16 ms·

Eliminating Political Parties

41 points by imgabe 16y ago

kgrin 16y ago
I'm as sad about the demise of campaign finance reform as anyone, but there's something to be said for free association. You can make a case for restricting donations and such - but limiting people's right to essentially organize themselves into groups?
- RyanMcGreal 16y ago
  I'm not sure how it works in the US, but in Ontario, Canada, candidates for municipal office are forbidden to organize themselves into "slates" and must instead run as independents.
- protomyth 16y ago
  I actually think if we went to full disclosure, donate what you want (Citizen's only please), then the chance for a third party would increase greatly.
- nkurz 16y ago
  One can still have freedom of organization without having official recognition of those groups. The tragedy to me is the extent to which we have raised the concept of political party into law. Why are there slots on the ballot reserved for parties? Why are party affiliations even printed on the ballot? Any block of people should have full right to form a political party to espouse their shared views, but I don't see any reason we should do their advertising and organizing for them. I take it as an affront that when I register to vote that I'm asked to declare my allegiance to private social group, just as I would take offense at being asked by the government which of two official religions I belonged to.
epochwolf 16y ago
I've given this a bit of thought over the years. I love the idea but I don't think you can avoid having candidates grouping themselves into parties informally and then voting to make parties legal in a few years.
- astine 16y ago
  If this were to be enacted in the United States, it would likely be as a Constitutional amendment, in which case, Congress could not simply vote to reverse the decision.
  - epochwolf 16y ago
    Except that congress can reverse an amendment by passing a new one.
    - astine 16y ago
      ... Congress cannot pass amendments. Congress can however propose them with a two thirds majority. Then, if three-quarters of the states ratify it, it can go into effect. That's a very high bar to pass especially in the absence of political parties. I know that this is a judgmental thing to say but: This is civics 101. If you vote in the United States, you should know this.
      - shasta 16y ago
        Don't forget that the courts can also amend the constitution, and it only requires a simple majority!
todayiamme 16y ago
I find politics to be hideously inefficient. The problem over here is that in the complex scenarios and choices that face countries. No one answer is entirely the right answer. Further, there is no way to judge the validity of an answer, because it is usually an abstraction of a system that has been set up and there is no way on earth to know if it will fly or not. The bigger problem is that the system assumes that people make an informed choice in the ballot, but it is quite clear that such people really don't exist. We are emotional beings who are able to react pretty strongly to abstract concepts and ideas. Whenever we believe something and make it a part of us, then it is impossible to have a rational or even a cordial discussion about it. What's even more horrifying is that we haven't found a better way to govern ourselves than this. Everyday lives are at stakes because of decisions taken inside that system, and all I can do is stand by and stare at a computer screen.
- ENOTTY 16y ago
  One thing that Libertarians will say about a limited federal government is that it allows state and local governments to experiment with different choices. One, to allow for local governments to account for local differences that a far-removed federal government couldn't see or understand. And two, to allow for a large number of experiments to occur with subsequent successes and failures so that the right answer can be eventually teased out.
  - TomOfTTB 16y ago
    I don't think we'll ever get rid of political parties but what I do think the Internet could do is bring the libertarian concept you speak of a little closer to reality. The problem before now is no one has any idea what their local city council person or state legislator believes. Since TV is geared towards mass dissemination and that was people's primary means of being informed. The Internet gives local citizens a way to evaluate their local government in the same way they evaluate Presidential candidates now which makes giving more power to the local governments a lot more plausible.
- icegreentea 16y ago
  So really is the problem politics, or the complexities that face governance? How does the final paragraph differ in an enlighten monarchy,or oligarchy,or anything else other than true 'pure' democracy? The last sentence seems to be the entire point of republicanism. So that ordinary people do not have to deal with the burden of these decisions every day. I really don't think 'inefficient' is the right word there. Nor do I think 'politics' to be right word. Your points all point to the limitations and complexities of governance rather than any 'inefficiency'. There are plenty of sources of inefficiencies within specific implementations of governance and the politics that formed around it. But those are separate from just the sheer difficulties that you pointed out.
meric 16y ago
Like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoex
- maresca 16y ago
  They use an e-democracy or electronic direct democracy. This is exactly what my startup is focused on. An e-democracy for America. http://www.openpoll.us http://www.openpoll.us /shameless plug
  - meric 16y ago
    Cool. Hmm you might want to check your site using Safari, there's a line right through the log-in form, and about & register are not aligned horizontally. I looked at your site on firefox also and it looks fine from there.
