Doing away with American political parties

Why do we need them? Seriously.

Political parties are just a form of tribalism. A staggering number of people vote for candidates simply because of the party the candidate is a member of. Furthermore, a staggering number of arguments, illegal activities, and general “bad things” happen due to political parties existing.

As an example: My entire extended family (except for myself and one of my cousins) votes Republican in every single election. Local, state, and federal. They don’t listen to the debates, they don’t research the candidates, they just show up on voting day, look for the “R”, and check that box.
My cousin, that I mentioned, does a similar but opposite thing: no research, nothing, just shows up on voting day, looks for which candidate says “D”, then checks that box.
Doesn’t matter if the candidate wants to do something that is in direct opposition of my families’ wellbeing (they wouldn’t even know that until after the fact), they’re still voting “R”.
This is a nationwide problem, people are only voting for someone because of the "tribe" they represent.

My solution? Do away with political parties.

Think of all the times that the House or Senate blocks a bill that would be good for the country simply because it was thought of by the “wrong” party. If parties were no longer a thing, that would never happen again, because Reps and Senators would have to actually read the bills and decide whether or not they like it.

Think of all the rallies/situations/etc. that end in violence simply because someone is against someone else’s political ideologies. No more partisan politics, no more attacking someone because they’re a Republican or Democrat.

On a lesser note, think of all the posts here on ATS that exist simply to attack the party that the OP doesn’t like. How many pages of arguments involving slurs like “Dims”, etc. that give no actual benefit and only exist, all of that could go away. No more parties, no more mindless attacking of a position. You’d have to actually put thought into your arguments as to why you disagree with something, and you’d have to put thought into why you’re defending something.

How much better would that make American politics? Candidates would be forbidden to say what party they represent during debates/etc., they would just have to explain their platform, what they want to do in order to better the country, and make better points than the other candidates.

There would be no more party constituencies, because how would a “Democratic think tank” or anything else like that donate money to a party? There are no more parties.

What happened with Hillary and Bernie may not have happened at all, because there wouldn’t be a DNC to screw up Bernie’s chances, no DNC to decide which candidate they want to represent them/which candidate to screw over.

Red states and blue states would no longer be a thing. It would no longer be a sure thing that CA is always going to vote Dem, it would no longer be a sure thing that AK is going Republican. Dems and Repubs would no longer exist, they'd just be voting for Independent candidates that present the best platform for their needs.

In my opinion, it would really shake up US politics, in an incredibly good way. I truly can’t see a negative to this thought experiment. Unless you count “I can’t fight with Republicans/Democrats anymore” as a negative.

In the end, it’s just a thought experiment because TPTB would never allow it to happen, bread and circuses and all that jazz. It’s fun to dream though. Something has to change within our system, this seems to be a relatively easy change that could do a lot of good.

I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

I don't agree all the bickering will go away. They would just be referred to as "Hillary supporters" or "Trump supporters". I don't even like a lot of the Republicans. I see them as the lesser of the two evils right now. The Dems used to be that party for me, but during Obama's time in office, the party changed dramatically. Just my 2 cents.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

You're right, it's almost certain that "all" of the bickering won't go away. What I mean is the mindless bickering will lessen dramatically. You'd basically have to have a legitimate reason to dislike a candidate and their supporters.

Right now, people can hate Dems and Reps simply because they're anti-R or anti-D, and that (sort of) makes sense because most people understand the basics of each party.

If we got rid of those titles, they'd have to come up with a better reason. "I'm anti-Bernie because I don't like his face" couldn't be a good argument, they'd have to say "I'm anti-Bernie/anti-Berners because their platform says __ and I prefer ___".
I guess I just think it'd make it more difficult to be mindless about politics.

a reply to: narrator

f we got rid of those titles, they'd have to come up with a better reason. "I'm anti-Bernie because I don't like his face" couldn't be a good argument, they'd have to say "I'm anti-Bernie/anti-Berners because their platform says __ and I prefer ___". I guess I just think it'd make it more difficult to be mindless about politics.

The people worth listening to already do this. Gotta block out all the background static you get from the people who can't think for themselves. I know it's hard because I fall for their pettiness here and there too.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: narrator

f we got rid of those titles, they'd have to come up with a better reason. "I'm anti-Bernie because I don't like his face" couldn't be a good argument, they'd have to say "I'm anti-Bernie/anti-Berners because their platform says __ and I prefer ___". I guess I just think it'd make it more difficult to be mindless about politics.

The people worth listening to already do this. Gotta block out all the background static you get from the people who can't think for themselves. I know it's hard because I fall for their pettiness here and there too.

You're absolutely right.

But I also think that it would reach further than the petty arguments. How many times have we seen a Pelosi or a McConnell lead the charge to block a bill simply because it's a Republican or Democrat bill? They couldn't do that anymore, that would no longer hold weight as a reason to block something.

In the end, I know it's just a dream. But it's an interesting one.

a reply to: narrator

Do away with "Parties" and all that will happen is NGO and Special Interest groups will take over 😎

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: narrator

Do away with "Parties" and all that will happen is NGO and Special Interest groups will take over 😎

An NGO is, by definition, non-government. That'd probably be better than the gov owning us.

But I disagree with the "take over" part of this. How/what would they take over?

