8 ms·

Part of the problem is the so-called "two-party system" that we effectively had. George Washington had the right idea - political parties will divide and ultima

by LocalH 3y ago

Part of the problem is the so-called "two-party system" that we effectively had. George Washington had the right idea - political parties will divide and ultimately destroy the nation. We see this happening right now, today, as the Democrats and Republicans argue over high-profile "moral" issues while colluding in the background to benefit the large corporations and disadvantage the individual citizen. Abolish political parties now, before it's too late. It may already be too late.

JackFr 3y ago
How to you reconcile abolishing political parties with the right of free association?
- lupire 3y ago
  Communist China has a political party but only for historical reasons. If they dissolved the Party and kept the Government, it would work just as well.
Alpha3031 3y ago
Abolishing political parties is not possible, people form factions and coalitions based on common interests, and those coalitions form coalitions in order to achieve their goals. You can have a multi-party system, a two party system or a de facto one party system, the difference is that for the latter two, the final coalitions happen beforehand and are presented to voters as a fait accompli.
adrianN 3y ago
It’s impossible to abolish parties. It is possible to change the election system so that a plurality of parties form a government.
- usefulcat 3y ago
  In theory it's possible to change the election system. In practice, effecting such a change requires the cooperation of at least the party in power and probably both parties, so...
ajross 3y ago
Not going to engage with the hyperbole (except to say that things are actually pretty good, historically, and party-based democracies have outperformed other forms of government almost universally). But this has to be addressed: > Abolish political parties now You can't. "Parties" are just agreements. I want something, she wants something else, you want something different still, etc... I decide to vote with her because she'll support my stuff in return, where you won't. Now we have a party. That's all that a party is, they naturally arise any time you have any kind of collective decision making (not just democracy: treaty coalitions are just geopolitical "parties", etc...). The two party system, likewise, is a natural evolution of first-past-the-post/winner-take-all voting. If you need 50% to do anything, then you need to get your party to be bigger than that. And the folks left out need to band together in order to get what they want. So the two sides naturally seek (via compromise, coercion, etc...) to an equilibrium where they both win about half the time. Anyone in a "third party" never wins anything.
- lupire 3y ago
  Not entirely true. Political parties are enshrined in many state governments, in the form of Parry registration and primary elections. Its frankly unconscionable.
  - ajross 3y ago
    You can eliminate those "unconscionable"[1] laws and it won't eliminate the parties though. Those are just regulations to prevent new parties from getting a foothold, but the existing parties predate the laws and will survive their passing just fine. Consider: there are no Whigs left, but the two party system hasn't changed. [1] Again, why the ridiculous hyperbole? It's not like this is some new evil plague; "parties" have been with us for thousands of years!
- adolph 3y ago
  > You can't. "Parties" are just agreements. That seems unimaginative. The agreement to create the party is recognized as some sort of incorporated being for the purpose of receiving and spending money. This could be shaped in various ways by taxing authority, or by retroactively changing the pay structure of officers, or by optimizing the valuation of different asset classes for the purpose of taxation. I'm sure others can think of even better ways to pursue abolition without expanding the already expansive controls on how people express the freedom of association.
wingspar 3y ago
How would one abolish political parties? What does abolish mean? Fundamentally, political parties are based on freedom of association. Freedom of association allows people to form their own groups, for whatever reason. A group of hikers, model railroad enthusiasts, or a group seeking political ends. Political parties also cross into advocacy, which is/can be petitioning government for redress. Another constitutionally protected thing. Best option that I can see is having elections ignore party affiliation. Basically the jungle primary thing. But in my experience, with nonpartisan elections, everybody still knows what ‘party’ the candidates are.
- ensignavenger 3y ago
  I agree that we shouldn't try to abolish them entirely... but we can remove various political protections that political parties enjoy today- such as in my state, election judges have to be either registered Democrats or Republicans- the law allows unaffiliated election judges after the polling place has 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans... but almost no election authority hires and pays a additional election judges once they meet the statutory minimum of two dems and two reps, because they don't have the money to do so.
  - BurningFrog 3y ago
