Should America Do Away With Political Parties?

[Cameroi]

i'm sorry but i fail to see how "factionalism" requires the non-existence of a fair and impartial electoral system that does not require political parties.

[Risottia]

I personally think America should embrace a Direct Democracy model of government. It would certainly improve the country.

As for this, eh, America is basically a one party state since both parties stand for almost the same thing. So I really have no problems with the abolishment of the parties. I still think a Direct Democracy model would be better.

Freedom of association is guaranteed by the Constitution, so abolishing parties is impossible. And direct democracy? Yes, let's have votes on every single thing, that's a great way to run a country as big as the US.

Then again, one could split the US into cantons the same size of Appenzell Innerrhoden.

[Cameroi]

Freedom of association is guaranteed by the Constitution, so abolishing parties is impossible. And direct democracy? Yes, let's have votes on every single thing, that's a great way to run a country as big as the US.

Then again, one could split the US into cantons the same size of Appenzell Innerrhoden.

personally i don't see that as a lol, but as a very excellent practical approach. it would also not be a bad idea to break all super powers into autonimously soverign bio-regions.

[The Serbian Empire]

In an ideal world, yes. Instead we should break the two main parties into smaller parties. With that then we can have actual debate instead of just one side blocking the other.

[Zaharawi]

America should become a more than two party country. Most people will see how this limits people's freedom to choose who elect them to two individual. You are hypocrite in that sense. A true democracy will rest the power to choose in the hands of the people and not limit it to the democrats and the republican.

[South Crapistan]

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?

It would be more or less the same, apart from it being unconstitutional. Democrats and Republicans would vote together in Congress without actually calling themselves Democrats or Republicans.

I don't think it would be quite so locked up. In recent history we've seen literally every single member of a party vote the same way on many issues. Those who step out of line are culled in their party primaries. Without those party primaries, it is much harder for the extremist minorities to dominate our country's politics.

[Cameroi]

In an ideal world, yes. Instead we should break the two main parties into smaller parties. With that then we can have actual debate instead of just one side blocking the other.

another lovely idea, but i think the problem here is created by corporate media. otherwise this would already exist, with libertarians as the second republicans and greens as the second democrats.
(although in both cases i would rather see the newer parties first and the older ones second.)

[Maurepas]

i'm sorry but i fail to see how "factionalism" requires the non-existence of a fair and impartial electoral system that does not require political parties.

Well, "require" is such a strong word, even our current system doesn't necessarily require it, per se, plenty of people run and hold office as Independents.

The system just systematically enforces party membership, which I would also agree is wrong and should be gotten rid of.

I would simply say a system where there are no parties(small 'p') is infeasible. Because people are always going to line up on one side or the other, ala the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, for example. Which, interestingly, could be said to still be going on, re:"Small Government" vs "Big Government".

[Saluterre]

I know that it's unconstitutional, but I simply said it as an alternative to just getting rid of all political parties like the OP said. Yes, there would be an uproar, from voters and corporations alike. And truthfully, I can't say if they wouldn't just meld back into the two dominant parties again. I also can't and won't speak for everyone, but it is my personal belief that by getting rid of those two parties but make the voting game much more level. That way third parties can get equal representation and a fairer chance to be heard.

I'm not trying to offer up the solution, simply a solution.

Honestly, I don't want third parties to have any of a chance.

We have crazy third parties. Does anyone want the Constitution Party, Libertarians, Green Party, CPUSA, or SPUSA in charge?

As for the latter three, yes. Very much.

[Enfaru]

When America was founded there were a lot less people. Thus no need for parties as such. However as the populace grew, just like everywhere else, democracy becomes much harder. Democracy really only works quickly on a very small scale. At least in terms of speed.

In order to speed this process up, parties were created. This helped consolidate views and always have people campaigning for particular issues that are important in order to get them passed and legislated. America unfortunately became a two party nation. This is particularly unfortunate as it does not allow for third party perspectives. In the UK we are heading the same way and have the same issues.

If you do away with Political Parties, expect law making to slow down drastically, You will have a more varied debate about what should be passed into law, but it will be slower, democracy implies discussions with other people and the ability to concede certain things in return for more favourable outcomes. It is extremely rare to have a unanimous verdict in democracy.

If you're against change, then you should really be for Direct Democracy (or if you think the legislative system isn't focusing enough and discussing the law enough). However if you want speed, then you really need a monarchy.

[Ifreann]

I ,for one, believe the political parties should be banned....all the parties do is rag on eachother, they don't actually talk about anything important. They don't actually care what is right or wrong, only winning elections.

And they win elections by doing things people want when in power. Kinda like how businesses only care about making a profit, but how they do that is by providing a product or service people will pay for.

---

And if you think that's why the Republicans and Democrats dominate US politics you're mistaken.

