Would we be better off without political parties, or at least greatly weakened ones?

Asked by: Quadrunner
  • Political parties are why congress is so slow to act.

    Often times political parties are so focused on opposing the other then trying to uplift the nation. Such as the case of the republican and democratic party whom often when the government switches hands with the other party. The now installed party undos or undermines any progress made by the previous party, be it good or bad. For example of this hot debate, Obamacare program that democrats like, and republicans dislike.

  • Parties are too powerful in America

    Our party system is the root of a lot of conflict in the US. Undecided voters make up 43% of the voting block, that makes us the largest single voting group in the US. The current system gives the illusion of choice, not to mention you can't even vote in most states unless you pledge to a party. Additionally these parties campaigns and events are paid for largely with taxpayer money, yet they represent the minority!

  • Political Partys Hurt America

    “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
    -George Washington

    Couldn't have said it better myself. Political partys are what's wrong with American politics. Our two party system has created a divided government with two different halves of Congress each with their own agenda. It's time we end this system and absolve political partys for good.

  • By the people FOR the people

    Currently we have primarily Democrats, and Republicans running the America. Now each party is made up of individuals, but also has great sway over the actions of those individuals, as politicians often ban together to gain enough power to further their agenda. Often times the other party intentionally targeted solely for the purpose of weakening its contradictory agenda instead of focusing primarily on improving the nation. This has gone on to such an extent that our nation's was shut down at one time. Mainly though, I would like to add that your values, and ultimately your performance should determine whether you get elected, not whether you have an advantage to gain financial backing and get a leg up on the competition.

  • The issue is not political parties

    Whatever our thoughts or opinions regarding 'party politics' are, I think that we can agree that political parties are an inevitability in any political process.

    The reason why I answer no to this question is because it's not so much political parties that are bad for the US, it's the fact that the political process has not been updated and modernised to meet the needs of the people.

    The current system was initially designed without concern for political parties, so later when political parties came into existence the system was exposed of its flaws. What is also important is that the entire political process be redesigned: this is not to say that we start all over again, but merely to improve on current institutions.

    The first thing I'd start with is to make it compulsory that the President cannot be a member of any political party; but also before that, any candidate who runs for office cannot do so unless they resign from the party or renounce party affiliation. This would create a less partisan presidency, and takes the process out of the hands of party machines.

    The original design of the separation of powers system instituted a non-partisan, non-popularly elected (by which I mean that the electors were not be allocated according to the popular vote), neutral presidency. In fact, the nominees for President should've even be campaigning, especially not on behalf of their party. The democratisation and populism of the presidency has played a role in making the executive branch the more dominant branch of government, which it is not supposed to be.

  • Parties are too weak in America

    The point of a political party is twofold:
    1) to thwart a cult of personality (bit failing in many Westminster countries and the US
    2) to clearly define the difference between candidates without voters having to look up each individual candidate

    With the first point, we see this with Donald Trump (regardless of one's view of him) and others throughout history. We even saw it a bit with Justin Trudeau as it probably reinvigorated the Liberal Party of Canada. The second point is still protected in nearly all liberal democracies, however. Trump, Kasich, Carson, Rubio, Cruz, etc are all running as Republican candidates, yet their platform is different. Same thing with the Democratic candidates. The political party must first state what its platform is, have candidates that agree with its stance run, and, if they want to change it later, put a new platform up for a vote. Then again, other countries elections cost much less and occur in less time. That would kill the political ad business...

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.