A No Party System

[Victoria and Vacuna]

Yes, that would be an obvious consequence of outlawing the activities of political parties.
Any sort of social convention which would hinder the formation of parties inevitably decays. The only remaining option would be outlawing them all, and anything like them.

You can't effectively outlaw political organization. You just can't. And factions would still develop, just without sponsoring individual candidates.

I have no doubt there are ways to get around the ban, and factionalism is always a thing.
It was just a theoretical solution I developed.

[Pandeeria]

Back to 1789 shall we?

Welp, the political system was moderately better so sure.

A voting system dominated by white, wealthy, land-owning men sure was better. *nods*

[Farnhamia]

Welp, the political system was moderately better so sure.

A voting system dominated by white, wealthy, land-owning men sure was better. *nods*

And the only reason there were no declared parties then was because no one wanted to be on the receiving ended of Washington's "I am disappoint" face. Honestly, Doctor Franklin told me, "Lady Farn, you have no idea, I have seen General Washington shrivel a grown man's bollocks inside of two heartbeats with a single glance, were he displeased. Why, Israel Putnam still feels the chill of it to this day, and it's nearly ten years after Long Island. Do pour me another drop of the claret, my dear."

[Calladan]

Okay - so take the UK. We have a House of Commons with 650 MPs in it. Each one represents a certain part of the country. If there were no parties, then - in theory - every MP would truly be responsible to his/her own constituency and the people who put them in to power. They would have to vote on the bills proposed as the people in their constituency wanted them to.

Except power blocks would soon form. Mr Smith would talk to Miss Jones and say "I will vote on Bill A with you, if you will vote on Bill B with me" because Bill B is in Mr Smith's best interest, so having Miss Jones vote with him would be better than having her vote against him. And there you have the first basis of the political party, albeit a small one.

The same would apply in The Lords, and in Congress and The Senate. Unless the people who put their representatives into power have the absolute ability to remove them the moment that the representative does something they don't like (which generates its own problems because what if 51% like what happened and 49% don't? or 50.51% like and 50.49% don't?) then the representatives will form alliances - parties - and the whole "no party" system will collapse and we will be back where we are now.

[Union of Despotistan]

I think that having no official political party would be a tremendous gain for our democracies!

It would help to get rid of internal corruption and decade long favoritism of parties that cling to power tru split of opposition votes and rigging.
It would not be a magical solution, obviously, but I think it could be a step toward something positive.

A leader might form a political entity that would have to be dissolved at the end of his tenure as chief of the said movement/ideology.

It could help destroy the bi-partisanship that is killing and undermining lots of democracies currently in this world.

My NationState is ruled by Military Junta; which is technically not a political party. I think it has clear advantages.

[Ifreann]

Okay - so take the UK. We have a House of Commons with 650 MPs in it. Each one represents a certain part of the country. If there were no parties, then - in theory - every MP would truly be responsible to his/her own constituency and the people who put them in to power. They would have to vote on the bills proposed as the people in their constituency wanted them to.

Except power blocks would soon form. Mr Smith would talk to Miss Jones and say "I will vote on Bill A with you, if you will vote on Bill B with me" because Bill B is in Mr Smith's best interest, so having Miss Jones vote with him would be better than having her vote against him. And there you have the first basis of the political party, albeit a small one.

The same would apply in The Lords, and in Congress and The Senate. Unless the people who put their representatives into power have the absolute ability to remove them the moment that the representative does something they don't like (which generates its own problems because what if 51% like what happened and 49% don't? or 50.51% like and 50.49% don't?) then the representatives will form alliances - parties - and the whole "no party" system will collapse and we will be back where we are now.

It's a bit like asking what would happen if we got rid of the wheel. First thing we'd do would probably be to invent it again.

[PaNTuXIa]

Please do not confuse this with communism.

What?

[Farnhamia]

Okay - so take the UK. We have a House of Commons with 650 MPs in it. Each one represents a certain part of the country. If there were no parties, then - in theory - every MP would truly be responsible to his/her own constituency and the people who put them in to power. They would have to vote on the bills proposed as the people in their constituency wanted them to.