DEAR GOD! THAT'S IT!

It must be the pinstripes. Politicians have suits with pinstripes. Obama obviously had pinstripes, and McCain didn't. I now know how to run for the Senate when I'm eligible.

Pinstripes = votes.

[Farnhamia]

When America was founded there were a lot less people. Thus no need for parties as such. However as the populace grew, just like everywhere else, democracy becomes much harder. Democracy really only works quickly on a very small scale. At least in terms of speed.

In order to speed this process up, parties were created. This helped consolidate views and always have people campaigning for particular issues that are important in order to get them passed and legislated. America unfortunately became a two party nation. This is particularly unfortunate as it does not allow for third party perspectives. In the UK we are heading the same way and have the same issues.

If you do away with Political Parties, expect law making to slow down drastically, You will have a more varied debate about what should be passed into law, but it will be slower, democracy implies discussions with other people and the ability to concede certain things in return for more favourable outcomes. It is extremely rare to have a unanimous verdict in democracy.

If you're against change, then you should really be for Direct Democracy (or if you think the legislative system isn't focusing enough and discussing the law enough). However if you want speed, then you really need a monarchy.

Parties were more or less in existence during Washington's two terms as President. The Federalist and Democratic-Republicans make their formal appearance with the 4th United States Congress in 1795. So they weren't created later as the country got bigger.

[Winslavia]

People don't usually/always just simply VOTE for their/the Political Party they simply believe in. LOL ;D

[The Rich Port]

Political parties are just a natural evolution of group organization. They're a group of people with certain political beliefs and they get together to organize them.

We SHOULD do away with the Democratic and Republican parties, though, not because they're political parties, but because by using their ill-gotten political power, they continue to lie to the public about false promises and a fake image of what they really operate like, what their actual intentions are, and everything.

They're gaming the system. What they believe in is protected by the First Amendment, but what they do isn't.

[Socialist EU]

No. Political freedoms.

Exactly.

[Ifreann]

Political parties are just a natural evolution of group organization. They're a group of people with certain political beliefs and they get together to organize them.

We SHOULD do away with the Democratic and Republican parties, though, not because they're political parties, but because by using their ill-gotten political power, they continue to lie to the public about false promises and a fake image of what they really operate like, what their actual intentions are, and everything.

They're gaming the system. What they believe in is protected by the First Amendment, but what they do isn't.

What they do is protected by the First Amendment. Freedom of association is in the First, right?

[Farnhamia]

Political parties are just a natural evolution of group organization. They're a group of people with certain political beliefs and they get together to organize them.

We SHOULD do away with the Democratic and Republican parties, though, not because they're political parties, but because by using their ill-gotten political power, they continue to lie to the public about false promises and a fake image of what they really operate like, what their actual intentions are, and everything.

They're gaming the system. What they believe in is protected by the First Amendment, but what they do isn't.

What they do is protected by the First Amendment. Freedom of association is in the First, right?

'Tis.

[New Chalcedon]

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?

Do you know why there are political parties?

Because they're effective at getting their adherents elected. A candidate from Party X, who can call on massive amounts of outside financial, structural and logistical support, has a huge advantage over an otherwise-identical independent candidate. Therefore, the only way you'll get rid of parties is to become a dictatorship, for so long as there are free elections, candidates for office will continue to bandwagon for the sake of gaining an advantage.

It's that simple.

[Socialist EU]

Though I am a Republican, I think we should have a non- party state, or have a multi- party system, but let Libertarians and other parties have representation in the government.

No. Political freedoms. First Amendment. United States Constitution.

He probably wants a plutocracy. Although, there most 'democracies' already have a plutocracy through 'rule of law' constitutionalism.

[Ifreann]

What they do is protected by the First Amendment. Freedom of association is in the First, right?

'Tis.

Huzzah!

[United State of America]

Obviously if we do away with political parties we'll turn into some fundie dictatorship like Saudi Arabia. No really, they don't have political parties allowed. And they're not exactly a beacon of progress and freedom.

To those who would say yes, I ask this: Why do you hate freedom?

[Genivaria]

No. We should have MORE political parties.

[Socialist EU]

Honestly, I don't want third parties to have any of a chance.

We have crazy third parties. Does anyone want the Constitution Party, Libertarians, Green Party, CPUSA, or SPUSA in charge?

As for the latter three, yes. Very much.

Greetings comrade from across the Atlantic. By the way, I always thought that through their support for democrats, the CPUSA are opportunists.*

* ‘engaging in action which is inconsistent with your own declared principles for short-term gain'.

[Ifreann]

No. We should have MORE political parties.

You already have quite a few. They just don't accomplish much of anything.

[Farnhamia]

No. We should have MORE political parties.

We have tons. We need minor parties with brains and practical platforms, not ones that serve as ego-trips for people who want to run for President.