    - maresca 16y ago
      Thanks for the heads up. I typically view it in firefox, chrome, and IE. I am in the data acquisition stage right now. I am going to do another redesign right before the alpha release.
aplari 16y ago
Intriguing idea, but why the last bit about Thomas Jefferson? One cannot know what he would have thought of Internet. And more importantly, it doesn't really matter at all.
- logicalmind 16y ago
  It's really just "appeal to authority", which is a very common logical fallacy used in politics. Everyone has their opinion on the intent of the founding fathers and that is used to sway many political arguments.
bokonist 16y ago
I'm reminded of a few quotes. First, Sir Henry Maine in his "Popular Government": "The old Italian toxicologists are said to have always arranged their discoveries in a series of three terms—first the poison, next the antidote, thirdly the drug which neutralised the antidote. The antidote to the fundamental infirmities of democracy was Representation, but the drug that now defeats it is the Caucus [political party]" http://books.google.com/books?id=42YpAAAAYAAJ&dq=Popular%20Government&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q=antidote&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=42YpAAAAYAAJ&dq=Popular... And Noah Webster eloquently states the fundamental problem with party politics: <blockquote> "...nothing is more dangerous to the cause of truth and liberty than a party spirit. When men are once united, in whatever form, or upon whatever occasion, the union creates a partiality or friendship for each member of the party or society. A coalition for any purpose creates an attachment, and inspires a confidence in the individuals of the party, which does not die with the cause which united them; but continues, and extends to every other object of social intercourse." "Thus we see men first united in some system of religious faith, generally agree in their political opinions. Natives of the same country, even in a foreign country, unite and form a separate private society. The Masons feel attached to each other, though in distant parts of the world." "The same may be said of Episcopalians, Quakers, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Federalists, and Antifederalists, mechanic societies, chambers of commerce, Jacobin and Democratic societies. It is altogether immaterial what circumstance first unites a number of men into a society; whether they first rally round the church, a square and compass, a cross, or a cap; the general effect is always the same; while the union continues, the members of the association feel a particular confidence in each other, which leads them to believe each other's opinions, to catch each other's passions, and to act in concert on every question in which they are interested." "Hence arises what is called bigotry or illiberality. Persons who are united on any occasion, are more apt to believe the prevailing opinions of their society, than the prevailing opinions of another society. They examine their own creeds more fully, (and perhaps with a mind predisposed to believe them), than they do the creeds of other societies. Hence the full persuasion in every society that theirs is right; and if I am right, others of course are wrong." http://books.google.com/books?id=89QDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0#PPA24,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=89QDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&#38... </blockquote> I agree with Webster, and disagree with Scott Adams on the reason why parties are bad. The problem with parties is not the money they raise. The problem is the polarization they create, and how each party's interpretation of events becomes warped in a way that makes their own side always right, and the other side always wrong. Overtime it means that both sides end up being half-brained - and no one has the ability to really solve problems. That said, banning parties is a non-trivial problem. If you just ban the nominal form, they will take some other form under a slightly different name. I think you would have to go all the way and perhaps create a complete ban on campaigning and campaign promises. Rather than having debates and speeches, candidates would participate in nationally televised job interviews that would talk about the candidates background and problem solving abilities. It may also be that integrating lotteries and randomness into the election would help with the public choice problem. I have thoughts on a better election design here: http://intellectual-detox.com/the-lottery-election-a-better-election-design/ http://intellectual-detox.com/the-lottery-election-a-better-...
JimmyL 16y ago
See some discussion of this article yesterday at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1869226 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1869226
spang 16y ago
I'm still waiting for preferential voting. That would go a long way toward making the political conversation something more than the current two-party polarization.
torme 16y ago
I think people throw around ideas like this without considering the side effects. One problem is that if you remove our bipartisanship you introduce the possibility of electing someone where a small group of extremists is able to gain a majority vote because the rest of the candidate pool is so spread out. Imagine an election with 15 candidates. 14 of them are democrat/liberals and 1 of them is Neo-Nazi. Who wins? This might be an extreme case, but if you divide up the voting sensibilities of the majority, you risk the chance that a smaller group of like-minded people may overrun the race. Similar instances of this have occurred in the past, such as in France's 2002 election, where Jean-Marie Le Pen made it to the second round of elections because he was running against many other candidates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Le_Pen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Le_Pen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2... I'm not saying that a partied system is a good one, but it's does solve some problems that should be considered before you dismiss the idea entirely. edit: added link to french election page
