Are political parties necessary?

[PeanutCoins]

It seems many of our early politicians realized that political parties could and probably would be sources of strife and conflict and the nation would be better off without them. I doubt they would have thought that we would reach a time where compromise was a dirty word and members of different political parties could actually hate each other.

The two party system is so entrenched in America its hard to imagine the nation without them. Many of us would like to see a third party to give us more choice but I wonder if anyone thinks we would be better off without any political parties at all? In fact....how would the government work without organized political parties? Are these parties necessary for democratic nations to remain free and governed by the people? Without the ordered structure of parties would politics be an exercise similar to "herding cats"? Are political parties doing more harm than good? What do you think?

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/political-parties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States

[Chef Ramsay]

Some of the Founders were against political parties because there was no need as long as the letter of the Constitution was followed to a T. As in, if an issue was clearly authorized in Art I, Sec VIII clause 1-17 then Congress couldn't even discuss or vote on a matter yet that changed rather quickly back then and completely in modern times. Now, you have your two major parties that have written relatively strict ballot access (incumbent protection) laws now in state and federal law making it very tough for 3rd parties to ever get majority party status and not have to spend time and money on signature campaigns just to make it on the ballot. Furthermore, gerrymandering gives those in charge an extra leg up on their opponent party. The easiest way that those that value liberty can make any moves in that direction is to get a larger shareholder stake in the GOP and it has been working in state and federal level races among others lately thanks to Ron Paul's first campaign for Prez as a Republican that awakened the remnant to get actively involved in the local and state republican parties across America.

[bitsmichel]

It seems many of our early politicians realized that political parties could and probably would be sources of strife and conflict and the nation would be better off without them. I doubt they would have thought that we would reach a time where compromise was a dirty word and members of different political parties could actually hate each other.

The two party system is so entrenched in America its hard to imagine the nation without them. Many of us would like to see a third party to give us more choice but I wonder if anyone thinks we would be better off without any political parties at all? In fact....how would the government work without organized political parties? Are these parties necessary for democratic nations to remain free and governed by the people? Without the ordered structure of parties would politics be an exercise similar to "herding cats"? Are political parties doing more harm than good? What do you think?

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/political-parties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States

Different countries have and had different systems, even though they name themselves a democracy. For example, the number of political parties range from 2 to 40 or so. For example, the folks in the UK have much more choice than 2, there are like 17 parties. In order to be a democracy, a political party is not necessary. In a democracy, citizens can participate either directly or indirectly through elected representatives. An alternative would be a system where the citizens vote directly for laws/regulation as opposed to parties. Given the current state of technology, such a system could actually be implemented. I'm not saying it is better or worse, just that it would be possible. As for freedom, as much as power gets expanded freedom is in a decline.

[Nathonas]

Mainstream (Conservative/Liberal) political parties are necessary to create the illusion that people elect politicians to represent them. The reality is that these political parties are mostly just extensions of powerful business interests and wealthy people in general. The only REAL political parties are Green Parties and groups like the Pirate Party in Europe. But these don't have enough support.

[peeveepee]

Yes.  Because they give the people the illusion of choice.

Over simplification of a complex system.

Some cultures who live in harmony with nature prefer socialism.

Cultures that are aggressive in nature choose capitalism with military expansion.

[Ekaros]

Mainstream (Conservative/Liberal) political parties are necessary to create the illusion that people elect politicians to represent them. The reality is that these political parties are mostly just extensions of powerful business interests and wealthy people in general. The only REAL political parties are Green Parties and groups like the Pirate Party in Europe. But these don't have enough support.

I wouldn't even say that established Green parties are always any better than the old ones. They might have started as such, but if they got their share of power it has corrupted them. Ofc, there still exist certain specifics in policies...

[Rigon]

It seems many of our early politicians realized that political parties could and probably would be sources of strife and conflict and the nation would be better off without them. I doubt they would have thought that we would reach a time where compromise was a dirty word and members of different political parties could actually hate each other.

The two party system is so entrenched in America its hard to imagine the nation without them. Many of us would like to see a third party to give us more choice but I wonder if anyone thinks we would be better off without any political parties at all? In fact....how would the government work without organized political parties? Are these parties necessary for democratic nations to remain free and governed by the people? Without the ordered structure of parties would politics be an exercise similar to "herding cats"? Are political parties doing more harm than good? What do you think?

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/political-parties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States

We created that via our Tea Party Movement. We Now have Collectivist Liberals on the Radical and Extreme Left wing, the DC Insider Republican Moderates, and our Individualist, Conservative Tea Party Movement.
I do Not  see how you might eliminate the two Very entrenched party Enemies. Consider the huge money the Insider GOP has spent fighting against our Fiscal Conservatism with our Tea Party candidates who still kicked their butts! The "Demopublican" Party owns all the keys to the DC castle!

