6 ms·

> Political parties were banned - and still are - because they were deemed to have caused divisions between people. What an excellent idea.

Waterluvian 7y ago
I'm embarrassed that I haven't thought of this much before. Imagine everyone running as independents and Congress being all independents. It could work.
- frosted-flakes 7y ago
  It's how municipal governments in Ontario work, and the focus in the media really is on the individuals and their actions. Obviously, sometimes it's obvious which party a candidate would belong to if there were parties[1], but that doesn't really matter. Since there are no parties, there can be a larger variety of candidates with different viewpoints that can overlap, rather than just two extremes. And of course, councillors vote individually, which means the mayor has much less power than a party leader (each councillor is free to vote against the mayor at any time). I really like this system, and am curious how it would work on a larger scale. [1]: For example, Toronto mayor John Tory was leader of the Progressive Conservative party in the Ontario legislature from 2005-2007, so it's obvious he'd be a Tory.
  - wolco 7y ago
    But they end up voting in left or right blocks. Since the amount of has been reduced by half you see it more often. John Tory appoints people to positions with higher status and perks (like head of the ttc). To get these positions you agree to support Tory's plan. The few who cross him will get no plum roles if any.
- int_19h 7y ago
  It doesn't work, because parties offer an advantage, and you can't truly ban them without banning freedom of association. At best, you can ban overt expression of affiliation, so all candidates are nominally independent - but it'll still be obvious who's who.
  - forgingahead 7y ago
    The idea is not to ban any alliances of any sort (which is what happens when independents team up) but rather to strongly avoid groupthink and the not-people-beneficial-but-default actions that a stronger bloc always takes.
    - int_19h 7y ago
      When independents team up for long enough, because they have enough in common, you get a party as well, with all the attendant features. Groupthink doesn't stem from formal affiliation - after all, most people in US who fall into it are not formally members of either party.
smabie 7y ago
It sounds like a good idea, but unfortunately it's mathematically unstable and doesn't form any sort of equilibrium (Nash or otherwise). Any participant can gain an advantage by grouping up with one other participant. Once everyone has grouped up into pairs, they will then group up again and again, ultimately creating a two party system.
- derefr 7y ago
  Why even allow grouping (politically) into pairs? The town could just ban non-politicians from expressing political speech entirely (as a social norm, not a law.) Politicians could still speak politically in the form of campaigning; but they'd not be allowed to make reference to other politicians' positions on things; only to speak about their own beliefs on how things should be/how things should work. For anyone who isn't an actively-campaigning politician, the only political speech you'd be allowed would be (private-ballot) voting. Anything else would get you shunned by the community. (Yes, I realize how ridiculous this sounds.)
  - sbuttgereit 7y ago
    Yet, here you are, a non-politician according to your HN profile, engaging in political speech. To be fair, you're not breaking the law or even a social norm... but it's not consistent with your position. All of the sorts of reasons that motivated you to have an opinion enough to post here are reasons why this wouldn't work. Moreover, where do you draw the line between "layperson" and politician? How does one make the transition? I understand the desire, and appreciate that you see the unreality of the idea... all I can really say in conclusion is... well... nice try.
  - sfifs 7y ago
    If you disallow grouping openly, people will group surreptitiously and the impact will be much the same. Some form of power structure always develops in any grouping of people, whether it is open or hidden and this has been widely documented in anthropology. I think the most famous one was a write-up about power structures in women power movements in the 70s (I forget the author's name) another one more recently examining Valve software.
irrational 7y ago
Have you ever read George Washington's farewell address? https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/article/washingtons-farewell-address-1796/ https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/arti... "I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
- dash2 7y ago
  Being against parties was a cliché of 18th century thought. Edmund Burke first pointed out that parties could be more than just conspiracies against the public interest: Party is a body of men united, for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed.... It is the business of the politician, who is the philosopher in action, to find out proper means towards those ends, and to employ them with effect. Therefore every honourable connexion will avow it as their first purpose, to pursue every just method to put the men who hold their opinions into such a condition as may enable them to carry their common plans into execution, with all the power and authority of the State. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/796#Burke_0005-01_348 https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/796#Burke_0005-01_348 Slightly offtopic: it's unfortunate when people, perhaps technically brilliant people, come up with naïve solutions to political problems, showing little awareness that there are long and sophisticated traditions of thinking about these issues.
konschubert 7y ago
Political parties can be great for stability and continuity that survive changes in the political personal. Political parties are needed and if you want to enable politicians that aren’t rich and can pay a campaign out of pocket. Show me a country with drama-free, stable governance and i show you a country with strong political parties.
lifeisstillgood 7y ago
Perhaps a simpler move would be to stop party affiliation being published in the ballot paper. Then if you wanted to vote for your local Tory / Republican / whatever you have to look them up, find out their name - and even compare policies. This is not banning parties (Parties do at least have value as stability mechanism) but it discourages blind partisanship at least Edit : it is also testable - one could randomly do this on ballots across nations and watch the outcome. I doubt the null hypothesis is same results as ballots with party affiliation.
INTPenis 7y ago
Yeah but if the community comes together and decides to ban another group, aren't they now politicians? And if they then come together and actively drive out a criminal element, aren't they then the police?
- ajb 7y ago
  Yes, IMO - the minimum possible number of parties is 1.