- psadauskas 16y ago
  You combat that by having a runoff. If no one gets a majority, you take the top 2 or 3, and vote again. This time, the people that voted for one of the original 14 vote for the one liberal that made it, and the neo-nazi still has the original small group voting for him, and finally looses.
  - torme 16y ago
    Right, and you've essentially just described the party system that's in place already. We hold primary elections for this same reason. Parties provide a way for like minded people to agree on a candidate.
logophobia 16y ago
The issue in the USA isn't necessarily that politicians organize themselves into different groups/parties, but that there is essentially no choice. The election system in the USA is mostly organized in district/state sort of way, where the winner of the state elections gets all the votes. This makes it very hard for more then two parties to participate in the election. Since there is no choice, there is very little incentive to listen to the electorate (always vote for the lesser evil). I live in a country with no district system (and thus multiple parties). While it isn't even close to perfect, at least I can vote for people I mostly agree with.
- LargeWu 16y ago
  President is the only office where the votes are cast by who wins the entire state. It's called the Electoral College, and it's constitutionally required. However, it's not constitutionally mandated that the winner of the state gets all that state's votes. A few (Maine and Nebraska) cast their votes based on who wins the congressional districts. Otherwise, there are in fact more than 2 parties, they just dont' get as much support, and the two major parties generally like to keep it that way. Occasionally though you will see minor party candidates or independent candidates win major offices.
  - logophobia 16y ago
    Note that I said district/state. Your senate has 2 seats for each state and the house has a seat for each district. This still means that there is no realistic way for a third party to get any sort of real power. Because the votes are arbitrarily divided among districts, only parties that have significant majorities have a chance of winning. Any third party in the USA has very little chance of winning any seat. Even if they have 10% support among the electorate it is unlikely that they'll get much seats. The nice thing about a system without districts is that smaller parties get power approximately in proportion to the votes they get. The coalitions you get in these systems are messy but more fair. It's a bit unrealistic to forbid people from forming political parties on these somewhat vague assertions. Reforming the election system to be more fair to smaller parties should have a bigger effect I think.
dstein 16y ago
Maybe the US should aim a little lower, and first try to eliminate the 2-party system. The system is designed to be dysfunctional.
notahacker 16y ago
Trying to force people not to represent themselves as part of a wider organisation would be an extreme step. Removing party allegiance as a basic component of the voter registration system would be a start. Leave the parties to administer themselves and non-affiliation with a particular party as the norm rather than the exception.
pchristensen 16y ago
Doesn't the winner-take-all nature of elections in the US (as opposed to proportional representation by party in countries like Sweden) make a two-party system a natural, emergent outcome? If you're third largest but not near hurdling the 2nd, your only power is by partnering with or joining one of the other two parties.
- zipdog 16y ago
  I think the emergence of the two-party system in winner takes all voting is due as much to the gambit of the voters: if there's a perception that party A is strongest and party B second strongest, then a vote for party C is essentialy 'wasted' - it's a better strategy to vote for whichever of A and B better represents your view
  - vukk 16y ago
    That is an issue in many voting systems, not just winner takes all. There's a fix for that too, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote EDIT: STV would also take power from political parties in multi-party systems, since people can vote for different candidates in different parties, and list the preferred party as the last choice.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    Historically, it was essentially two parties at the start (Federalist, Anti-Federalist) and has more or less been ever sense. The US is basically built on the concept. The current problem is that one or both should have been replaced by now. The current campaign finance laws keep them in power.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Why do you think current campaign finance laws reinforce the existing parties? Incumbency typically means more of a fundraising base and cozy relationships with lobbyists, but I don't see how rejiggering campaign finance changes that. Rich candidates can already self-fund, and eliminating limits would just strengthen the incumbents (why bribe a potential congressman when you can bribe a sitting congressman). The highly gerrymandered districts in most states (70% are safe for one party or the other) seem to be a bigger problem to me.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
joshklein 16y ago