    > but we can remove various political protections that political parties enjoy today Is there any institution that can do that which isn't dominated by these two parties?
- foobarian 3y ago
  There is nothing magic about two parties, in fact there are plenty of other parties even in the US. However due to game theoretic mechanisms [1] in the winner-takes-all system we tend to get two dominant parties. I'm not sure how this could be avoided in the US system of 2 senators per state. You can't exactly send 2/3ds of a senator to Washington if you had a proportional system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
  - 3y ago
techdmn 3y ago
I find it especially disingenuous when either party complains about 3rd party spoilers. Of course they could solve that by endorsing something other than FPTP, like IRV. But it's much easier to insulate policy from politics when you can just extort your voters.
- Spivak 3y ago
  The issue is far more basic than you're making it out. Switching from FPTP to IRV changes the balance of power in any state that is not dominated by one party. The party that stands to gain supports it, the party that stands to lose opposes it. That's it there is no other motivation. If the balance of power were flipped you would see the stances flipped. You can see the happening right now where the Democrats who initially opposed those state laws meant to undermine the ACA now loudly support them because almost all of them banish government from healthcare extremely broadly where Republicans now want them gone because it inhibits their ability to restrict abortion access.
  - throw10920 3y ago
    > Switching from FPTP to IRV changes the balance of power in any state that is not dominated by one party. The party that stands to gain supports it, the party that stands to lose opposes it. I guess we have to work state-by-state and county-by-county in swing areas to get IRV/ranked choice voting enacted, then scream very loudly when someone tries to change it back. https://represent.us/ https://represent.us/
jvanderbot 3y ago
There was a good (ish) book about this, called Breaking the two-party doom loop. * There's been an increased focus on federal (vs local) governing. People "over there" now need to adopt the solutions we have "over here". Since federal gov cannot possibly be in tune to all voters micro-needs, a successful federal-first party needs to focus on high-profile outrage-fueled issues. * The main focus is on proportional representation, where votes for legislators are in proportion to the people who they represent. This avoids winner-take-all elections at congressional level, and removes the need to both pander to moral outrage and gerrymander. * Another huge factor is increasing the number of seats elected, and pinning it to # of people they represent. This allows minority groups to have their say in congress, rather than having to jump on the bandwagon of "least evil" candidate. Congress has not expanded in a long time.
stetrain 3y ago
The two party system is not a policy, it’s a symptom of First Past the Post elections. If you want the system to change we need to restructure how elections work, not somehow try to abolish the idea of people working together politically.
UncleMeat 3y ago
Is there any democracy on the planet that does not have political parties? We can't even prevent private corporations from unlimited funding of campaigns. How on earth would we be able to abolish political parties?
mcdonje 3y ago
Easier said than done. They crop up naturally. If there is a way to stop them, it wasn't known when Washington said that. The fundamental problem with parties appears to be that they're a way to exert undue influence on and ultimately break down democracy. So it seems like measures that increase democracy and reduce the power of any person or organization are what's required. From a voting perspective, that means things like multiwinner districts and races (improves minority representation and blunts gerrymandering), compulsory voting, paid voting holidays, independent voting commissions that draw maps, ranked choice voting... It also means either reducing the mechanisms by which capital can be converted into political power or reducing the amount of capital the entities at the top have, or both. So antitrust laws are not only good for the economy, but also for democracy.
oatmeal1 3y ago
The media is the problem much more than the parties. The parties want to focus on their differences, but there's nothing forcing the media to focus on them. Any candidate that steps outside the traditional talking points is ignored/delegitimized: https://youtu.be/gAL5rMu8N5Y?si=-PtVl3vwIGOAlWRL&t=273 https://youtu.be/gAL5rMu8N5Y?si=-PtVl3vwIGOAlWRL&t=273
iainmerrick 3y ago
What's the alternative? I'd rather have political parties than direct rule by "influencers", say, elected by popularity poll.
grotorea 3y ago
Except for a few absolute monarchies and tiny countries, is there a single modern country without parties? There were parties forming already in his time! I really think they are an inevitable aspect of electoral democracy and finding ways to work with it is the better choice.

by LocalH 3y ago

JackFr 3y ago

How to you reconcile abolishing political parties with the right of free association?

lupire 3y ago
Communist China has a political party but only for historical reasons. If they dissolved the Party and kept the Government, it would work just as well.

