Would you like to see the abolishment of poltical parties in America ?

[WarpSpeedChewy]

Do you think that Political Parties ended being essential to the way politics are done and the way people's belief are represented, or were they pointless to be begin with ?

To me, it the main reason why our democracy does not live up to our purpose. It would be impossible to outlaw or disassemble all of the political parties now. Had there been no political parties, senator & governor would have been held accountable individually, and each of them could have their own views independent of a political party.
___________________________________ _______________

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection."

George Washington's Farewell Address. September 17th, 1796

[TheOtherAndrew]

I think as far as party politics go, Americans are alot more lucky than they realize. In Canada if a representative votes against party lines enough then they are usually removed from their caucus. Party discipline is much less strict in the states where you have people who speak out against their parties without drastic consequences.

However, comparisons aside I do agree with the principle of what you're saying and that to a certain degree parties do interefere with politics more than they should. I don't think abolishing the party system will do all that much good though. Maybe less emphasis on the two party system.

[dw1003]

Do you think that Political Parties ended being essential to the way politics are done and the way people's belief are represented ? Is or will there always be a need for a political parties. Or were they pointless to be begin with ?

Well, I think that good sentence structure is essential to formulating a question.


To me, it the main reason why our democracy does not live up to our purpose. It would be impossible to outlaw or disassemble all of the political parties now. Had there been no political parties, senator & governor would have been held accountable individually, and each of them could have their own views independent of a political party.

Then why bring it up?

___________________________________ _______________

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection."

George Washington's Farewell Address. September 17th, 1796

Pretty sure the geographic presence of a politic party no longer threatens the union the way it would have in 1796...

[aminorthreat55]

Not the abolishment of political parties, but the abolishment of the two-party dominance.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

Well, I think that good sentence structure is essential to formulating a question.
I ended up rewriting that a bunch of times. It kinda got jumbled a bit. It's fixed.

Then why bring it up?
Cause I thought it would bring up an interesting discussion concerning the purpose and need of political parties today. TheOtherAndrew had a pretty good response.

Pretty sure the geographic presence of a politic party no longer threatens the union the way it would have in 1796...
You're missing the point.

[dw1003]

I ended up rewriting that a bunch of times. It kinda got jumbled a bit. It's fixed.


Cause I thought it would bring up an interesting discussion concerning the purpose and need of political parties today. TheOtherAndrew had a pretty good response.


You're missing the point.

I think that the problem you are identifying is with the two party system.

to abolish political parties all together would require reworking our democracy from the core.

also, I believe you are misunderstanding Washington's intent in his the speech you quoted, I believe he is identifying the danger in citizens uniting together for partisan intentions that would result in a body of party members that could prove to be stronger than the union itself at the point in time when the speech was given.

The current culture of partisan politics does not present the type of threat.

find a more appropriate source to quote.

[johnh5304]

The whole point of this debate is flawed. Even if there were no parties, Americans would still be separated in their opinions on how to run this country. America's system has been refined over the years and is in a state where it works fine the way it is. Sure minor changes could still be made but a complete overhaul would be a disaster.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

I think that the problem you are identifying is with the two party system.

to abolish political parties all together would require reworking our democracy from the core.

also, I believe you are misunderstanding Washington's intent in his the speech you quoted, I believe he is identifying the danger in citizens uniting together for partisan intentions that would result in a body of party members that could prove to be stronger than the union itself at the point in time when the speech was given.

The current culture of partisan politics does not present the type of threat.

find a more appropriate source to quote.

Well I identified with with the 2 party system cause it's the only one relevant at the moment and for the foreseeable future.

And Washington statement & intention is just as true now. True, that there are different circumstances and setting but it overall serves the point. The quote I feel is a warning to the escalation of such partisan politics, which could someday happend. Sometimes, I do feel like people could take it to that level someday.
I actually did try to find a better quotation but this was all that I could find at the moment.

I wanted to see a discussion on the actual need for political parties in America. To see, If it's better to have groups or individuals with views independent of a party. Perhaps I should have worded the question differently.

The whole point of this debate is flawed. Even if there were no parties, Americans would still be separated in their opinions on how to run this country. America's system has been refined over the years and is in a state where it works fine the way it is. Sure minor changes could still be made but a complete overhaul would be a disaster.

I disagree. Perhaps Americans wouldn't be so separated if their wasn't sides or groups to be on. To me people are a lot more accommodating to have views guided towards a political group, than to have developed on their own.

[dw1003]

Well I identified with with the 2 party system cause it's the only one relevant at the moment and for the foreseeable future.

And Washington statement & intention is just as true now. True, that there are different circumstances and setting but it overall serves the point. The quote I feel is a warning to the escalation of such partisan politics, which could someday happend. Sometimes, I do feel like people could take it to that level someday.
I actually did try to find a better quotation but this was all that I could find at the moment.

I wanted to see a discussion on the actual need for political parties in America. To see, If it's better to have groups or individuals with views independent of a party. Perhaps I should have worded the question differently.



I disagree. Perhaps Americans wouldn't be so separated if their wasn't sides or groups to be on. To me people are a lot more accommodating to have views guided towards a political group, than to have developed on their own.

If I can be frank... you're suggesting or asking to rebuild western culture, not just partisan politics, the idea of individualism is strong in the US but not so strong as to out weigh the cultural need to belong to a group. whether it's religious denomonations, unions, neighborhoods, political parties, class structure, etc Americans are individuals who have a long history of inter-dependence on eachother, who form groups to identify themselves with in order to express a national identity.

