Ban_Political_Party

WUDC 2013 round 9: THW ban political parties and require all candidates for national public office to seek election as independents. Why Is This Idea Important': I have come to believe no political party has the peoples interest first, its always the agenda of the party first. Would it not be best if all party's and groups were ban inside government and serve the people first' George Washington -Warns against the party system. "It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another." The parties serve to promote scandal and back stabbing. Congress is like a freakin school yard. If people want to organize around a certain candidate or group of candidates, that should be acceptable or supported. Using a party system to select the best candidate out of a group of similar candidates seems better than diluting the vote. There are problems, but I think you would be better off starting a new party and showing the existing ones how to do it properly. This right to organize is one of our basic freedoms. a country of people not a country of parties I think we should move to a multi-party system. There are lots of different folks in this country and it would be nice to have their belief systems represented in Congress without having to be bound by the label Democrat or Republican. For people who like the party system, they will chose based on their parties blessed candidate. The party system polarizes otherwise rational beings from one extreme to the other. Most people fall in the middle somewhere. Maybe leaning more one way or another- but still somewhere near the middle. So why do we have to pick sides. What about a 5 person race- surely there would be someone you agree with more than others. The problem with the two party system is usually both sides have merit and you pick the lesser of two evils. Lesser of two evils should not be running our government they voted for what they saw as the lesser of two evils There are many practical, non-political reasons to oppose this idea. Perhaps the dynamics of social choice mechanisms (voting) is most relevant. How does one get a pluralist, heterogeneous society to set priorities so that a single binding decision can be made and accepted' (I.e., choosing a president.) Voting is not about everybody being happy with the outcome - it's about arriving at a stable and durable outcome. Our two-party system derives from our voting rules of single-district, first past the post. The point is to drive disparate interests to set priorities and converge at the center. A two-party system makes outliers and fringe groups irrelevant, which is how it should be. A pluralist society must be driven, mostly against its will, to converge on issues where the majority will can be determined. If every special interest gets a candidate that panders to its favorite interest, this can never happen. Anarchy and chaos are not good models for democratic governance. All social choice models have their pros and cons, none is perfect, but the two-party system actually works very well for the USA. If you feel disenfranchised, you're forced to move the ball from within by participating, not changing the rules. Open gov and transparency are very positive ways to improve our politics. Though things could get worse, if a guy isn't tied to a party he's only responsible to the people who voted for him No' What's wrong with political parties' I see no problem with having them, it helps people sort out what their political views are and easily identify who basically agrees with them.