Alpha3031 3y ago

Abolishing political parties is not possible, people form factions and coalitions based on common interests, and those coalitions form coalitions in order to achieve their goals. You can have a multi-party system, a two party system or a de facto one party system, the difference is that for the latter two, the final coalitions happen beforehand and are presented to voters as a fait accompli.

adrianN 3y ago

It’s impossible to abolish parties. It is possible to change the election system so that a plurality of parties form a government.

usefulcat 3y ago
In theory it's possible to change the election system. In practice, effecting such a change requires the cooperation of at least the party in power and probably both parties, so...

ajross 3y ago

Not going to engage with the hyperbole (except to say that things are actually pretty good, historically, and party-based democracies have outperformed other forms of government almost universally). But this has to be addressed: > Abolish political parties now You can't. "Parties" are just agreements. I want something, she wants something else, you want something different still, etc... I decide to vote with her because she'll support my stuff in return, where you won't. Now we have a party. That's all that a party is, they naturally arise any time you have any kind of collective decision making (not just democracy: treaty coalitions are just geopolitical "parties", etc...). The two party system, likewise, is a natural evolution of first-past-the-post/winner-take-all voting. If you need 50% to do anything, then you need to get your party to be bigger than that. And the folks left out need to band together in order to get what they want. So the two sides naturally seek (via compromise, coercion, etc...) to an equilibrium where they both win about half the time. Anyone in a "third party" never wins anything.

lupire 3y ago
Not entirely true. Political parties are enshrined in many state governments, in the form of Parry registration and primary elections. Its frankly unconscionable.
- ajross 3y ago
  You can eliminate those "unconscionable"[1] laws and it won't eliminate the parties though. Those are just regulations to prevent new parties from getting a foothold, but the existing parties predate the laws and will survive their passing just fine. Consider: there are no Whigs left, but the two party system hasn't changed. [1] Again, why the ridiculous hyperbole? It's not like this is some new evil plague; "parties" have been with us for thousands of years!
adolph 3y ago
> You can't. "Parties" are just agreements. That seems unimaginative. The agreement to create the party is recognized as some sort of incorporated being for the purpose of receiving and spending money. This could be shaped in various ways by taxing authority, or by retroactively changing the pay structure of officers, or by optimizing the valuation of different asset classes for the purpose of taxation. I'm sure others can think of even better ways to pursue abolition without expanding the already expansive controls on how people express the freedom of association.

wingspar 3y ago

How would one abolish political parties? What does abolish mean? Fundamentally, political parties are based on freedom of association. Freedom of association allows people to form their own groups, for whatever reason. A group of hikers, model railroad enthusiasts, or a group seeking political ends. Political parties also cross into advocacy, which is/can be petitioning government for redress. Another constitutionally protected thing. Best option that I can see is having elections ignore party affiliation. Basically the jungle primary thing. But in my experience, with nonpartisan elections, everybody still knows what ‘party’ the candidates are.