Woah, there are many things wrong with this. I'll limit it to the biggest two. First, it's important to understand that we (the US) have a very different political party system than many other western democracies. We have a winner take all system, where 51% of the votes gains you 100% of the voting power. This is not the usual state of affairs - in other democracies, 51% of the vote wins you 51% of the voting power. Or, more accurately, party 1 has 10% of the power, party 2 has 23% of the power, party 3 has 5% of the power, and so on. Theoretically, the two party system is meant to make government more agile and less risk averse. It is supposed to ensure a party is, temporarily, in charge and able to accomplish its political agenda. In multiparty systems, there is frequent political deadlock as parties must negotiate to literally "form a government", or get enough of an alliance between people to mobilize 51% of the voting power. If you read international press, you often hear about the "dissolution of the government" in various civilized countries. This means they've failed in maintaining or forming a coalition, and must go back to political dealings in order to (in most cases) elect a prime minister and get behind a political agenda. These multiparty systems are therefore risk averse, and theoretically worse at achieving widespread governmental action. I keep using the word "theoretical" because of our obvious governmental gridlock in the United States. But to look at things like the stimulus package and the health care bill, and it's not so clear that we're unable to pass large pieces of legislation. With no political parties, every single vote would be about political dealmaking and organizing politicians. We would never get anything done. I'm not necessarily saying we have the right system, or even a great system, just that it isn't quite so easy to say "get rid of parties". Now, to the second point. Jefferson? Puh-lease! I can't stand the frequent popular allusions to Jefferson the saint. This man was a great part of our country and one of the most important thinkers of his time. But he also wrote anti-government propaganda from the office of the vice presidency and had a near-blood fued with George Washington, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson wouldn't roll over in his grave at this political language; he would be saying things far worse. If he sprang back to life today, he would suggest dissolving the federal government, abolishing any standing military, closing down capital institutions to promote an agrarian lifestyle, and letting Virginia negotiate a peace treaty with France. Let's not even talk about just what part of our society would have a real vote and which part would have 3/5 of one. I mean, can we be a little more reasonable with this founding father stuff?
jrs235 16y ago
Come on people. You're all completely missing the first and simplest change. Remove the party identification from the ballot. Just list the names. And also remove the option to vote a straight party line by checking one option. Too many people vote uninformed. Minimally if you are voting shouldn't you minimally know something about the candidate prior to voting?
joshcorbin 16y ago
If you were to eliminate one form of differentiation (parties), another would evolve to fill the void. In fact, as soon as you start trying to abolish parties, you will implicitly create at least two parties: those for, and those against. The Internet does not solve this; to the contrary, it only help to amplify the effect of what Freud called the "Narcissm of small differences" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences ). We see this fact recapitulated in every domain of technology such as: - Linux v Windows v Apple - Fedora v Redhat v Debian v Ubuntu v Arch v Gentoo v ... - $OUR_EDITOR v $THEIR_EDITOR - Slashdot v Hacker News The difference is that the political landscape isn't nearly as diverse. However this is changing already due to the Internet. Agree with their views or not, the Tea Party is sign of this. The way forward is to partition more, not less. Trying to pretend like we can do away with partitions is flawed at inception.
known 16y ago
http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Main_Page http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Main_Page
kgermino 16y ago
I think that the best system is probably a non-partisan primary followed by a runoff election between the top 2 or 3. I feel like this would help make more center of the aisle candidates more successful in the primaries. Part of the problem with elections now is that people voting in primaries tend to be near the idealogical extremes resulting in someone like Christine O'Donnell (A Tea-Partyer) winning the primary in a state where she doesn't stand a change in the general election. Additionally in states where the population is more generally liberal or conservative than there will be two candidates that more accurately reflect the general populations views instead of one that nobody will ever vote for, making the general elections more competitive.
moshezadka 16y ago
I'm not even sure what he's suggesting. It's easy to say "let's ban political parties", but what would be the actual law? That people aren't allowed to call themselves Democrats (or Republicans?)? That people aren't allowed to say "I identify with the ideals espoused by X?" Parties are an emergent phenomenon in almost all democratic systems, because politicians work in groups -- the same as anyone else, by the way. If Scott Adams suggested a specific legal system (for example, banning pooling campaign funds) I could find the flaw in that, but he cleverly gives no details, and so makes it impossible for people to find flaws in his (non-existent) system.
known 16y ago
The tragedy with democracy is it is devoid of objectivity.

