[Figlio di Moros]

...may I be so bold as to point out the glaring piratical fact that even with in a large "political party" (Called no party, or whatever) there are in effect sub-partys/interest groups, whether they are recognized or not.

And? These different interest groups can work towards their ends as individuals, and not be forced into party politics. Again, formal parties = party politics = institutionalized partisanship. No-one's arguing we can eliminate all partisanship, but we are arguing that we can negligate it's effects on policy.

[Rancid]

YES!

[Fasces]

Banning all political parties has a certain appeal, but if accept Madison's postulates on the inevitability of factionism, they would be replaced with something else, almost immediately. Candidates would still define themselves by terms, whether it be conservative, progressive, or anything else, and voters would still vote based on these terms rather than internal policies.

In any case, it doesn't matter. Acting like the Republic and Democratic parties are monolithic institutions is also silly. They each continue many, many, factions within them, already informal, which supports the idea that ridding America of the Republicans and Democrats would be a short-term measure at best.

To reform the American system, while keeping it intact, one would need to remove ballot access restrictions against Third Parties, allow fusion voting to occur (one candidate running for multiple parties), and promote restrictions on what can be spent in a campaign in order to allow minor candidates a chance to match the two powerhouses.

[Figlio di Moros]

I find more meaningful reform would ensue from multiwinner and preferential systems being instated.

[ingliz]

Yes

[Syd]

No.

[Inexorable]

The question is too vague. What do we mean by destroy? Go all French Revolution on them and cut their heads off or just outlaw participation in such parties?

Because if we kill them than I have no choice but to murder my entire family and almost everyone I know. That would be kind of difficult (logistically of course, not ethically, mwha ha ha ha ).

But as pointed out by Fasces, these people would just re-organize under new names or bunch in with other groups. Of course, your caveat said that wouldn't be allowed. Still, if you think about it, every country in the world is dominated by three, two, or one-party systems. There are rare nations that have more than a couple parties and they are usually in some kind of revolutionary transition or are just confused. That said, we would probably end up with more bipartisan gibberish all over again.

Honestly, the more parties we have the more difficult it is to get anything done, which is why I generally disdain democracy. Each party represents the base elements of the society and/or themselves.

[Aghast]

The only thing worse than Democrats are Republicans.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

@inexorable: all you would need to do to prevent that from happening is to ban all political parties. One might asks, "what consists of a political party", but you could easily just define that.

[Foxwood]

No.

I don't see the point. At least with parties, politicians are regrouped officially. They would still do it, but unofficially if parties were to be abolished.

[Monorprise]

Banning all political parties has a certain appeal, but if accept Madison's postulates on the inevitability of factionism, they would be replaced with something else, almost immediately. Candidates would still define themselves by terms, whether it be conservative, progressive, or anything else, and voters would still vote based on these terms rather than internal policies.

In any case, it doesn't matter. Acting like the Republic and Democratic parties are monolithic institutions is also silly. They each continue many, many, factions within them, already informal, which supports the idea that ridding America of the Republicans and Democrats would be a short-term measure at best.

This is my point in why it cant be done, and there already exist factionalism with in the party. The Monolithic forces of the party comes from the way the party institutions or "company" control a lot of the financing, and campaign perks. that's where the "party wip" gets his/her power in using that to extort members of the same, by undermining their reelection chances by virtue of undermining their national party support.

Technically some states have mitigated that power by outlawing out of state financing of their congressional campaigns but a lot of congressmen have gotten away with avoiding that law. (the Tom Delay indictment in Texas was along those lines). And still people with in a state donate money to the national party campaign thus empowering them.

In theory State governments could out law national party's which are like company from donating as well or directing their local party affiliate in donations thus weakling the national party wips piratical power further. (Something many states are of a vested interest to do due to the need to have their congressional delegation loyal to in state interest which benefit the state government inherently, not out of state interest which don't benefit the state government).

But state party wips would still be of significant power, as long as the people given them money rather then give the money directly to the canadits.


Of course the other thing States can do is remove all party recognizing from their ballots, which is perhaps the most direct thing they could do.

In the United States you have to remember Individual state and local governments run ALL the elections I including federal elections(all of which are really State elections for State delegations including the presidential election which is recall just for the state elector delegation.).

To reform the American system, while keeping it intact, one would need to remove ballot access restrictions against Third Parties, allow fusion voting to occur (one candidate running for multiple parties), and promote restrictions on what can be spent in a campaign in order to allow minor candidates a chance to match the two powerhouses.

Not sure I agree with this. But if it could be done at all it could only be done at state and local levels, as their the only ones that actually hold the elections in the United States.


Honestly thou to get any of it done and enforced people need to start realizing and remembering the important of their state and local governments. The federal government cant really do this stuff cause it doesn't really directly control anything.

Campaign financing limits we have attempted to apply with even more corrupting results. It seems if you limit the size of contributions you end up with only the super rich or party organizations (rich by organized and coordinated groups) running, because people dot simply get well known enough as to get more well known with out lots of money.

Restricting what can be spent is Constitutionally troublesome to impossible, expectantly for the federal government, and ballot access in most states is depended upon signatures, which you often need to have a large preexisting party organization in order to reliably get enough of them each election to get on the ballot.

That is why a lot of 3rd party's are really only on the ballot in some of the states.

For the record there is no federal recognition of political party's period(no federal election either), only state recognition.
Congressmen are regarded as individuals by the federal government, and by many state governments as well.

In fact some states have open primary's where you might actually see 2 democrats, or 2 republicans face off in the general election.

[Quantum]

Yes, absolutely. Political parties do nothing but cause divisions in society by splitting the electorate into different segments (e.g. working class - left wing parties, conservatives/business class - right wing parties) to the detriment of all groups. Abolish all political parties, or atleast have one to represent all interests.

The political parties have an enormous party machine which manipulate electors with flashy adverts and empty promises. That along with campaign finance reform restricting spending and donations at election time would prevent the wealthy from using their private wealth for public gain.

I would go further and disenfranchise those who previously voted for the parties in 2004 and 2008, to prevent them from influencing the post-political party order.

[disquebleu]

Yes.

[Dr House]

All parties should be abolished. It would obviously not abolish factionalism, but it would severely undermine political machines.

[Fasces]

The political machine, if maintained, can be controlled. Why ban political parties, effectively driving them outside the law, and beyond legislative control? How would this be beneficial?

[Dr House]

The political machine, if maintained, can be controlled.

By whom? The point and purpose of political machines is to control the government, for the benefit of corrupt establishment interests no less. They are one of the principal structural failures of modern representative democracy.

Why ban political parties, effectively driving them outside the law, and beyond legislative control?

Because there really isn't much use to legislative control of political parties, except for inside parties to cement their hold on it. You forget that politics is for the most part outside of the rule of law, as legislators are the guardians of the law and can shape it or selectively ignore it to suit their ends.

[Mazhi]

No

However, other parties should get more power.

[Tailz]

Yes; political parties abolished.

[Monorprise]

No point, you can destroy the name but the affiliation and partisanship associated will still exist.

You cannot wipe out political party, or prevent them from forming in one form or anther. all you can do is hinder, undermined their unity, and possibly driven them underground.

[Zerogouki]

Yes. The Libertarian, Constitution, and Green parties will rise up to take their place, and sanity will once again be restored to the universe.