Waterluvian 7y ago

I'm embarrassed that I haven't thought of this much before. Imagine everyone running as independents and Congress being all independents. It could work.

frosted-flakes 7y ago
It's how municipal governments in Ontario work, and the focus in the media really is on the individuals and their actions. Obviously, sometimes it's obvious which party a candidate would belong to if there were parties[1], but that doesn't really matter. Since there are no parties, there can be a larger variety of candidates with different viewpoints that can overlap, rather than just two extremes. And of course, councillors vote individually, which means the mayor has much less power than a party leader (each councillor is free to vote against the mayor at any time). I really like this system, and am curious how it would work on a larger scale. [1]: For example, Toronto mayor John Tory was leader of the Progressive Conservative party in the Ontario legislature from 2005-2007, so it's obvious he'd be a Tory.
- wolco 7y ago
  But they end up voting in left or right blocks. Since the amount of has been reduced by half you see it more often. John Tory appoints people to positions with higher status and perks (like head of the ttc). To get these positions you agree to support Tory's plan. The few who cross him will get no plum roles if any.
int_19h 7y ago
It doesn't work, because parties offer an advantage, and you can't truly ban them without banning freedom of association. At best, you can ban overt expression of affiliation, so all candidates are nominally independent - but it'll still be obvious who's who.
- forgingahead 7y ago
  The idea is not to ban any alliances of any sort (which is what happens when independents team up) but rather to strongly avoid groupthink and the not-people-beneficial-but-default actions that a stronger bloc always takes.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    When independents team up for long enough, because they have enough in common, you get a party as well, with all the attendant features. Groupthink doesn't stem from formal affiliation - after all, most people in US who fall into it are not formally members of either party.

smabie 7y ago

It sounds like a good idea, but unfortunately it's mathematically unstable and doesn't form any sort of equilibrium (Nash or otherwise). Any participant can gain an advantage by grouping up with one other participant. Once everyone has grouped up into pairs, they will then group up again and again, ultimately creating a two party system.

derefr 7y ago
Why even allow grouping (politically) into pairs? The town could just ban non-politicians from expressing political speech entirely (as a social norm, not a law.) Politicians could still speak politically in the form of campaigning; but they'd not be allowed to make reference to other politicians' positions on things; only to speak about their own beliefs on how things should be/how things should work. For anyone who isn't an actively-campaigning politician, the only political speech you'd be allowed would be (private-ballot) voting. Anything else would get you shunned by the community. (Yes, I realize how ridiculous this sounds.)
- sbuttgereit 7y ago
  Yet, here you are, a non-politician according to your HN profile, engaging in political speech. To be fair, you're not breaking the law or even a social norm... but it's not consistent with your position. All of the sorts of reasons that motivated you to have an opinion enough to post here are reasons why this wouldn't work. Moreover, where do you draw the line between "layperson" and politician? How does one make the transition? I understand the desire, and appreciate that you see the unreality of the idea... all I can really say in conclusion is... well... nice try.
- sfifs 7y ago
  If you disallow grouping openly, people will group surreptitiously and the impact will be much the same. Some form of power structure always develops in any grouping of people, whether it is open or hidden and this has been widely documented in anthropology. I think the most famous one was a write-up about power structures in women power movements in the 70s (I forget the author's name) another one more recently examining Valve software.

irrational 7y ago

Have you ever read George Washington's farewell address? https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/article/washingtons-farewell-address-1796/ https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/arti... "I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

dash2 7y ago
Being against parties was a cliché of 18th century thought. Edmund Burke first pointed out that parties could be more than just conspiracies against the public interest: Party is a body of men united, for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed.... It is the business of the politician, who is the philosopher in action, to find out proper means towards those ends, and to employ them with effect. Therefore every honourable connexion will avow it as their first purpose, to pursue every just method to put the men who hold their opinions into such a condition as may enable them to carry their common plans into execution, with all the power and authority of the State. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/796#Burke_0005-01_348 https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/796#Burke_0005-01_348 Slightly offtopic: it's unfortunate when people, perhaps technically brilliant people, come up with naïve solutions to political problems, showing little awareness that there are long and sophisticated traditions of thinking about these issues.

konschubert 7y ago

Political parties can be great for stability and continuity that survive changes in the political personal. Political parties are needed and if you want to enable politicians that aren’t rich and can pay a campaign out of pocket. Show me a country with drama-free, stable governance and i show you a country with strong political parties.

lifeisstillgood 7y ago

Perhaps a simpler move would be to stop party affiliation being published in the ballot paper. Then if you wanted to vote for your local Tory / Republican / whatever you have to look them up, find out their name - and even compare policies. This is not banning parties (Parties do at least have value as stability mechanism) but it discourages blind partisanship at least Edit : it is also testable - one could randomly do this on ballots across nations and watch the outcome. I doubt the null hypothesis is same results as ballots with party affiliation.

INTPenis 7y ago

Yeah but if the community comes together and decides to ban another group, aren't they now politicians? And if they then come together and actively drive out a criminal element, aren't they then the police?

ajb 7y ago
Yes, IMO - the minimum possible number of parties is 1.