And the only reason why everyone was "Pro-life" as you say was because back then no one thought abortion was an issue, since that wasnt really a thing back then. And no, we shouldnt get rid of them. And by the way, the political fights you see with the Republicans and Democrats today went on back then with the Whigs and Democrats. And Before that, the Tories and Federalists. Heck, there was even a WAR between those two!

[The Black Forrest]

No, just need to fix the electoral college so it doesn't suck.

So? How does it suck and how should we fix it?

[Gigaverse]

If all of America's political parties were to disappear tomorrow, we'd have a billion new ones on Tuesday, and by the end of the week they'd coalesce into two big ones.

^ Zhis.

[Risottia]

And Americans shourd NOT have poriticar parties, because their Grorious President In Aeterno said poriticar parties are dumb.

Did you bite your tongue?

My fingertips, you mean? I wouldn't dream of actually reading that loud.

[Socialdemokraterne]

So long as people retain conflicting interests and cooperate rationally in order to attain their interests, political parties aren't going anywhere.

[Farnhamia]

No, just need to fix the electoral college so it doesn't suck.

So? How does it suck and how should we fix it?

It maintains the illusion that states with smaller populations count for anything except maybe scenery.

[The Black Forrest]

So? How does it suck and how should we fix it?

It maintains the illusion that states with smaller populations count for anything except maybe scenery.

I know. It's broken when it doesn't favor what you want.

[Farnhamia]

Did you bite your tongue?

My fingertips, you mean? I wouldn't dream of actually reading that loud.

I could bite my thumb at thee, you Cisalpine Gaul, you.

[Farnhamia]

It maintains the illusion that states with smaller populations count for anything except maybe scenery.

I know. It's broken when it doesn't favor what you want.

Amazing how that works, isn't it?