Why can't we make party politics illegal?

Question

I believe that party politics has become detrimental to our society because we politicize everything. I also believe that our government should pass laws based on what's good for Americans, not what's good for a certain political party. We could call it the "Good for America" Act.

We elect our representatives...they should answer to us (the citizen), not to the DNC or to the RNC.

I'm saying that we have the technology to represent ourselves...for example voting with your cellphone - like you would for a stupid gameshow or something. Majority would rule, and those that didn't vote, wouldn't count. You wouldn't need to elect politicians into office.

Answer 1

It can be done. The American Constitution doesn't mention political parties, but realistically this would require a change to the Constitution, or at the very least, numerous changes to federal law.

It's true that there's no way to prevent groups in society from forming alliances and working toward a comon goal. However, some things could be done to make party politics less detrimental, if:

1) There were strong rules limiting campaign finance contributions. For example, in Britain, you can give money to a political party, but not an individual candidate. The party distributes the money. And the campaign for a general election lasts about six weeks, not nearly two years.

2) There was a change in the way votes are counted. Proportional representation or even single-member transferable vote (where people's second and third choices are considered) would give smaller political parties a much better chance, and reduce inequities that mean that theoretically a presidential candidate could get 49% of the public vote, but 0% of the Electoral College's votes. If that happened, a candidate who numerically got more votes than any other losing candidate in history could also be the loser in the biggest landslide in history.

3) More people get active at a grass-roots level. If you just tick off one of the boxes on the ballot, the odds are you're voting for a middle-aged, white, male with a more privileged background than you have (if not from birth, then possibly from hard-earned merit... but after 20 years of soft living...). People who believe in local causes and start campaiging in the community would make a better politician than a rich kid breezing through law school, his destiny foretold (because people are happy to keep ticking the boxes).

4) America's political parties were required to publish manifestos before an election stating what their party wishes to achieve. Voters have the chance to weigh the issues up, and call the political party into account later if they don't keep their promises. In America, political campaigning is little more than a farce: politicians can seize on one pet issue or a popular sound bite and not be questioned or even knowledgeable about other matters; the despicable extent of the insults, name-calling, and dirty tricks used in campaign adverts against the other candidate is shocking to people outside the U.S... pass laws against unsubstantiated allegations or pathetic playground tricks. It's policies that should matter; and broadcasters could give out time equally to political parties (with allotted space for smaller parties), instead of letting he-with-the-most-money get the most airtime.

Answer 2

That is ridiculous! Example, the democrats support abortion. Republicans for the most part disagree. Say as new law was being written, assuming there hadn't been a supreme court decision yet, how would anyone know "what was good for America." Party politics opens up debate and new ideas, like it or not. I would guess your a liberal upset with Bush's policies and therefore want to change our whole political system - ignoring history, the constitution and past precedents. Typical. Or you just need to read a few history books.

Answer 3

But that doesn't make sense, even if you're right that the parties as they exist today don't help.

1) A party is a group of like-minded people workng together to get their ideas transformed into law and policy. Are you saying people should be foreced to not work together? To not have similar ideas?

2) The people who would have to pass the law are the ones that benefit the most from it, so it would be impossible to pass.

Answer 4

You are exactly the sort of person who should not be determining what is good for America. The Constitution guarantees freedom of association. Didn't Hitler make an argument very similar to yours in banning political parties in Germany?

Answer 5

How would you enforce this law? What about people who have similar political views and want to associate together? This kind of wishful thinking never works.

Answer 6

There's no good answer. The people with wealth, money, power and influence are making the decisions and occasionally we luck out and find one that cares but not often.
May as well try and have some fun with it.

Answer 7

different people have different ideas of what's good for the country. if you had only one party a number of voices would not be heard.

Answer 8

I agree with your statement, however......

The people who make the laws won't make a law against themselves.

Answer 9

I agree. But it is protected by the 1st amendment.

Answer 10

As long as they're throwing words at each other, they are not throwing bullets.