[umair127]

The Insanitea party is just the radical right's voice. Not really a party. Just the extreme branch of the Republican party. The libertarians are another branch of the conservative movement but not nearly as radical as the Insanitea people. The Libertarians are closer to the anarchists. Then there are the Classical liberals who seem a bit like the libertarians and the constitutional party people who just seen to want to go back to 1776.

[zolace]

The Insanitea party is just the radical right's voice. Not really a party. Just the extreme branch of the Republican party. The libertarians are another branch of the conservative movement but not nearly as radical as the Insanitea people. The Libertarians are closer to the anarchists. Then there are the Classical liberals who seem a bit like the libertarians and the constitutional party people who just seen to want to go back to 1776.

If you look at the Tea Party's platform, they're not at all extreme.  You may take issues with some individuals who identify with the movement, but the movement itself is not extreme.
It seems that no matter what a third party looks like, the existing two will paint it as a nutbag extreme group that poses a danger to our very being.  All in the interests of keeping the power right where it currently resides. 

[noviapriani]

I think if we figured out how to use the internet we could eliminate the political parties and the corrupt politicians that infest both of them, but what are the chances of that happening?

[umair127]

The Insanitea party is just the radical right's voice. Not really a party. Just the extreme branch of the Republican party. The libertarians are another branch of the conservative movement but not nearly as radical as the Insanitea people. The Libertarians are closer to the anarchists. Then there are the Classical liberals who seem a bit like the libertarians and the constitutional party people who just seen to want to go back to 1776.

If you look at the Tea Party's platform, they're not at all extreme.  You may take issues with some individuals who identify with the movement, but the movement itself is not extreme.
It seems that no matter what a third party looks like, the existing two will paint it as a nutbag extreme group that poses a danger to our very being.  All in the interests of keeping the power right where it currently resides. 

I do have a problem with the known leaders of the movement . I consider them extremists and by in large harmful to the nation. They remind me of many Christians who claim to believe in Christ but can't live by his teachings. What good is a political platform if it becomes clear that is not really what the party is all about?

[JohnnyLightning]

The Insanitea party is just the radical right's voice. Not really a party. Just the extreme branch of the Republican party. The libertarians are another branch of the conservative movement but not nearly as radical as the Insanitea people. The Libertarians are closer to the anarchists. Then there are the Classical liberals who seem a bit like the libertarians and the constitutional party people who just seen to want to go back to 1776.

If you look at the Tea Party's platform, they're not at all extreme.  You may take issues with some individuals who identify with the movement, but the movement itself is not extreme.
It seems that no matter what a third party looks like, the existing two will paint it as a nutbag extreme group that poses a danger to our very being.  All in the interests of keeping the power right where it currently resides. 

The fact that simply wanting the federal government to follow the constitution is now considered extreme speaks volumes about the state of the Union, not to mention the mental state of a decent percentage of its citizens.

[sana8410]

Political parties being necessary, I believe it is a natural phenomenon for people of like interests and beliefs to join together as there is the feeling that strength in numbers will help to promote the issues one cherishes. What I have a problem with is when the parties try to take on too many issues (the platforms go on and on) and be everything to everyone. A simple underlying philosophy rather than a menu of interest group pandering points would be more appealing to me.
Political parties are probably necessary. I am not a member of any of them. I have, in the past, been a member of the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party. Neither really were a good fit and I have no desire to formalize a relationship with the Republicans although they are more likely to reflect my beliefs, at least superficially, than the others. Where they lose me is when they take the advice of liberals who tell them where they are going wrong and how they will be more successful by adopting lukewarm versions of Democrat policies. Like that will work. I prefer a sharper contrast.

[umair127]

Political parties being necessary, I believe it is a natural phenomenon for people of like interests and beliefs to join together as there is the feeling that strength in numbers will help to promote the issues one cherishes. What I have a problem with is when the parties try to take on too many issues (the platforms go on and on) and be everything to everyone. A simple underlying philosophy rather than a menu of interest group pandering points would be more appealing to me.
Political parties are probably necessary. I am not a member of any of them. I have, in the past, been a member of the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party. Neither really were a good fit and I have no desire to formalize a relationship with the Republicans although they are more likely to reflect my beliefs, at least superficially, than the others. Where they lose me is when they take the advice of liberals who tell them where they are going wrong and how they will be more successful by adopting lukewarm versions of Democrat policies. Like that will work. I prefer a sharper contrast.