The government would still function pretty much the same as it does now, it just wouldn't be split up by parties anymore. I don't see how an NGO or a Special Interest Group would overthrow our government, if they haven't already.

a reply to: xuenchen

The NGO and Special Interest groups already run things. Without political parties, it may make their lives harder, because they would need to research, buy off, and control individuals, instead of just buying the big party apparatuses.

I stand with George Washington on this issue, and wish we did not have political parties in the US.

a reply to: narrator

Its an interesting proposition, thats for sure.

In a sense, perhaps its already starting to happen. More and more people identify as Independents and there is a whole lot of cross-over voting by many of the elected representatives. So for example, our Congressional Representative calls himself and runs as a Republican, but he votes 1/3 of the time as a Democrat.

Here is one for you, my recent analysis of the problems with the US system indicates that a big part of the problem is that it is too Democratic.. That has taken away from the nature of the system as intended to be, a Republic. So I am coming to believe the US should nullify the 17th Amendment and return to the State Legislatures the process of electing Senators.

I am not the only one thinking this way.

constitutioncenter.org...

These critiques are motived by what commentators see as a trampling on states rights and an unchecked expansion of federal power that was caused by the 17th amendment. The detractors who are calling for a repeal of the amendment, like right-wing radio talk show host Mark Levin, assert that the current electoral set up ensures that Senators are more influenced by the wants and needs of special interests groups who fund their elections rather than the states and the electorate.

Other high profile conservative voices, like Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, Governor Rick Perry, and the late Justice Antonin Scalia have expressed doubts about whether the 17th amendment has achieved its stated goals. Furthermore, in February 2016, the Utah State Senate, which refused to pass the amendment in 1913, passed a resolution calling on members of Congress to spearhead a repeal effort of the amendment.

Ponder on that for a while.

originally posted by: narrator
Why do we need them? Seriously.

Because from birth 99.9% of people are conditioned to pick a side, team, party, nationality. Sides create division, and division is wonderful for keep the majority of people, in a constant state of flux, confusion, and chaos.

The answer is we don't, but people are conditioned to feel comfort in picking what they believe is a side.

We're not evolved enough to allow self-empowerment, or where each person has the critical thinking skills to govern themselves, so have have leaders/governments/political parties.

Most countries that ban political parties are absolute monarchies, like Saudi Arabia. I cannot see how it would work in a large democracy. I suspect taking away parties would give way to clans, voting blocs, or groups that are parties in essence, but are wholly unregulated by federal or state law.

originally posted by: MadLad
Most countries that ban political parties are absolute monarchies, like Saudi Arabia. I cannot see how it would work in a large democracy. I suspect taking away parties would give way to clans, voting blocs, or groups that are parties in essence, but are wholly unregulated by federal or state law.

I think it would kind of go this way too. Then add in that those running wouldn’t be beholden to mostly liberal or mostly conservative views so they could just claim one or the other with zero intent to follow through. At least now, a Democrat or Republican would be somewhat likely to vote mostly with their party’s principles. It’s not a perfect system, but it could be much worse.

I would like to see others besides (D) or (R) have an honest shot at being elected. I’ve voted for (R) mostly, (D) twice, and (I) once for POTUS. For the down voting, I lean conservative though I’ve been known to vote for (D) and (I) candidates that fully support 2A, smaller government and lower taxes, with 2A support leading that list...I’ve pretty much accepted the various levels of government will never vote themselves to become smaller or work for less.

I also think the over the top bickering is a symptom of something much bigger than (R) vs (D).

You can't. We have the right of free association. If I want to get together with my neighbor and form a "party," and nominate someone to run for office and help them do that, I can do that. You can't stop me. You can't simply "abolish" my right to do that just because you don't like it. In fact, seeking support from others to do that is "forming a political party" all by itself. It's not illegal, and if you made it illegal you'd be no better than a dictatorship.

Why don't we just force the political parties to follow their own rules.

The only one that still does is the "party of family values" the Republicans....

a reply to: narrator

This is really kind of a dumb idea. It's not that we have two parties in this country. We have one party. Hillary is not a Democrat. She admits in her book she worked on Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign. The Democrats are Republicans. Or at least Nixon Republicans.

Everyone is to the left or right on some political issue. Being on the right often means for no change at all or preserving the status quo. Being on the left of an issue means changing the issue at all.

But the problems with the politics are not rocket science. The lobbyists force politicians on both sides to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. Lobbyists define domestic policies for BOTH parties. And the Counsel of Foreign Relations (CFR) defines or dictates foreign policy for both parties. We might as well not even have elections. Elections make no difference and simple don't matter.

The words of George Carlin are more true today than 20 years ago when he spoke them:



There's a "reason" why politics are a complete and total waste of time.

a reply to: schuyler

The solution would be to allow people to assemble and organize privately as they wish, without acknowledging political parties on the ballots, and without requiring ridiculous amounts of signatures for a candidate to appear on a ballot, and without giving free ballot access to political parties. Filing fees would be decreased or abolished. Ballot access laws could be loosened this way. There would be no 'straight ticket' voting at the voting booth without acknowledgement of political parties, which is ignorant anyway.

In essence, you could still 'have your political parties' for the sake of freedom, but the political parties would be separated from the official electoral process.

That could work as a middle ground, and is the kind of change I had in mind.

Read your history, kids. The framers of the construction warned against political parties. Look up the "federlist papers".

they have known since begining that it is bad to have political parties..

You cannot serve two masters, either you serve the country or the party.

Like dual citizenship, it's not allowed. (until the 14th amendment)