This has been done before. When Washington was President, he didn't allow parties. However, they were there. By eliminating parties, it would make the election have much less of an annoyance factor. Meaning: not as many commercials or picket signs. But it would have an affect on elections. Voters would not feel attached to a certian party that they had to vote for, and they might actually vote for someone because they agree with the canidates opinion on how the country should be run. So while parties would not change the canidates, it might change the voters.

The Tea Party might be an early vision of what it means for the Dems and Reps to be held accountable by a block of voters who are more interested in policies that brands. Since it's not a real party, the Tea Party doesn't have to worry about the daily details of governing. It can focus on results and punish members of either party that fail.

If this model is successful in promoting fiscal responsibility across party lines, then you might see other "meta parties" spring up with other agendas. The lefty "netroots" had limited success in pushing a progressive agenda in '06 and '08. Limited if you score them against the Iraq and Afghan wars. Perhaps they had a great deal of success if you credit them with Obama's healthcare agenda.

The constitution is a outdated material written primarily using John Locke's philosophies on government, which was built for dividing social classes and "improving" middle class expansion during England's colonization periods. The United States benefits from privatizing different areas markets and social realms.....Glad Im 22 and moved out to Australia, instead of listening to the Tea Party or other Nutters.

The world you are hoping for is a fack one. I hope you & Obama never get the change you both are trying for.

The simple way to implement your suggestion would be not to eliminate parties but to allow independents to vote in primaries. I suspect a vast number of people would register as independent if they were allowed to vote in primaries. In most places, it is necessary to pick a party simply because the real election is the primary because of the preponderance of one party in an area. I am a closet Democrat, for instance, because where I live the Republicans dominate in registrations.

I agree, the founders said no to religon for the same reason.

Perhaps you could improve things greatly by changing the way your political parties work.

Remember, this is a view from outside your country, so I may miss some of the nuances; but it would appear that representatives from a particular party are actually not required to vote in accordance with that party's views on any particular bill, yes?

Therefore I have seen the edifying spectacle of the President trying to solicit the votes OF HIS OWN PARTY. So on a given issue, even some democrats will vote against their own party!

Parties are good for ensuring that government is decisive - but the situation you have in the USA actually robs the party of their main strength in the system.

The Westminster system used in the UK and Australia (and probably a bunch of other places, but those are the two places I have lived in!) actually enshrine party discipline as part of the system. It is still legal to vote against your party, but there are strong sanctions against a member who does. For example, if they hold a position of leadership within their party, voting against their own party requires them to resign all of these and go to the back bench from then on. That's why "crossing the floor" is such a big deal in these countries. Often a floor crosser will be dumped by his party at the next election (I say often, but floor crossing is rare).

So parties actually mean something because they have real authority. There is political deal making behind closed doors, but once the party makes a decision, all of them have to support it.

As well as the obvious decisiveness of the system, it means that people whose party loses aren't completely voiceless. Just like the Government, the Opposition is a legally constituted part of system, and it exists to represent those whose views aren't represented by the Government.

The other thing you could do (based on Australia's experience) is to make voting compulsory. For us failure to vote is a crime carrying a $50 penalty. Not much, but enough to make sure that very few of us miss the election (and those who cannot vote in person usually take the time to vote by post). This is a major game changer because it totally changes the way parties have to campaign.

In the USA, where voter turnout is low, you can (and usually do) win an election by motivating people to vote who normally don't. A good way to do that is to be extreme left or extreme right. You might alienate your regular voters, but there are actually more voters who won't attend the polling booth, so it's still worth your while; a comparitively small loss of established votes is worth a big increase of one-off votes.

In Australia, being extreme right or left is at best a risky strategy, and at worst a downright stupid strategy. In fact, one of the ways a party can win an election is to pain their opponent as an extremist. Most elections are won in a compulsory voting country by the party that claims the centre ground, because that's where the majority of voters are.

You raise interesting points. I agree that the current system does limit freedoms by limiting prosperity and that in the US model of representative government the two parties that dominate are are too entrenched to give up power. You are right to suggest that amending the constitution may be the only solution to this. There is a more general question: is there good reason to believe will this ever take place? What will transpire in the longer term if it doesn't happen?

Scott, Scott, Scott....

Why would a donation to an individual look like a "bribe," but somehow that same donation to a political party doesn't? Personally, I don't care, because in both cases it is really just advocacy. I don't see anything nefarious about it.


"I'm fascinated by the fact that the freedom to organize into political parties limits our other freedoms more than most people realize. Political parties make the government incompetent, and the result of ineffective government is that citizens are less prosperous. Poverty is the ultimate restriction of freedom."

Wow, Scott. You have completely lost it. Poverty is not the ultimate restriction of freedom unless you believe that "freedom" is merely represented by "the scope of things that you are allowed to do." I however view freedom simply as a state of voluntary action free from violent coercion. By my definition, even if you are more poor than somebody else, you are not less free. You simply can't afford the ability to do the things that the richer man can. Somebody voluntarily gave that man his wealth, assuming that he didn't steal it. He has a right to voluntarily exchange his wealth for the ability to utilize services that you might not be able to afford. For you to utilize that same service, you would have to take wealth from somebody else, which would be an act of coercion and violence, in order to subsidize your purchase. Thus, freedom would have to be limited for somebody else in order for you to utilize extra resources. In the scenario that you are excluded from utilizing services or resources that you cannot afford, your freedom is not being limited. You are simply being restricted from theft, which is the limiting of the freedom of others. Poverty is not representative of a lack of freedom.