Politcal parties are a bi-product of the culture we have developed... they were not forced on us by a tyrant, or written into law... they have developed as the best means to accomplish individual respresentation on a national scale...

should there only be two parties legitimate parties in the US? probably not...

Narrow down what it is you'd like to discuss because erasing political parties is not an option...
as you've already admitted...

and you're wrong about the Washington quote... sorry... his fear was legitimate and forward thinking... but it was soon aleveated by a proven system of checks and balances among many other things that strengthened our government over the years following Washington's presidency.

[chickendude]

If I can be frank... you're suggesting or asking to rebuild western culture, not just partisan politics, the idea of individualism is strong in the US but not so strong as to out weigh the cultural need to belong to a group.I can't say that I identify with any explicit political party... But as long as there is a public school system (and there are families) people are going to have the majority of their views imprinted. We aren't going to miraculously start thinking for ourselves when TVs, newspapers, classrooms, and family dinners filter everything for us.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

If I can be frank... you're suggesting or asking to rebuild western culture, not just partisan politics, the idea of individualism is strong in the US but not so strong as to out weigh the cultural need to belong to a group. whether it's religious denomonations, unions, neighborhoods, political parties, class structure, etc Americans are individuals who have a long history of inter-dependence on eachother, who form groups to identify themselves with in order to express a national identity.

Politcal parties are a bi-product of the culture we have developed... they were not forced on us by a tyrant, or written into law... they have developed as the best means to accomplish individual respresentation on a national scale...

should there only be two parties legitimate parties in the US? probably not...
You have made a lot of excellent points. But you are relating Political parties to the over all notion of identity and community. The group you mentioned are more grounded than political parties would be. Big political parties are open to corruptions & pointless arguing between each other which distracts itself from the actual job.

Actually the idea of their being more than a 2 party systems, is one idea I've never really thought about because of the dominance of the Democrats and Republicans. I really don't see a 3rd party coming into power though. If anything, actual independent senators have some power. All 2 of them. ;-). There's a possibility of more independent senators and governors coming into office. There wouldn't need to be a lot of them either since they could sway certain decisions, allowing more compromise. And it would be gradual and natural movement and not be a complete reworking of politics.

But if there were to be a more political parties sharing power, would it really be that different that everyone being independent. I do actually kinda realize though if they were more parties to share the power, politics might become a little more down to earth. MIGHT being the key word.

Narrow down what it is you'd like to discuss because erasing political parties is not an option...
as you've already admitted...
Actually what we're talking is what I wanted. A friendly debate, if it at all possible on the internet. And other people adding in different views, opinions, and points.

BTW, I never thought of erasing political parties as an option. It's more rhetorical than anything exploring the need for political parties. But because of the 2 party systems, I feel it's done more harm than good.

and you're wrong about the Washington quote... sorry... his fear was legitimate and forward thinking... but it was soon aleveated by a proven system of checks and balances among many other things that strengthened our government over the years following Washington's presidency.
It was also his actual view. Not just fear. Checks and Balances don't always work either. Corrupt people find ways to avoid them.

[Love As Arson]

Abolish the laws that make it harder for third parties to be involved in mainstream politics and implement proportional representation.

[thejetstolehome]

Not the abolishment of political parties, but the abolishment of the two-party dominance.

ditto.

[icameonherface]

Not the abolishment of political parties, but the abolishment of the two-party dominance.

yes.

[preppyak]

Not the abolishment of political parties, but the abolishment of the two-party dominance.
Abolish the laws that make it harder for third parties to be involved in mainstream politics and implement proportional representation.
Yep...that's where I stand...though I would ultimately like a party label to be removed entirely.

I have no faith in the conscience of large institutions formed out of fundamental beliefs...so often those beliefs are lost to corruption. If individual people ran for government, not being forced to adhere to party line politics, we would have a more garbled, yet representative approach to how policies are made.

To assume that you can fit all of the American thought process on issues into two sides is foolish, and is the flaw in the system.

[youcomebeforeyo]

Removing the two party dominance in the US seems like more than a good idea.

In NZ we have 8 political parties in our Parliment. We still have the big two but they are forced to negotiate with smaller parties and as a result are held more accountable for their own actions.

[johnh5304]

Abolish the laws that make it harder for third parties to be involved in mainstream politics and implement proportional representation.

What are you talking about? Don't we already have this in the bicameral legislature with the house and in the electoral colllege for the presidentual elections? If you're talking about switching to a unicameral system and set that branch up like the house of representatives then you're going to have problems. I don't think states like New York and California should dictate what the rest of the country does.

And anyway, isn't the republican and democratic parties just umbrellas for many different in groups? The reason you have so much in party arguments is because of this.

[Love As Arson]

What are you talking about? Don't we already have this in the bicameral legislature with the house and in the electoral colllege for the presidentual elections?
Proportional representation is a system by which the percentage of a vote that a party receives dictates how many representatives they have in government. So, for example, the Green party gets ten percent of the vote, and they get ten percent of the seats in the legislature. This system prevents the dominance of one particular party, allws plurality and forces coalition governments.


And anyway, isn't the republican and democratic parties just umbrellas for many different in groups? The reason you have so much in party arguments is because of this.
The democratic and republican structures do not address the issues of many of those groups. Rather, they simply take the votes for granted and proceed to go against the will of those groups, as Clinton did with welfare and Bush did with spending and interventionist policies.

[johnh5304]

Ok my bad Love As Arson, I've always called or thought of what you we're refering to as something else. Perfect example of me learing something in my Governments of Europe class last semester and then dumping all that info out of my brain over the holidays. I think that's a good concept but I doubt anything will change. Barring a major, major scandal or an apocalyptic scenario, two party dominance is probably here to stay.