should we abolish poitical parties?

Answer 1

Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea is being used as bait to attract the masses of people to ones party in order to crush another who is in authority. The masses, being guided solely by petty passions, paltry beliefs, customs, traditions and sentimental theorism, fall prey to a party dissension, which hinders any kind of agreement, even on the basis of a perfectly reasonable argument.

Answer 2

Sounds good on paper, but it wouldn't change anything in reality.

The problem is that people don't examine the issues and the candidates running for the job.

By associating with a party, a candidate has at least identified in a general sense what they stand for. Often this is far as a voter goes.

Responsibility in this case rests on the individual voters more than on the political parties.

I'm an independent.

Answer 3

As a political force, absolutely.

At the very least, politicians should not be allowed to affiliate directly with political parties, or run under any kind of party ticket.

While (in the US) freedom of association prohibits banning parties entirely, they should have no more effect than any other social group -- like the NRA, the Sierra Club, NOW, NAACP, or anyone else who has a particular agenda.

While social groups can sponsor a candidate, you rarely see people voting based solely along lines defined by which social groups endorse them.

By prohibiting politicians from claiming an affiliation with any party, they would be forced to stand on their own merits, and it would cut down on partisan politics.

Answer 4

The only way to abolish political parties would be to ban free speech and freedom of association.

I guess you could promote a change to the Constitution that would prohibit people of common beliefs from joining together and speaking their minds but I don't think I would be willing to sacrifice my freedom for this cause.

Answer 5

YES - the fighting and arguing between them takes up time that should be used to work on our national problems. They spend too much time arguing party line than the issue. There seems to be more effort directed toward challenging opinions than negotiating compromise so nothing gets done. Our government spends too much time allegedly establishing their platform. Look at the You Tube debates; Clinton said she will need at least a year to determine what should take place with discussions with foreign leaders. We need federal leadership that can get the job done and arguing party lines is not doing it. We need federal leadership who is ready to get things done, not fight, argue and take drawn out times to decide what our problems are; the American Tax payer knows the problem and getting some of the hard line party politicians out of office is a good starting place. Once in office the federal leadership should be representing the people; not their party!

Answer 6

Political parties that are exploiting the people must be abolished since they are making a mockery of the society.

Answer 7

Private associations should be just that - private. That being said, political parties shouldn't receive funding or receive special privileges that have been codified in law.

Answer 8

To what end? You would still see all of the candidates being bombarded by special interests and every other lobbying group.

No, it might not be perfect, but it does work, so no need to fix it.

Answer 9

Absolutely not ! We need to keep people under the illusion that they are living in a democracy.

Answer 10

NO!