41 points by imgabe 16y ago

kgrin 16y ago

I'm as sad about the demise of campaign finance reform as anyone, but there's something to be said for free association. You can make a case for restricting donations and such - but limiting people's right to essentially organize themselves into groups?

RyanMcGreal 16y ago
I'm not sure how it works in the US, but in Ontario, Canada, candidates for municipal office are forbidden to organize themselves into "slates" and must instead run as independents.
protomyth 16y ago
I actually think if we went to full disclosure, donate what you want (Citizen's only please), then the chance for a third party would increase greatly.
nkurz 16y ago
One can still have freedom of organization without having official recognition of those groups. The tragedy to me is the extent to which we have raised the concept of political party into law. Why are there slots on the ballot reserved for parties? Why are party affiliations even printed on the ballot? Any block of people should have full right to form a political party to espouse their shared views, but I don't see any reason we should do their advertising and organizing for them. I take it as an affront that when I register to vote that I'm asked to declare my allegiance to private social group, just as I would take offense at being asked by the government which of two official religions I belonged to.

epochwolf 16y ago

I've given this a bit of thought over the years. I love the idea but I don't think you can avoid having candidates grouping themselves into parties informally and then voting to make parties legal in a few years.

astine 16y ago
If this were to be enacted in the United States, it would likely be as a Constitutional amendment, in which case, Congress could not simply vote to reverse the decision.
- epochwolf 16y ago
  Except that congress can reverse an amendment by passing a new one.
  - astine 16y ago
    ... Congress cannot pass amendments. Congress can however propose them with a two thirds majority. Then, if three-quarters of the states ratify it, it can go into effect. That's a very high bar to pass especially in the absence of political parties. I know that this is a judgmental thing to say but: This is civics 101. If you vote in the United States, you should know this.
    - shasta 16y ago
      Don't forget that the courts can also amend the constitution, and it only requires a simple majority!

todayiamme 16y ago

I find politics to be hideously inefficient. The problem over here is that in the complex scenarios and choices that face countries. No one answer is entirely the right answer. Further, there is no way to judge the validity of an answer, because it is usually an abstraction of a system that has been set up and there is no way on earth to know if it will fly or not. The bigger problem is that the system assumes that people make an informed choice in the ballot, but it is quite clear that such people really don't exist. We are emotional beings who are able to react pretty strongly to abstract concepts and ideas. Whenever we believe something and make it a part of us, then it is impossible to have a rational or even a cordial discussion about it. What's even more horrifying is that we haven't found a better way to govern ourselves than this. Everyday lives are at stakes because of decisions taken inside that system, and all I can do is stand by and stare at a computer screen.

ENOTTY 16y ago
One thing that Libertarians will say about a limited federal government is that it allows state and local governments to experiment with different choices. One, to allow for local governments to account for local differences that a far-removed federal government couldn't see or understand. And two, to allow for a large number of experiments to occur with subsequent successes and failures so that the right answer can be eventually teased out.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  I don't think we'll ever get rid of political parties but what I do think the Internet could do is bring the libertarian concept you speak of a little closer to reality. The problem before now is no one has any idea what their local city council person or state legislator believes. Since TV is geared towards mass dissemination and that was people's primary means of being informed. The Internet gives local citizens a way to evaluate their local government in the same way they evaluate Presidential candidates now which makes giving more power to the local governments a lot more plausible.
icegreentea 16y ago
So really is the problem politics, or the complexities that face governance? How does the final paragraph differ in an enlighten monarchy,or oligarchy,or anything else other than true 'pure' democracy? The last sentence seems to be the entire point of republicanism. So that ordinary people do not have to deal with the burden of these decisions every day. I really don't think 'inefficient' is the right word there. Nor do I think 'politics' to be right word. Your points all point to the limitations and complexities of governance rather than any 'inefficiency'. There are plenty of sources of inefficiencies within specific implementations of governance and the politics that formed around it. But those are separate from just the sheer difficulties that you pointed out.

