So are you advocating the abolishment of a 2 party system or all parties total?

___________________
Retro ...

The problem is, if you have any great number of parties, nothing gets passed as legislation because no one can agree with it.

The real problem with more than 2 parties is that it causes people to bicker about small issues, and devide themselves more than they usually would. When this happens... any group who can unite solidly can win political power, even when it is not in the best interest of society, or even supported by a majority. Does the name Adolf Hitler ring a bell? He came to power with a very small percentage of actual support, due to Germanys many parties.

Actually a far better example would be Italy's mutliparty system in the 20's. That is a classic historical example of parliamentary crises occurring as a result of an extremely fractionous multiparty system.

___________________
Retro ...

In principle I would abolish the party system as it is not really that democratic and since it put bounds on the opportunities of politicians. However, in real life there are too many decisions facing politicians for them to gather sufficient information on each issue to make an educated decision. In that respect the notion of having similar minded people in your party who each knows the details of some issues make sense.

Short post - I'm off to the Matrix 3

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Is there any reason why a political system that does not allow the existence of political parties (i.e. a group of politicians who are obliged to vote the same way) would not work? Would such a system be unfeasible?

It would be difficult to maintain. Originally, the United States did not officially recognize any political parties. In fact, the very notion of political factions was harshly scorned by some of our most prominent founders, notable among them George Washington.

Unfortunately, as a natural course of events, men recognize that by forming alliances they are able to increase their own power and influence. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton clearly understood this, and through their power struggle emerged the two-party system which has existed here since then.

Clearly, then, the problem encountered in trying to implement such a system is to create a framework which somehow prevents the establishment of political factions (either formal or informal). To do so without damaging the ruling body's ability to function coherently and efficiently is even more daunting of a task. It seems to me that it would be very difficult. Possible, perhaps, but very difficult indeed.

quote:

Would you support such an idea?

In a theoretical sense, very much so. The two-party system (or any number of parties, really) completely demolishes the last vestiges of legitimacy that democracy might claim. It undermines truth itself while upholding demagoguery.

Political parties are incompatible with the notion of representation. Firstly, they create a fallacious dichotomization (or n-chotomization) regarding possible solutions to perceived problems. If my position on an issue is not in the agenda of any major political party, can it be said that I am being represented? Quite clearly not.

Furthermore, political parties create pre-packaged ideologies, which discourage individual thought while promoting a "cult" mentality. If, for example, I agree with the Democrats 40% of the time, and the Republicans 30%, and another 30% of the time, I agree with neither, how is it that I may be represented? No matter how I vote, I'll be choosing a candidate whose views I disagree with more often than I concur.

I could rant for hours about the horrors of political parties. But I think it suffices to clarify my position to recall that in this thread I placed Thomas Jefferson as one of my top 5 villains from human history solely on the basis of his role in the establishment of political parties here in the US.

Great topic, by the way.

Regards,

Arbiter

good post arbitar

___________________