Should America Do Away With Political Parties?

[Silent Majority]

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

I know, but we should at least let other parties have a voice and representation in government.

If you want proportional representation, you'd want to change to voting system to something other than winner-takes-all.

That being said, I'm not convinced a lot would change, coalition building already happens internally. The new parties that would arise already exists as factions within the two major parties.

[Chestaan]

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

I know, but we should at least let other parties have a voice and representation in government.

Yes but that is a very different thing than banning political parties. Sure by all means make it less difficult for alternative parties to have their voices heard, but getting rid of parties completely is not the answer.

[Lackadaisical2]

I think we should go back to the articles of Confederation. It'll work out just fine, cause Kansas and Missourri will finally be able to declare war on eachother.

I'd like to see that. Better yet, Bible Belt vs. Rust belt. I'll pop some popcorn.

Isn't that the point of football?

Get all that inter-regional hatred out vicariously.

Anyway, as Koku so astutely pointed out, it'd be a terrible breach of political freedom. I do however think that any references to party affiliation be taken out of official voting cards, out of any laws, etc. They should not be given a privileged position.

[Divair]

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

[The Black Forrest]

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

And yet they all joined one.

[Mavorpen]

No. We need a good balance of the number. More than three, but not as many as the Wiemar Republic had...

[Delator]

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.

Getting rid of political parties means curbing the right to assembly. That, in turn, runs one into a liiiiiiittle obstacle called the First Amendment.

...and that's basically your thread, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Unless you change the way we elect our government...in which case start working on that Amendment.

[Samuraikoku]

I know, but we should at least let other parties have a voice and representation in government.

Then you defeat your own OP, since you wouldn't be doing away with political parties.

[The Humanist Federation]

Even if you did eradicate parties, or at the very least, reduce it to a one party system, you would still have the problems of factions and everyone polarizing to one side or another on all issues. After all as a species we do have a tribal instinct.

[Chestaan]

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

Pretty much this.

[Delator]

Had an idea just now reading another thread.

Would the nation be served well by enforcing mandatory primary challenges for incumbent office holders in order for a party to maintain standing? Maybe just the Presidency and the Senate?

It would probably just turn into a bloated formality, but who knows??

[DesAnges]

No. Political freedoms.

The illusion of political freedoms. Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.

Seeing as smell is tied to taste I'd take the chance on the bad looking one - I might be pleasantly surprised.

[Ifreann]

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.

[Samuraikoku]

The illusion of political freedoms. Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.

Political freedoms for those who want to get involved in politics, not just for the voters. That you don't like either option is irrelevant.

[Japao]

At the very least, dissolve the Democratic and Republican parties and forbid any parties from claiming descent from them. That way the US won't be just a 2 party oligarchy.

[Ifreann]

At the very least, dissolve the Democratic and Republican parties and forbid any parties from claiming descent from them. That way the US won't be just a 2 party oligarchy.

That wouldn't accomplish anything of the sort, never mind being unconstitutional.

[Caninope]

At the very least, dissolve the Democratic and Republican parties and forbid any parties from claiming descent from them. That way the US won't be just a 2 party oligarchy.

This makes several presumptions.

This presumes that the two party system doesn't act like a multi-party system already (the two parties are more like coalitions than parties in the European sense). This presumes that the parties won't coalesce back into two major parties. This presumes that such an action will fly, constitutionally. This presumes that Democrats and Republicans will dissolve their own parties. Finally, this presumes that the voters will like their parties being dissolved.

[Japao]

At the very least, dissolve the Democratic and Republican parties and forbid any parties from claiming descent from them. That way the US won't be just a 2 party oligarchy.

That wouldn't accomplish anything of the sort, never mind being unconstitutional.

I'm quite aware that is unconstitutional, but I'm saying that I believe that would be better than just outlawing all political parties outright.

I believe it would work though. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie Catch Me If You Can, "You know why the Yankees always win? It's because the other teams can't stop staring at those damn pinstripes."

If they were outlawed (Along with outlawing corporations being able to donate to those running for office), I believe there would be a much level playing field. Perhaps not perfect, but still better.

[Japao]

At the very least, dissolve the Democratic and Republican parties and forbid any parties from claiming descent from them. That way the US won't be just a 2 party oligarchy.

This makes several presumptions.

This presumes that the two party system doesn't act like a multi-party system already (the two parties are more like coalitions than parties in the European sense). This presumes that the parties won't coalesce back into two major parties. This presumes that such an action will fly, constitutionally. This presumes that Democrats and Republicans will dissolve their own parties. Finally, this presumes that the voters will like their parties being dissolved.

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.

[Ifreann]

That wouldn't accomplish anything of the sort, never mind being unconstitutional.

I'm quite aware that is unconstitutional, but I'm saying that I believe that would be better than just outlawing all political parties outright.

And getting punched in the face is better than being set on fire, that doesn't mean getting punched in the face is good.

I believe it would work though. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie Catch Me If You Can, "You know why the Yankees always win? It's because the other teams can't stop staring at those damn pinstripes."

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

If they were outlawed (Along with outlawing corporations being able to donate to those running for office), I believe there would be a much level playing field. Perhaps not perfect, but still better.

No, it'd be much the same, you'd just have wasted a lot of money and effort.

[Fnordgasm 5]

I am convinced that political parties are the worse thing to have happened to democracy. I believe they exist only to consolidate power and resources into the hands of a few influential people to the detriment of democracy. On the other hand I don't know how or even if a non-partisan system could work.

[NMaa949]

And put them in jail.

[Nachfolgia]

yes,Political Parties lead to in-fighting and that doesn't help anyone.

[Disserbia]

No, there should be more parties though.

[Ifreann]

And put them in jail.

On what charges?