meric 16y ago

Like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoex

maresca 16y ago
They use an e-democracy or electronic direct democracy. This is exactly what my startup is focused on. An e-democracy for America. http://www.openpoll.us http://www.openpoll.us /shameless plug
- meric 16y ago
  Cool. Hmm you might want to check your site using Safari, there's a line right through the log-in form, and about & register are not aligned horizontally. I looked at your site on firefox also and it looks fine from there.
  - maresca 16y ago
    Thanks for the heads up. I typically view it in firefox, chrome, and IE. I am in the data acquisition stage right now. I am going to do another redesign right before the alpha release.

aplari 16y ago

Intriguing idea, but why the last bit about Thomas Jefferson? One cannot know what he would have thought of Internet. And more importantly, it doesn't really matter at all.

logicalmind 16y ago
It's really just "appeal to authority", which is a very common logical fallacy used in politics. Everyone has their opinion on the intent of the founding fathers and that is used to sway many political arguments.

bokonist 16y ago

I'm reminded of a few quotes. First, Sir Henry Maine in his "Popular Government": "The old Italian toxicologists are said to have always arranged their discoveries in a series of three terms—first the poison, next the antidote, thirdly the drug which neutralised the antidote. The antidote to the fundamental infirmities of democracy was Representation, but the drug that now defeats it is the Caucus [political party]" http://books.google.com/books?id=42YpAAAAYAAJ&dq=Popular%20Government&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q=antidote&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=42YpAAAAYAAJ&dq=Popular... And Noah Webster eloquently states the fundamental problem with party politics: <blockquote> "...nothing is more dangerous to the cause of truth and liberty than a party spirit. When men are once united, in whatever form, or upon whatever occasion, the union creates a partiality or friendship for each member of the party or society. A coalition for any purpose creates an attachment, and inspires a confidence in the individuals of the party, which does not die with the cause which united them; but continues, and extends to every other object of social intercourse." "Thus we see men first united in some system of religious faith, generally agree in their political opinions. Natives of the same country, even in a foreign country, unite and form a separate private society. The Masons feel attached to each other, though in distant parts of the world." "The same may be said of Episcopalians, Quakers, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Federalists, and Antifederalists, mechanic societies, chambers of commerce, Jacobin and Democratic societies. It is altogether immaterial what circumstance first unites a number of men into a society; whether they first rally round the church, a square and compass, a cross, or a cap; the general effect is always the same; while the union continues, the members of the association feel a particular confidence in each other, which leads them to believe each other's opinions, to catch each other's passions, and to act in concert on every question in which they are interested." "Hence arises what is called bigotry or illiberality. Persons who are united on any occasion, are more apt to believe the prevailing opinions of their society, than the prevailing opinions of another society. They examine their own creeds more fully, (and perhaps with a mind predisposed to believe them), than they do the creeds of other societies. Hence the full persuasion in every society that theirs is right; and if I am right, others of course are wrong." http://books.google.com/books?id=89QDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0#PPA24,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=89QDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&#38... </blockquote> I agree with Webster, and disagree with Scott Adams on the reason why parties are bad. The problem with parties is not the money they raise. The problem is the polarization they create, and how each party's interpretation of events becomes warped in a way that makes their own side always right, and the other side always wrong. Overtime it means that both sides end up being half-brained - and no one has the ability to really solve problems. That said, banning parties is a non-trivial problem. If you just ban the nominal form, they will take some other form under a slightly different name. I think you would have to go all the way and perhaps create a complete ban on campaigning and campaign promises. Rather than having debates and speeches, candidates would participate in nationally televised job interviews that would talk about the candidates background and problem solving abilities. It may also be that integrating lotteries and randomness into the election would help with the public choice problem. I have thoughts on a better election design here: http://intellectual-detox.com/the-lottery-election-a-better-election-design/ http://intellectual-detox.com/the-lottery-election-a-better-...

JimmyL 16y ago

See some discussion of this article yesterday at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1869226 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1869226

spang 16y ago

I'm still waiting for preferential voting. That would go a long way toward making the political conversation something more than the current two-party polarization.