Someone once suggested they would rather see the first 300 names in a phone book sent to washington d.c. than anyone who deliberately seeks to go there.

I rather like that.  In fact, I think congress should be appointed by lottery.  Senate, too.  Even the executive.  If you served in the military or on a jury, you're in the lottery.

[sana8410]

There's some good things in the Communist manifesto but look at what the followers did to it. Ideals are meaningless unless people follow them. The way I read the Tea party they mostly hate their fellow conservative and want to shut the government down if they can`t get what they want.

[Cicero2.0]

Yes.  Because they give the people the illusion of choice.

Over simplification of a complex system.

Some cultures who live in harmony with nature prefer socialism.

Cultures that are aggressive in nature choose capitalism with military expansion.

Extreme simplification of a complex issue. You make some fairly large leaps of logic in your quest to discredit capitalism. Socialist countries have been aggressive throughout history. To assign that quality to either system leaves out a lot of very important variables about aggressive and non aggressive nation states.

[zolace]

There's some good things in the Communist manifesto but look at what the followers did to it. Ideals are meaningless unless people follow them. The way I read the Tea party they mostly hate their fellow conservative and want to shut the government down if they can`t get what they want.

I didn't note anything good in the communist manifesto when last I read it... a few decades ago now, I suppose.  Perhaps I should re-read it? 
It's puzzling to me that you seem to prefer to believe what you are told by much of the news media rather than what you are told by actual participants in the movement.

The government never 'shut down', it barely even slowed down and in many cases it actually spent more money endulging in temper tantrums.  Similar is true of the fabled 'sequester' where unka sam had a hissy fit about increasing spending only 4% instead of the 5% he demanded.

Both the shut down and the sequester never happened, meaning they never happened in the way that most of the media portrayed them.

We're over $17 trillion dollars in debt.  We have a government engaged in perpetual warfare and snooping upon the entire world.  We have a ss/medicare bomb going off.

It will either stop by deliberate action or it will continue until utter collapse.

Personally, I doubt unka sam has the wit, wisdom or will to curtail his gluttony.

[noviapriani]

I can kind of understand your thoughts but it seems like you are aiming at the wrong culprits. It's pretty clear to me that the Banksters and Wall St. are running the show. The government has been bought outright so the greed factor is present with them, but the root of all this is the  banksters and Wall St. So the OWS would be the more logical group to throw in with.

Political parties don't have all that much to do with the heavy lifting today.

[sana8410]

There's some good things in the Communist manifesto but look at what the followers did to it. Ideals are meaningless unless people follow them. The way I read the Tea party they mostly hate their fellow conservative and want to shut the government down if they can`t get what they want.

I didn't note anything good in the communist manifesto when last I read it... a few decades ago now, I suppose.  Perhaps I should re-read it? 
It's puzzling to me that you seem to prefer to believe what you are told by much of the news media rather than what you are told by actual participants in the movement.

The government never 'shut down', it barely even slowed down and in many cases it actually spent more money endulging in temper tantrums.  Similar is true of the fabled 'sequester' where unka sam had a hissy fit about increasing spending only 4% instead of the 5% he demanded.

Both the shut down and the sequester never happened, meaning they never happened in the way that most of the media portrayed them.

We're over $17 trillion dollars in debt.  We have a government engaged in perpetual warfare and snooping upon the entire world.  We have a ss/medicare bomb going off.

It will either stop by deliberate action or it will continue until utter collapse.

Personally, I doubt unka sam has the wit, wisdom or will to curtail his gluttony.

Oh but they do.  The banks and corporations can't take over the government without willing and equally greedy and corrupt pols to do the actual dirty work.  The more power we give to government, the more that power will be misused, bought and sold to the highest bidder 

[zolace]

I can kind of understand your thoughts but it seems like you are aiming at the wrong culprits. It's pretty clear to me that the Banksters and Wall St. are running the show. The government has been bought outright so the greed factor is present with them, but the root of all this is the  banksters and Wall St. So the OWS would be the more logical group to throw in with.

Political parties don't have all that much to do with the heavy lifting today.

.. if I take a bribe, who is ultimately the bad guy?  Me or the person who offered me the bribe?  In my way of thinking, I am the bad guy in that scenario... no bribe could have happened but for my willingness to be bribed.

Businesses do not have weapons, do not have prisons, do not have taxing authority.  Blaming them for the systemic corruption of the federal government just doesn't make sense to me.

And focusing upon elected officials ignores the real power of the federal government; it's vast, all powerful and unaccountable bureaucracies.  Indeed, wasn't it just a day or two ago that the IRS basically told congress, "f---"?