Well since the election is upon us, I've not only been noticing media bias, but something a little bit more obvious. To make a long story short: does the party system work?

It seems that today one of the main reasons a person will vote for a candidate is because he is in their party. Democrats for Democrats, Republicans for Republicans. It leads to so much bias that it really makes me wonder if the party system fulfills what it was made for. Now I'm not actually thinking of an abolishment of the system, but maybe a way that would eliminate the factor of Americans being mindless zombies following their own little club.

Post your thoughts.

I agree that the party system isn't going well. George Washington predicted this, and that's why he wasn't associated with any party.
I think the only reason people really are in the two parties is because they will get sponsorship and funding, and recognition.
I agree we should do something about this, but in the time being, I'd just want to vote for Nader

The founding fathers almost unanimously agreed that parties were what were going to define the American political structure. Not only would it be impossible to abolish, it would be unconstitutional. If you have not already read this, read "Federalist 10", an article by James Madison on the usefulness if not necessity of factions.

The opening line jumps into the issue without hesitation:


Madison addresses the issue of factions/parties in a very systematic way, first defining factions:


He then lays out the two main issues with factions and discusses how to overcome them:


I won't quote the whole essay here but you can find it here: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

In any event, George Washington did not openly associate himself with a party simply because he was a war hero and veteran, not a heated politician of the likes of Hamilton or Jefferson. Interestingly enough, those two were both in his cabinet, as friends and bitter political enemies. It isn't coincidence, however, that our current government is set up how it is. In the drafting of the constitution, the Federalists simply "won". They got the Constitution that they proposed for the most part, and the Anti-Federalists were limited to demanding the Bill of Rights. Looking at what the Constitution lays out, you'd be inclined to view it as a counter-revolutionary document in many ways. The founding fathers had no idea what our government would turn into and would be appalled and fearful of any government resembling our current one, simply because it is too powerful. You can thank the Federalists for that.

This point leads us back to the issue of factions and parties. A "fundamental difference", as the presidential candidates love to say, between Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats tend to favor a stronger central government while the Republicans would prefer a decentralized government. Although oversimplified, the roots of that disagreement can be traced back to the Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the drafting of the Constitution. The Anti-Fed's fighting for stronger states rights would share many believes with the current Republican party (although it should be said that they are two distinctly different parties) while the Feds would support the economic plans that candidates like Obama might put forth.

In general it is not feasible to suggest the abolition of political parties. Disagreement both halts and promotes progress in government, but more importantly it keeps our country going in a direction that the majority of the public ideally would support.

Too tired to flesh out this post more, I may revisit this in the morning.

Cecchi obviously knows more about it than me. But yea, the party system is quite weird, simply because people are overly inclined to their party. But I doubt getting rid of it will solve anything, simply I cannot think of any replacements.

All the parties do is create a schism in the government every time a major decision comes up. It just hinders everything, and slows the government down. It's not like they actually listen to the public anyways, they seem to do whatever they want and only bother to "listen" when it's election time, and even then it's not like we get to decide any of the higher offices, like say president or the highest supreme court judge.
People also use parties as an excuse to not pay attention to politics, many (or maybe it's just texas) idea's of voting are along these lines "Oh voting time again...well just put me in for republican/democrat". They don't learn about the canidates, they don't learn about the economy or foreign affairs, they just punch a ballot and pat themselves on the back. Without parties, people would either have to a)Learn about the canidates first or b)not vote and let everyone else who acutally cares vote (which might acutally benefit the country).

Living in the UK allways gives me a laugh when the US elections come along and I hope that our election gives you americans a giggle too. I think the above quote off 'I am me and only me' really does sum up todays politics its true for the US and for us "across the pond", id guess at everywhere you have "democracy" too.

I know the majority of people in the UK dont openly support there party like you guys/girls in the US and they dont say who they vote for however all i do is walk into the ballot office and mark a candidate who will never get into parliment. Yes to some people it will seem im wasting my vote, maybe i am but in my eyes none of todays parties with it being here or in the US have a backbone anymore.

Its a crying shame that todays politicians dont even come close to previous ones such as Churchill. Show me where he has said something and done the opposite, nowadays global politics is full of U-turns and having spin doctors redifing what politicians have said to make the government spend less and do less work yet still listen to the public.

Crying shame.

EDIT: If this comes across as racist i do apologise now it is meant with no malice at all.

Imo obama appears to tick every box for a candidate, he has all the right answers but purly because of the colour of his skin i dont think he will be elected into office. Im a UK resident yet ive had a relative in the US donate to his campaign and i refund my relative. He'd have my vote.