torme 16y ago

I think people throw around ideas like this without considering the side effects. One problem is that if you remove our bipartisanship you introduce the possibility of electing someone where a small group of extremists is able to gain a majority vote because the rest of the candidate pool is so spread out. Imagine an election with 15 candidates. 14 of them are democrat/liberals and 1 of them is Neo-Nazi. Who wins? This might be an extreme case, but if you divide up the voting sensibilities of the majority, you risk the chance that a smaller group of like-minded people may overrun the race. Similar instances of this have occurred in the past, such as in France's 2002 election, where Jean-Marie Le Pen made it to the second round of elections because he was running against many other candidates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Le_Pen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Le_Pen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2... I'm not saying that a partied system is a good one, but it's does solve some problems that should be considered before you dismiss the idea entirely. edit: added link to french election page

psadauskas 16y ago
You combat that by having a runoff. If no one gets a majority, you take the top 2 or 3, and vote again. This time, the people that voted for one of the original 14 vote for the one liberal that made it, and the neo-nazi still has the original small group voting for him, and finally looses.
- torme 16y ago
  Right, and you've essentially just described the party system that's in place already. We hold primary elections for this same reason. Parties provide a way for like minded people to agree on a candidate.

logophobia 16y ago

The issue in the USA isn't necessarily that politicians organize themselves into different groups/parties, but that there is essentially no choice. The election system in the USA is mostly organized in district/state sort of way, where the winner of the state elections gets all the votes. This makes it very hard for more then two parties to participate in the election. Since there is no choice, there is very little incentive to listen to the electorate (always vote for the lesser evil). I live in a country with no district system (and thus multiple parties). While it isn't even close to perfect, at least I can vote for people I mostly agree with.

LargeWu 16y ago
President is the only office where the votes are cast by who wins the entire state. It's called the Electoral College, and it's constitutionally required. However, it's not constitutionally mandated that the winner of the state gets all that state's votes. A few (Maine and Nebraska) cast their votes based on who wins the congressional districts. Otherwise, there are in fact more than 2 parties, they just dont' get as much support, and the two major parties generally like to keep it that way. Occasionally though you will see minor party candidates or independent candidates win major offices.
- logophobia 16y ago
  Note that I said district/state. Your senate has 2 seats for each state and the house has a seat for each district. This still means that there is no realistic way for a third party to get any sort of real power. Because the votes are arbitrarily divided among districts, only parties that have significant majorities have a chance of winning. Any third party in the USA has very little chance of winning any seat. Even if they have 10% support among the electorate it is unlikely that they'll get much seats. The nice thing about a system without districts is that smaller parties get power approximately in proportion to the votes they get. The coalitions you get in these systems are messy but more fair. It's a bit unrealistic to forbid people from forming political parties on these somewhat vague assertions. Reforming the election system to be more fair to smaller parties should have a bigger effect I think.

dstein 16y ago

Maybe the US should aim a little lower, and first try to eliminate the 2-party system. The system is designed to be dysfunctional.

notahacker 16y ago

Trying to force people not to represent themselves as part of a wider organisation would be an extreme step. Removing party allegiance as a basic component of the voter registration system would be a start. Leave the parties to administer themselves and non-affiliation with a particular party as the norm rather than the exception.

pchristensen 16y ago

Doesn't the winner-take-all nature of elections in the US (as opposed to proportional representation by party in countries like Sweden) make a two-party system a natural, emergent outcome? If you're third largest but not near hurdling the 2nd, your only power is by partnering with or joining one of the other two parties.

zipdog 16y ago
I think the emergence of the two-party system in winner takes all voting is due as much to the gambit of the voters: if there's a perception that party A is strongest and party B second strongest, then a vote for party C is essentialy 'wasted' - it's a better strategy to vote for whichever of A and B better represents your view
- vukk 16y ago
  That is an issue in many voting systems, not just winner takes all. There's a fix for that too, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote EDIT: STV would also take power from political parties in multi-party systems, since people can vote for different candidates in different parties, and list the preferred party as the last choice.
- protomyth 16y ago
  Historically, it was essentially two parties at the start (Federalist, Anti-Federalist) and has more or less been ever sense. The US is basically built on the concept. The current problem is that one or both should have been replaced by now. The current campaign finance laws keep them in power.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Why do you think current campaign finance laws reinforce the existing parties? Incumbency typically means more of a fundraising base and cozy relationships with lobbyists, but I don't see how rejiggering campaign finance changes that. Rich candidates can already self-fund, and eliminating limits would just strengthen the incumbents (why bribe a potential congressman when you can bribe a sitting congressman). The highly gerrymandered districts in most states (70% are safe for one party or the other) seem to be a bigger problem to me.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

