Given how that President Washington warned against political parties and tried to discourage their growth and also how that many politicians of the same political parties don't agree with each other, my question for debate is, should all political parties be abolished?

You could abolish them. But people will still group together based on ideologies.

This is true, but the way we vote would be changed that even if we did group together the outcome would be vastly different. As to the question at hand, ‘should they be abolished?’ No I do not think that would be a good idea much less well received.

No, political parties should NOT be abolished. The change would be too great. And, Washington warned against political parties because at that time the colonies were trying to be as different as England as they could be. What happened? We still have political parties.

In the olden days, the candidate that had the most electorial votes became the President and the second most the Vice President of the United States regardless of political affiliations. Although it was true that Washington and Adams were both federalists, Jefferson was a democratic-republican and served as one under the presidency of John Adams.

In the 1800 elections, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr both drew 73 electorial votes and ended up in a virtual tie, but since both candidates were from the same party, it was left to the House of Representatives to decide and they installed Jefferson as the third POTUS and Burr his VP.

The twelfth amendment was then ratified in 1804 which cast candidates and their running mates together that really started up the segregation of the parties. It was no longer possible for an opposition party member to ride the same ticket as the front runner, less Abraham Lincoln, who had chosen the democrat southerner Andrew Johnson in an attempt to reunify the country after civil war.

Whether there be political parties or not, it really shouldn't affect the outcome of the elections, if the country stands behind your beliefs. In that election of 1800 there were five candidates, but only two parties were actually represented.

I do think that political parties SHOULD be abolished. Reason? They cause too much of a seperation. And a lot of people just vote on a certain person due to their political party, without finding information about that candidate. When election day rolls by, they just look at the ballot and say "Well since s/he is a democratic, I'll vote for him/her" ect. Even though I am a democratic and tend to vote for more democratic candidates, I WILL vote for a republican if I see that the republican is more worthy of that political position. But some people aren't like that.

And how about in years to come there will be an overwhelming amount of republicans over democrats or vice versa and all of those republicans will vote for a republican president, and what, are we going to be stuck with republican presidents election after election even if maybe a couple of them (or all of them) were destructive and not suitable people for the office?

I think there should just be no political parties, period. And for every election that comes by there will be a couple of different people running for that position. I think if we just abolish all parties, then people will actually vote on a person because of their ideas and not because of their political party.

I don't think that much will change if parties are abolished. I think a lot of people will then just vote on the person who looks like the 'nicest guy', or maybe they'll just vote for the person that 'looks most like them'. I remember watching man on the street interviews in the early 90's, a few people (mostly women) commented about candidate Clinton saying real intellectual things like 'he has a really nice smile' and 'he just looks like he cares about the people'. Just because you do away with political parties doesn't mean you make the electorate any smarter.

I like the idea of the elimination of political parties.

Anyone who wanted to run for office could obtain a certain number of signatures to have his/her name placed on the ballot. No party designation would be placed for any candidate. The right of the people to assemble and organize themselves into private "parties", which could endorse individual candidates, would remain...but those parties would not have the power they do now, nor could they receive recognition on the ballot. Primaries would be eliminated and a nonpartisan election held. The majority candidate would win!

The reality, however, would probably be a system even more corrupt than we have today, and the fringe "parties" would have a much larger voice. I expect the result would be similar to Italy, which has (not certain of the actual number) around nine or more political parties. They elected a porn star to parliament, who continued with her film career for two years after. She offered to have sex with Saddam if he released some of his captives. I think (hope?) we can do better. We might offer the governorship to Arnold, but we're not so far gone as to elect Cicciolina.

Look at the places in the US where we already have non-partisan elections. Are they better? I don't think so. In Seattle the Mayor and City Council are elected non-partisan ... but they're all Democrats anyway. Even if they won't say, you can tell by the interest groups that support them. All that eliminating the role of political parties in elections does is drive them underground, meaning the average voter may not know what side any given candidate is on, but everyone who pays careful attention will know.

I, too, like the idea of eliminating political parties - and, indeed, think that [b]Izdaari's trepidation about people not knowing what "side" any candidate is on would be an excellent benefit. People would actually have to take an interest in candidates and their politics - and start paying close attention. As it is now, the powers who are actually backing many candidates are well underground as far as "the average voter" is concerned.

However, even in an idealized situation where all vestiges of party structures evaporated, the reality is that the candidate with the most money would consistently win. The wealthy - and the wealthiest special interests - would run the country. We'd end up with a virtual ruling class and even more of an oligarchy than we've got now (well, maybe not more of an oligarchy than we've got right now with this administration - but it would remain just as bad, if not worse, forever).

If we were ever to abolish the party system, we would also have to radically reform political campaigns. No candidate could spend his own money and only private individuals - rather than corporations or unions or foundations or lobbies - could make (very limited) campaign contributions. Then it might begin to look feasible.

The chances of that happening, though, are about as likely as Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush serving time for election fraud.

No.
People want to band together to protect their interests, that's their right and really also a phsycological need.

Wertz I have to disagree with you on your last post.


Howard Dean has shown the way. The internet.
Bare with me.
Left Feild Example: Blair Witch Project.
Indie film project that became the huge success it was because of the hype that they successfully manipulated. They created the buzz that got studios in an all out war for the rights to the project.