Except power blocks would soon form. Mr Smith would talk to Miss Jones and say "I will vote on Bill A with you, if you will vote on Bill B with me" because Bill B is in Mr Smith's best interest, so having Miss Jones vote with him would be better than having her vote against him. And there you have the first basis of the political party, albeit a small one.

The same would apply in The Lords, and in Congress and The Senate. Unless the people who put their representatives into power have the absolute ability to remove them the moment that the representative does something they don't like (which generates its own problems because what if 51% like what happened and 49% don't? or 50.51% like and 50.49% don't?) then the representatives will form alliances - parties - and the whole "no party" system will collapse and we will be back where we are now.

It's a bit like asking what would happen if we got rid of the wheel. First thing we'd do would probably be to invent it again.

Remember when I tried to get rid of agriculture? Okay, you're too young, you wouldn't, but the very next Spring, there they were, planting things again. "No, no, Farn, really, we're celebrating the uhm squirrel festival, hiding these ... little small nuts in the ground. Lots of them, yes, well ..."

[The Liberated Territories]

Should a multi party state be unachievable in the US, this is the back up plan.

[Calladan]

Should a multi party state be unachievable in the US, this is the back up plan.

We have a multiparty state over here. I admit the smaller parties don't get as big as the two main parties (Labour and Tory are the two "big parties", while Scottish National, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, BNP, Green and so on are the "smaller parties") but they do get a fair amount of support from a certain point of view (even if they don't get a lot of votes due to the political system in the UK).

I don't know why it doesn't work in the US - money, probably.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Should a multi party state be unachievable in the US, this is the back up plan.

We have a multiparty state over here. I admit the smaller parties don't get as big as the two main parties (Labour and Tory are the two "big parties", while Scottish National, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, BNP, Green and so on are the "smaller parties") but they do get a fair amount of support from a certain point of view (even if they don't get a lot of votes due to the political system in the UK).

I don't know why it doesn't work in the US - money, probably.

The UK has strong sectionalist feelings. That's why SNP and Plaid Cymru exist.
I imagine that political factionalism is also the reason certain other parties exist as well.
And I believe that the electorate size for each district is far smaller, which may also impact the ability of groups to gain representation.

[Thenganytras]

This is what occurs in Kuwait's National Assembly. However, like someone said before, factions have developed, even if not official parties.

Ditto the Nebraskan State Senate. However, this is an isolated non-party micro-system in an otherwise bi-party mega-system.

Nebraska and Maine really are the bastions of electoral reform in America...

[Nickel Empire]

No, people will rally into groups with similar ideas and beliefs.

[Calladan]

We have a multiparty state over here. I admit the smaller parties don't get as big as the two main parties (Labour and Tory are the two "big parties", while Scottish National, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, BNP, Green and so on are the "smaller parties") but they do get a fair amount of support from a certain point of view (even if they don't get a lot of votes due to the political system in the UK).

I don't know why it doesn't work in the US - money, probably.

The UK has strong sectionalist feelings. That's why SNP and Plaid Cymru exist.
I imagine that political factionalism is also the reason certain other parties exist as well.
And I believe that the electorate size for each district is far smaller, which may also impact the ability of groups to gain representation.

While I can accept parts of that - the SNP has no support outside of Scotland and I would guess Plaid Cymru has no support outside of Wales - but there are other smaller parties - Lib Dem, BNP, UKIP, Green and so forth - that are nationwide rather than in specific countries (that makes sense I swear - nationwide in the sense of UK and countries in the sense of England, Scotland etc). The Lib Dem are (or were) the on the left of Labour, the UKIP are to the right of the Tories (who are the centre right), and the BNP are the far right (to the right of UKIP) but they are definitely national parties, rather than "local" ones.

What about parties like The Tea Party? Were they Republicans or their own Party? (I would imagine they were the UKIP or BNP of the Republicans?) And are there any far left Democrats that would come under their own steam or do they still class as Democrats?

Is it that the two main parties in America are such broad churches that they cover from the centre left through to the far left, and from the center right through to the far right? Is that why there are really only two parties?

(Just curious).

[The United Providences of Perland]

I left my thread alone for awhile and it blossomed into this amazing thing.