joshklein 16y ago

Woah, there are many things wrong with this. I'll limit it to the biggest two. First, it's important to understand that we (the US) have a very different political party system than many other western democracies. We have a winner take all system, where 51% of the votes gains you 100% of the voting power. This is not the usual state of affairs - in other democracies, 51% of the vote wins you 51% of the voting power. Or, more accurately, party 1 has 10% of the power, party 2 has 23% of the power, party 3 has 5% of the power, and so on. Theoretically, the two party system is meant to make government more agile and less risk averse. It is supposed to ensure a party is, temporarily, in charge and able to accomplish its political agenda. In multiparty systems, there is frequent political deadlock as parties must negotiate to literally "form a government", or get enough of an alliance between people to mobilize 51% of the voting power. If you read international press, you often hear about the "dissolution of the government" in various civilized countries. This means they've failed in maintaining or forming a coalition, and must go back to political dealings in order to (in most cases) elect a prime minister and get behind a political agenda. These multiparty systems are therefore risk averse, and theoretically worse at achieving widespread governmental action. I keep using the word "theoretical" because of our obvious governmental gridlock in the United States. But to look at things like the stimulus package and the health care bill, and it's not so clear that we're unable to pass large pieces of legislation. With no political parties, every single vote would be about political dealmaking and organizing politicians. We would never get anything done. I'm not necessarily saying we have the right system, or even a great system, just that it isn't quite so easy to say "get rid of parties". Now, to the second point. Jefferson? Puh-lease! I can't stand the frequent popular allusions to Jefferson the saint. This man was a great part of our country and one of the most important thinkers of his time. But he also wrote anti-government propaganda from the office of the vice presidency and had a near-blood fued with George Washington, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson wouldn't roll over in his grave at this political language; he would be saying things far worse. If he sprang back to life today, he would suggest dissolving the federal government, abolishing any standing military, closing down capital institutions to promote an agrarian lifestyle, and letting Virginia negotiate a peace treaty with France. Let's not even talk about just what part of our society would have a real vote and which part would have 3/5 of one. I mean, can we be a little more reasonable with this founding father stuff?

jrs235 16y ago

Come on people. You're all completely missing the first and simplest change. Remove the party identification from the ballot. Just list the names. And also remove the option to vote a straight party line by checking one option. Too many people vote uninformed. Minimally if you are voting shouldn't you minimally know something about the candidate prior to voting?

joshcorbin 16y ago

If you were to eliminate one form of differentiation (parties), another would evolve to fill the void. In fact, as soon as you start trying to abolish parties, you will implicitly create at least two parties: those for, and those against. The Internet does not solve this; to the contrary, it only help to amplify the effect of what Freud called the "Narcissm of small differences" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences ). We see this fact recapitulated in every domain of technology such as: - Linux v Windows v Apple - Fedora v Redhat v Debian v Ubuntu v Arch v Gentoo v ... - $OUR_EDITOR v $THEIR_EDITOR - Slashdot v Hacker News The difference is that the political landscape isn't nearly as diverse. However this is changing already due to the Internet. Agree with their views or not, the Tea Party is sign of this. The way forward is to partition more, not less. Trying to pretend like we can do away with partitions is flawed at inception.

known 16y ago

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Main_Page http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Main_Page

kgermino 16y ago

I think that the best system is probably a non-partisan primary followed by a runoff election between the top 2 or 3. I feel like this would help make more center of the aisle candidates more successful in the primaries. Part of the problem with elections now is that people voting in primaries tend to be near the idealogical extremes resulting in someone like Christine O'Donnell (A Tea-Partyer) winning the primary in a state where she doesn't stand a change in the general election. Additionally in states where the population is more generally liberal or conservative than there will be two candidates that more accurately reflect the general populations views instead of one that nobody will ever vote for, making the general elections more competitive.

moshezadka 16y ago

I'm not even sure what he's suggesting. It's easy to say "let's ban political parties", but what would be the actual law? That people aren't allowed to call themselves Democrats (or Republicans?)? That people aren't allowed to say "I identify with the ideals espoused by X?" Parties are an emergent phenomenon in almost all democratic systems, because politicians work in groups -- the same as anyone else, by the way. If Scott Adams suggested a specific legal system (for example, banning pooling campaign funds) I could find the flaw in that, but he cleverly gives no details, and so makes it impossible for people to find flaws in his (non-existent) system.

known 16y ago

The tragedy with democracy is it is devoid of objectivity.