Should we "ban" political parties in the US?

[Gem]

This may sound absurb, totalitarian, communist, socialist, corporate takeover, etc. BUT hear me out.

On this forum, it is very often that the democrats are all put in the "left" while Republicans put in the "Right." Although it's agreeable that they are, not ALL of them follow their party like zealots.

So I was wondering, would it actually help democracy to ban ALL political parties? I know that some group might not get banned etc, but let's pretend that in theory there would be no more party, no more party whip, etc.

Would it mean that people would have to look into political participants instead of prejudging them from their party (as many of us, including me, do more than we would like). Redestricting would be much easier, since no party is affected. Representatives would cast their vote according to what they beleive is right or what their county wants.

Would it be a good thing if everyone was "indepedent?"

Please post your thoughts.

Gem

[corplinx]

I thought everyone was independent? Anytime I ask someone if they are dem/rep, they always answer "I just vote for the best man".

Its sorta like when your getting to know a girl. She asks "what kinda music do you like?". You lie and say "oh, I like all kind of music."

[Gem]

My opinion is that every is independent. I think that political parties are a problem, because we have a pre fabricated opinion (most of them time) about parties.

Gem

[no one in particular]

Gem, this idea is opposite of space-time. I can clearly envision 2 dimensional (plus time) space. However as the number of dimensions increases to 3, 4 and so on it is impossible for me to imagine it.

As political parties are concerned, I can easily envision 2, 3, 4 and so on. But I can not grasp fewer than one political party! Incomprehensible! How would Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken know what to think if their party line did not tell them?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Gem
My opinion is that every is independent. I think that political parties are a problem, because we have a pre fabricated opinion (most of them time) about parties.

Gem

The US party system is mentioned in Australia just because it is a lot less discpiplined than in Australia. Here, the "whips" ensure everyone gets out and votes, or else. The or else is being kicked out of the party, no exceptions.

The only a parliamentarian is permitted to vote differently is when their is a 'conscience vote', something that is extremely rare.

Over there, it sounds like the parties are a matter of convenience for the members, and no one is ever surprised when party member switches sides for the odd vote.

However, now that I think about, there is a rise in the number of 'independents'. That is, people who are truly associated with no part. This is partly a reaction to the two-party system. It is also forced on people, due to the party discipline. Where in the US, I presume, everyone sides with the party that suits them the most, here, the concept of the true independent is gaining credibility.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Where in the US, I presume, everyone sides with the party that suits them the most, here, the concept of the true independent is gaining credibility.

Sorta, most people have to wear a party label to vote in a primary election to see which party candidate gets the nod.

Aside from that label, there is 10-30 percent "swing vote".

What I find interesting is how in some localities they don't show party affiliations for local office candidates on ballots. (i believe this is the case in minnesota?) The result is that the person with the coolest sounding name wins. Consequently, they have splinter and niche party people in public office.

[Jarom]

I agree with your basic point, Gem. Political parties are, in general, a bad thing because they discourage people from thinking about many issues. As it is, people tend to select a political party based on the one or two issues most important to them, and then assume "their" party is good enough on all others.

But should we ban political parties? That's a different question, and the answer is "no". I'll try to explain my reasoning.

Political parties were not created because some politicians decided, "Hey, why don't we develop a formal mechanism for discouraging people from critically examining many issues?". Instead, political parties are an inevitable result of the way a democratic voting process works.

Consider a simplified model of a legislature. In this model, there are 5 members, and each has one vote. In order to pass, a piece of legislation must have three "yes" votes. Clearly, in this situation, each member has 1/5 of the total power. But what if three members decide to form a coalition? Their coalition will vote internally on each piece of legislation, then each member of the coalition will vote exactly as the coalition determines. Notice how the power has shifted now! The coalition now has 100% of the power, because they can pass or fail any legislation regardless of the actions of the other two members. Therefore, the three members of the coalition each have 1/3 of the total power, and the two outside voters have none. Just by forming themselves into a formal coalition, three voters have increased their power!

(As an aside, if two members form a coalition, they each have 1/4 of the power, and the other three would have 1/6 each, according to a certain intuitively acceptable definition of power. Details on request.)

So, political parties form because such a formation increases the voting power of those who join. (Yes, this is a leap from the model to a much larger situation. The numbers are different, but it can be checked that the point still holds). Because people will always seek to increase their own voting power, the formation of political parties is inevitable. If you ban political parties, then "coalitions" will form. If you then ban the coalitions, "alliances" will form. And so on, until you get tired of banning things.

Ban political parties? You may as well ban crystal formation in a thick sugar-water solution.

- Jarom

[BillyTK]

In the UK, we have a multi-party system as a result of the gradual erosion of the power of the ruling elite--by which I mean a group of people who couldn't be identified as a political party in the modern sense, but whose common factor was the privilege which allowed them to attain and keep their seats in parliament, being part of the aristocracy, or land-owners, or both.

Lately we've seen the rise of "single-issue" candidates; people who not aligned with any single party, and instead campaign on a specific issue (hospital closures, political sleaze, for instance). The problem is these candidates still have to lobby and make alliances within the traditional party system to be effective. But as Jarom points out, even with solely independent candidates in power we'd still see alliances between candidates, which would inevitably coalesce into recognisable parties for expediency's sake if nothing else.

[Samus]

Jarom did a very nice job of explaining the reasoning behind political parties.

To broaden his point, in a republic with ~280 million people, to get consensus on anything, people will need to work together for common goals. It logically follows that people will organize to achieve those common goals.

A political party, from a social perspective, is no more than a group of people who agree on some overarching goals for their governments. The Republican philosophy is one of less interference from the federal government, whereas the Democratic philosophy is one of more involvement at the federal level.

Do those lines get blurred? Absolutely. I'm upset when a Republican president proposes a $2.27 trillion budget. I think government does too much in our daily lives.

I think our party system could use a little overhaul, because in its current form I believe it is unresponsive to the majority of Americans (see my earlier post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869931342#post1869931342) on the subject).

We cannot "ban" political parties, because we will just find some other way of organizing to achieve our objectives.

[aggle_rithm]

Sure! It worked for Nazi Germany!

Wait...no it didn't.

[Gem]

Very enlightening Jarom, you just convinced me not to ban political parties.

Oh well, let's get back to our daily partisan bickering now.;)

Gem