[Traxa]

you could get rid of parties, people will still group with other like minded people, and vote along those lines and people will still label people conservative or liberal so we essentially will end up with parties in everything but name regardless.

[Fugaxia]

All you could do is remove parties on paper, they'd still exist.

Also, it's unconstitutional.

[Diopolis]

The first problem is enforcement and defining what a party is.
The second problem is that in many ways parties are actually restraining polarization. Most people emphatically do not follow every issue and make reasoned decisions. About forty-five percent of the electorate would vote for a literal squirrel with an R next to its name. About forty-five percent of the electorate would vote for a literal cockroach provided it has a D next to its name(republicans would not do this, because cockroaches trigger their opposition reflex). The remaining ten percent of the electorate have such extreme and idiosyncratic views that no candidate can appeal to them.
In the absence of parties, people will win elections by memetics. AKA, the Trump strategy. Get noticed- usually by staking out the most extreme and bizarre positions on everything, or saying absurd things that piss people off- and then explain why people should vote for you using a combination of publicity stunts and a convenient narrative. Convenient narratives always have a bad guy, so we'd have people running on platforms like "deport all immigrants" or "fire all the police". They'll also have blatant appeals- "we'll have pork projects for this constituency" or extreme positions on wedge issues.
The alternative strategy is the Clinton strategy. Cut a deal with some extremely wealthy people, then buy every adspace in existence in the entire district for the six months prior to the election.
Obviously, neither are desirable, and in the absence of parties, they are the only options.

[UniversalCommons]

Then you would have armed factions which is what we have in my nation. The blues and the greens, etc.

[Xando]

We do not have political party's like real countries but we have leaders who are heros

[Diopolis]

The UK has strong sectionalist feelings. That's why SNP and Plaid Cymru exist.
I imagine that political factionalism is also the reason certain other parties exist as well.
And I believe that the electorate size for each district is far smaller, which may also impact the ability of groups to gain representation.

While I can accept parts of that - the SNP has no support outside of Scotland and I would guess Plaid Cymru has no support outside of Wales - but there are other smaller parties - Lib Dem, BNP, UKIP, Green and so forth - that are nationwide rather than in specific countries (that makes sense I swear - nationwide in the sense of UK and countries in the sense of England, Scotland etc). The Lib Dem are (or were) the on the left of Labour, the UKIP are to the right of the Tories (who are the centre right), and the BNP are the far right (to the right of UKIP) but they are definitely national parties, rather than "local" ones.

What about parties like The Tea Party? Were they Republicans or their own Party? (I would imagine they were the UKIP or BNP of the Republicans?) And are there any far left Democrats that would come under their own steam or do they still class as Democrats?

Is it that the two main parties in America are such broad churches that they cover from the centre left through to the far left, and from the center right through to the far right? Is that why there are really only two parties?

(Just curious).

In the US, the parties are essentially code for demographic qualities and lifestyle choices of their voters. White males, old people, church attenders, and rural people vote republican. Urbanites, young people, and minorities vote democrat.
In general, republicans are to the right of democrats. But this is not a hard and fast rule- a democrat from Louisiana is likely far to the right of a republican from Massachusetts. The republicans tend to allow more flexibility in this regard, so they are more successful in blue states than democrats in red states, but there are still exceptions.
A republican could be anything from a centrist to a far-far-righter. A democrat could be anything from a centrist to a democratic socialist. Far-far-leftists, except for a few vocal social leftists, tend to be few and far between in the US, and less willing to hold their nose for a moderate candidate than rightists. Also note that their is a greater bipartisan consensus(this is roughly moderate libertarian, but interventionist) in the US than elsewhere: our political spectrum is narrower and we're a bit farther to the right on economic issues(on social issues, we have the full spread you would expect for a developed country).
People who aren't simply demographic shoe ins tend to vote for one of the parties based on a single wedge issue- usually, gun control, abortion, LGBT+ stuff, environmental regs, or a couple of others. Most of these people adjust their views on everything else for the party they've picked.

[Xando]

Then you would have armed factions which is what we have in my nation. The blues and the greens, etc.

You should get rid of arms factions like those and you wouldnt have any party's just leaders of your county

[Farnhamia]

We do not have political party's like real countries but we have leaders who are heros

And we don't post in character here in General.