Good. You think it would be easier with 535 congressmen - all with unaffiliated views - all competing to get their say into a bill passing through the House or Senate? And yet, let us look back at the late 18th century again. We have just finished a rather important war separating ourselves from Britain... why? Because the British government was too powerful for our tastes, and was oppressing us (taking away our "inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property" - catchy isn't it... who wouldn't support the war for independence?) through "heavy taxes" (although every time we moaned about them, they would take them away and replace them with smaller taxes until we were only being taxed on small items -- check out the "Revenue Taxes" on wikipedia or something). Anyways, so we fight this war and set up a wonderful new government under the Articles of Confederation. Everyone is happy, until the economy goes to crap within the first few months of the aforementioned government being in place. Seeking a resolution to the immediate downfall of the nation, the states get together and under the guidance of Madison start drafting a Constitution. Yippee... the Constitution is completed, but it is so controversial and unsupported that it takes approximately 3 years for all the states to ratify it, which some only do after the Federalists agree to add the Bill of Rights. Why did it take so long? Because the Anti-Federalists wanted to make sure that the government would always function in the way that you are complaining about right now. There was never any desire for a government that would be able to pass bills with ease, would be lead by a leader who could declare war at will (almost sounds like a king, doesn't it ), and would be able to tax the living hell out of their countries citizens if they so pleased. Aren't those all powers that are given to the government in the Constitution? Isn't that what we just fought against? Ironic that the most important document in our countries history arguably gives our own government more power than the one we broke away from. And that's where we are today... The Anti-Feds still have the lingering effects of their checks on the government, and as such we are a much more prosperous government. In summary: Thank you very much, I'm content with a "slow moving" government.


Yep, and oh-so-radical idea is that you'd vote for the candidate that will vote they way you want him to on most issues. Not the one that will read every letter he receives, then tally up the count of Yays and Nays and vote on that basis? Sounds like you aren't arguing for the abolition of political parties but instead for a country-wide popular vote on every bill. Heck, why not? We live in a democracy right? Wrong. Welcome to the Republic, bud.


Damn. I was convinced that November 4th was election day? Isn't that when you vote for the president? If you want to argue that we don't truly get a vote because we only are voting for state representatives who then vote for the president, well you can found those claims on all 158 faithless electors in American history (note: nearly half of those were because their candidate died... a fair amount were simple mistakes be stupid electors misreading the ballot ). As for supreme court positions, those are chosen by the President that you vote for... apply the same logic as I used in my previous statement. If you want to argue about the institution of a true popular vote versus our current electoral college, feel free to start another topic.



Without parties, you wouldn't have "Democrats" and "Republicans", you'd have "Obamians" and "McCainites", leaving you with the same exact issue.

The above two posts quotes conflict with each other, so by I gather, your fine with a slow government...to an extent, yes? Further more, many would probably share the same ideas with different details, so a bill could very possibly get passed, it would be more of a "temporary" party, but it would be better than some iron pillar.



Did I claim it to be original or inspiring?



I know we live in a republic, I am usually the one to point that out in debates of this sort. Now I don't agree with a republic, but I'm sure that just because they're a "representative" doesn't mean they can't listen to the people they're...you know...representing?



I don't understand what your saying. We vote for voter to vote for the figure head of the country who is most in the limelight...are you trying to refute that with "not every president got voted in like that"?



Like I said, it's better to have a unique candidate with a temporary party around them than some iron pillar they must stand behind to get noticed.

Parties are inherent; there's no way you could ever be without them. What would happen is that when you elect a new leader, the new leaders' beliefs become a new party.

There's not so much of a Party System as much as there are simply two+ opposing attitudes. Abolishing parties is not only impractical, but also impossible. You cannot abolish a mindset, nor can you ban an idea.

If you are talking about the actual organizations that comprise the parties, then all the power to you. Seriously, because parties are simply organizations. It'd be like the principal of your school banning the PTA. You just can't do that.

Would a hypothetical world in which parties didn't exist be bad? Not necessarily. Although I admit the two American parties cannot cooperate even on critical issues, think of the resulting chaos if those two parties did not exist. What I attribute to the Democratic and Republican parties is that they manage, for the most part, to at least contain all of their respective members, regardless of their slightly differing views. Think of the disorder created if instead of two parties, there were hundreds of "parties" all disagreeing on a certain issue. Presidential elections would be as slow as Congress decisions for heaven's sake. If politics was like religion, then we'd have parties disagreeing over what color necktie the president should wear.