Would it be beneficial for the U.S. to disband all political parties and have candidates run as independents?

Question

What would be some pros and cons with this idea?

Answer 1

No, then special interest groups and the extremely wealthy will control politics completely, as of now that have a considerable influence, if this was to come to pass they would be dominant. Well
intentioned idea, but unrealistic. I often wondered the same thing myself.

Answer 2

If one were to disband the political parties currently recognized int eh US, then several other things would need to occur to show a radical change in the political spectrum.

First - remove the electoral college pattern entirely. Use the 'proportionate representation' pattern (1 individual, 1 vote).

Second - to keep the populous states from overshadowing the smaller ones by sheer numbers, change the political landscape to have a Congress that has two (or maybe three) representatives from each state, similar to what now happens for the Senate.

Third - all politicians, regardless of which office pursued, are elected by popular vote ... AND are responsible to their constitutents. This means enforcing the responsibility through some form that is NOT appointed by the government (i.e. a separate branch of the judiciary, perhaps). Congressional and Senate personnel are elected by their respective states; presidential candidates achieve office by national vote.

The same process should work for a state-level government; county representatives for the houses and state-wide governor election base.

Once all this has occurred, you might be able to run an 'independent' government. The appointment of reputable overseers for responsibility is key - it wouldn't do to have the new government set itself up as a 'mouthpiece' for the powerful lobbies currently putting their agendas before Congress, the Senate, and the President. Ensure the legality of lobbying is minimized, so that elected officials can truly vote their conscience (or constituents' conscience!).

Woudl it be beneficial for the country? In the long term, most certainly. It should provide a wider representation of the actual population, for one thing. It could conceivably lead to more responsible government as well.

However, there would - of necessity - be lots of short-term upheaval. And one of the things that would have to happen is that all the changes noted above would have to become law UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, thereby taking away their own power base ... which just seems like something most of them wouldn't go for.

On the really bad side, the US could end up being run by a group that had 'gimmicked' the results, and then gone ahead and changed the rules to suit themselves after they got to the seats of power. Given the American tradition of not sitting still when things got too out of hand, this might not last all that long, but it could be just long enough to cause other catastrophes in both business and social welfare circles to contribute to an overall drop in world status for the country as a whole.

Answer 3

Wise ... That's a pretty decent idea, actually.

I had a similar thought in mind. I know that the concept of "free speech" dictates that a candidate can spend unlimited amounts of money on his/her campaign (if it's his own money). However, this has the effect of giving the wealthiest candidates an advantage whether his campaign pledges are for the better or not. Being rich and speaking the most does not necessarily equate to being right.

Maybe we should dispense with that style of campaigning and just have debates. It's just a thought.

Answer 4

George Washington didn't like political parties. He felt they would cause too much unnecessary in fighting. He was right. If you can find a reference on George Washington it will detail some good reasons. Today it ain't gonna happen. We are too polorized in many ways for that. Originally Presidential candidates were elected no matter which party they were in by the President being the one with the most votes and Vice President the person with the second most votes.

Answer 5

The main pro would be that many more parties/people would be able to run which would mean much more competition where as the 2 party system that we run right now has almost no competition or creativity because it's the same two parities over and over again.

Answer 6

To asmith 102, the extremely wealthy do control politics right now. Along with mainstream media. Which can explain why we are forced to their programming for our information on the world around us.
Maybe disbanning the Federal Reserve and big banks would help. That would get rid of the main puppet runners.

Answer 7

What a great idea !!! make them work for their candidacy ,they would be all on their own . May the best man win out of all