Thanks to the ever increasing availability of high speed internet access, mobile technology and the falling prices of (or even Open Source) Software it is now entirely possible to stage a "Guerilla" campaign that can completely overwhelm the established parties and methods.
True no one has successfully engineered one as of yet.
True the first attempts will be horrible failures
True the established parties will use every trick in their considerable arsenals to crush them

But ( cue the DUNT DUNT DAAAAH!)

America loves the Dark Horse the Underdog. and sooner or later that person with the Charisma and the Brass is going to appear. Their message will be original and will catch the attention of enough of America that they will be a force to be reckoned with. They may not win at first but I guarantee they will strongly dictate the direction of the debates.
You don't need money any longer you just need the brass and someone on your side who knows how to manipulate the attention span and desire for the original that Americans possess. As the television completely changed the method of politics in this world so will the internet.
the future is going to destroy the current political system in America simply because the control of the process is going to be yanked from the hands of the estabilment parties and placed back where it belongs.

Yeah, I think the current political parties should be abolished. Here in the UK and over the pond in the US there is no democracy based on party politics. Here we have two main parties, both are right wing and no other party has the money to rival them. In the US it's much the same two parties funded by corporations wishing their interests to be recognised and propped up should their party win office.

Most people in the UK and I'm sure in the US too are totally apathetic. They have no political thoughts of their own. They just believe the #### fed to them by the party spin doctors and their muppet media. Lets face it, if our and your governments hadn't told so many lies about WMD and threats to our security then they could never have invaded Iraq for their corporations interests in the Iraqi's oil.

I think the current parties should be abolished and all political parties should be funded by the state in their election campaigns and corporations should be banned from contributing. If someone wants to start a new party they should maybe have to produce a list of so many signatures of people wishing to support them. Not Money!!

And when a party wins office. There should be a vote open to everyone in the country on each major issue. Especialy on Issues like going to war!

That would be a true democracy!

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO BYPASS PROFANITY FILTER

Right you are on that. Washington warned of parties BEFORE there were big differences on the issues between Jefferson and his ilk, and Hamilton and his cronies. Washington didn't have to contend with a national bank, being pro or anti French/British, or being pro/anti tariff.

No. The problem is that things appear to be black and white; more specifically, red and blue. Does anyone really pay attention to the third parties anymore, other than to say, "those libertarians/greens/communists/reforms are too idealistic to win, so I will vote democrat/republican." There needs to be a broader public knowledge of the existence of more than two parties.

I am not what you mean by "abolished". I do not think political parties should be prohibited but they should not be given any formal recognition within government organization nor should their primaries be supported by government.

The two party system has entrenched the Democratic and Republican Parties. It has been difficult to educate voters on people outside these two groups. Political Parties should not have this much power. It is fine for people who share similar political views to group together and work together to elect representatives they support. It is not OK that government structure is being used to support the candidates of the two parties. It is not OK that government structure has assumed the dominance of two parties. Government organization should be completely neutral as to party affiliation.

Elections should be reformed to eliminate Political Party bias. All Federal rules involving references to Party affiliation should end (i.e. Majority Leader, Minority Leader).

Any bias which leads people to think the Democrat and Republican Parties are the only real choices is crippling the ability of the voters to elect the best person for the job. The California recall election was a good example of how an election should be presented to the voters. If a political party wants to have one candidate on the ballot or several, it should be their choice and not be decided by an election process supported by tax dollars.

It would be better if voters looked at the person running for an office over which party affiliation the candidate has. Party affiliation should be of secondary concern.

No, political parties should not be abolished, as has been stated by others, people with similar ideologies would group together anyway, it would be pointless.

CP

Aren't we working here from a misreading of what the old general said----Washington NEVER said that there should not be political parties -

Politics and parties - associations - are the guarantee of our constitution....

How can there be any legimate expression of public will without political parties???

When a party ceases to express the public will it will disappear (The Whigs) - When a new party demands expression it will emerge (Republicans OR Unionists)

This idea that a fracture and disappearance of political parties is a good thing is a delusion of those who only distrust America and wish us all to only have allegiance - not to ideals - but to brands -

What? Shall we no longer be Democrats? Republicans? Greens?

Shall we only be.....Wal-Martians or K-Martians????

Reread Washington's speech.

No, of course not. In America, we have freedom of association. We cannot abrogate that right for political expediency.

- Rick

While parties should not be abolished, the playing level should. We need instant runoff voting, as well as inclusion in the presidential debates when a candidate obtains ballot status in all fifty states. While I'm a democrat, I believe that third parties keep the two dominant ones honest. That, and I believe that my party has nothing to lose from any and all comers.

I'm a Republican, and I totally agree with that.


I also think it's likely that if we did somehow Abolish the political parties there would be even lower voter turn out. It can become difficult for people (without computers at least) to get thir hands oncanidatee positions and voting records. I actively seek this information and have been stumped by municipal and / or statecanidatess in the past. At least with a party affiliation you can assume something.

Then again these days can you really?

The average member of congress in either party seems to increase spending, expand government and especially give pork and tax loop holes to thir supporters. Also, they all seem to be working towards re-election.

The longer I am around the more the big two look the same.