Your use of the term "freedom" is meant materialistically. You are also assuming that political parties create poverty by making the government inefficient? Government is pretty inefficient by its own design, and in the age of political parties, material quality of life has accelerated it's pace of growth by several measures. WHat would an efficient government look like, anyway? Would be a strong, authoritarian government? Would an efficient government be limited? You'd get a different opinion from everyone.

However, I share your distaste with political parties. In the most recent election, independent individuals and organizations created advocacy advertisements on their own, without funneling money through political parties first. This has effectively made the traditional political parties less relevant in terms of campaigning. We are approaching a point where individuals will be able to campaign for office on their own without being a part of any party, because they would simply gather support from various single issue organizations. Sure, there would be several independent organizations formed to coordinate donations toward certain candidates, but they will be far more decentralized in the future. We may be witnessing the end of traditional political parties. Neither of the major parties have terribly widespread popular support anymore.

Instead of eliminating the political parties, I would eliminate separate primaries. All the candidates should be available on the ballot. The top two candidates would square off in the general election. This would keep the candidates from pandering to the left or the right.

I just realized something quite stunning. Despite posting a topic on a fairly highly charged issue (politics and political parties), the responses are, for the most part, well reasoned and to the point. This is in stark contrast to the comment section on essentially every other website around, regardless of the topic. Are Dilbert/Scott Adams fans really that wonderful, or is there some heavy filtering of messages?

I belive that Scott is correct and that political parties can be controlled. It is truly up to us, we must believe that we can be part of the change and behave accordingly. Just as television changed politics in 1960 with Nixon/Kennedy and AM radio changed politics in the 1980's with Rush Limbaugh etc... (make no mistakes the conservatives kicked our ass on that front)...

Social Media can change politics in the 21st century. Howard Dean was the first example but he was felled by the old media. Barrack Obama was the second example and he has failed to live up to his potential.

We must engage reason with our freinds in the social media context. When we are sent ridiculous e-mails from our friends espousing the latest bile from the right, we must take the time to research the reality and respond to all with the facts.

Most importantly we MUST understand the message for 2012 and always steer the conversation wherever it may be back toward the message.

You must decide for yourself what message is important for you in the next decade. For me I will be researching the Federal Budget for 2011, and making a case for reducing the military budget. Tax Breaks? Health Care? Balanced Budget? Defecit Spending? Why do we allow politicians to pass on Military Spending?

Kelly
Vancouver, WA
USN Retired.

Instead of banning political parties, perhaps a better solution would be to amend the Constitution to provide for a new way of voting. A new way could be devised such that political parties, campaigns, money questions, and voter apathy would all be solved at the same time.

Imagine this: All voters are split into random groups of 10 people, all within a small geographic area (maybe all 10 members of any given group are from the same zip code). Those 10 are then given some way to communicate with the others in their group (anonymous email or phone numbers?). If people so choose, they can meet in person. Anyway, the end result is that when you went to vote, you vote for one member in your group to advance. You can only vote for people in your group. (And maybe there should be a restriction that you can't vote for yourself? Otherwise, there would be a LOT of 10-way ties). After the first round of voting is held, the winners from each group advance to the next round... where all these people are again split into groups of 10 random people geogrpahically close to one another. And so on, and so forth. For the entire population of America, it would only take 7 levels of voting to end up with a pool of 31 people... who then get together and vote for the best person for President.

Winers at each level can easily be assigned more "local"jobs in government depending on how many levels up they made it, ranging from City Council at the lower end, and then County Council, State Representative, Governor, US Rep & US Senator.

People would be more likely to get involved, because they know their vote counts in a much more direct and visible way. They belong to a group of 10 people, and once elected... they all know the name of their representative. And they know that representative has an ear for them... because they only have to represent 9 other people. Take my current US Senator, for example: Jim DeMint. Why would I ever call his office about anything? He, alone, represents 4.5 million people... with no "in-between" people. Why would he listen to what I, a lone citizen, have to say? I'd be much more politically motivated if I could spout off my ideals to Bob (the winner of my group of 10), who only has 8 other people to compete for his attention. I;d feel like I could get somewhere with my thoughts and make a difference. And, likewise, the next level up in the structure has more responsibility, but only has 9 people to listen to directly.

Political parties, campaigns, and finance issues would disappear. Who in their right mind would spend millions on TV ads just to get the votes of 9 people? Ideals could flourish, but parties would die. And I know you cannot take money out of politics completely... but if Bill Gates wants to be President, I'd rather his money go directly into the hands of a few lucky random average Americans as opposed to leaders of unions, lobbyists, etc.

In the old days, we didn't have the technology to pull this sort of thing off... but today, we do. This would be a much more true form of a Representational Republic, which is what we, in theory, have now. It takes it to the next level.

I've seen this before.

What do you call someone who wants to partially privatize space flight to take the burden of funding off the taxpayer?

"Leftist."

At least, that's what people who prefer a big Soviet-style government design bureau in charge say.

FYI - #@%*& is translated as "Por*nography" on the post below. I tried to use a shorter version of the word and the filter got it.

Way too much temptation on the internet for Jefferson. I don't think he would be able to stop downloading !$%*!$% nor would any other man from 200 years ago for that matter. He'd punt on the party system question and Google Jenna Jameson.

Scott, do you have any investment advice?

@DianneA

I think the idea is that there should be no permanent parties. Every year people can get together to run for president, but at the end of the day, they have left each other.