ensignavenger 3y ago
I agree that we shouldn't try to abolish them entirely... but we can remove various political protections that political parties enjoy today- such as in my state, election judges have to be either registered Democrats or Republicans- the law allows unaffiliated election judges after the polling place has 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans... but almost no election authority hires and pays a additional election judges once they meet the statutory minimum of two dems and two reps, because they don't have the money to do so.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  > but we can remove various political protections that political parties enjoy today Is there any institution that can do that which isn't dominated by these two parties?
foobarian 3y ago
There is nothing magic about two parties, in fact there are plenty of other parties even in the US. However due to game theoretic mechanisms [1] in the winner-takes-all system we tend to get two dominant parties. I'm not sure how this could be avoided in the US system of 2 senators per state. You can't exactly send 2/3ds of a senator to Washington if you had a proportional system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
- 3y ago

techdmn 3y ago

I find it especially disingenuous when either party complains about 3rd party spoilers. Of course they could solve that by endorsing something other than FPTP, like IRV. But it's much easier to insulate policy from politics when you can just extort your voters.

Spivak 3y ago
The issue is far more basic than you're making it out. Switching from FPTP to IRV changes the balance of power in any state that is not dominated by one party. The party that stands to gain supports it, the party that stands to lose opposes it. That's it there is no other motivation. If the balance of power were flipped you would see the stances flipped. You can see the happening right now where the Democrats who initially opposed those state laws meant to undermine the ACA now loudly support them because almost all of them banish government from healthcare extremely broadly where Republicans now want them gone because it inhibits their ability to restrict abortion access.
- throw10920 3y ago
  > Switching from FPTP to IRV changes the balance of power in any state that is not dominated by one party. The party that stands to gain supports it, the party that stands to lose opposes it. I guess we have to work state-by-state and county-by-county in swing areas to get IRV/ranked choice voting enacted, then scream very loudly when someone tries to change it back. https://represent.us/ https://represent.us/

jvanderbot 3y ago

There was a good (ish) book about this, called Breaking the two-party doom loop. * There's been an increased focus on federal (vs local) governing. People "over there" now need to adopt the solutions we have "over here". Since federal gov cannot possibly be in tune to all voters micro-needs, a successful federal-first party needs to focus on high-profile outrage-fueled issues. * The main focus is on proportional representation, where votes for legislators are in proportion to the people who they represent. This avoids winner-take-all elections at congressional level, and removes the need to both pander to moral outrage and gerrymander. * Another huge factor is increasing the number of seats elected, and pinning it to # of people they represent. This allows minority groups to have their say in congress, rather than having to jump on the bandwagon of "least evil" candidate. Congress has not expanded in a long time.

stetrain 3y ago

The two party system is not a policy, it’s a symptom of First Past the Post elections. If you want the system to change we need to restructure how elections work, not somehow try to abolish the idea of people working together politically.

UncleMeat 3y ago

Is there any democracy on the planet that does not have political parties? We can't even prevent private corporations from unlimited funding of campaigns. How on earth would we be able to abolish political parties?

mcdonje 3y ago

Easier said than done. They crop up naturally. If there is a way to stop them, it wasn't known when Washington said that. The fundamental problem with parties appears to be that they're a way to exert undue influence on and ultimately break down democracy. So it seems like measures that increase democracy and reduce the power of any person or organization are what's required. From a voting perspective, that means things like multiwinner districts and races (improves minority representation and blunts gerrymandering), compulsory voting, paid voting holidays, independent voting commissions that draw maps, ranked choice voting... It also means either reducing the mechanisms by which capital can be converted into political power or reducing the amount of capital the entities at the top have, or both. So antitrust laws are not only good for the economy, but also for democracy.

oatmeal1 3y ago

The media is the problem much more than the parties. The parties want to focus on their differences, but there's nothing forcing the media to focus on them. Any candidate that steps outside the traditional talking points is ignored/delegitimized: https://youtu.be/gAL5rMu8N5Y?si=-PtVl3vwIGOAlWRL&t=273 https://youtu.be/gAL5rMu8N5Y?si=-PtVl3vwIGOAlWRL&t=273

iainmerrick 3y ago

What's the alternative? I'd rather have political parties than direct rule by "influencers", say, elected by popularity poll.

grotorea 3y ago

Except for a few absolute monarchies and tiny countries, is there a single modern country without parties? There were parties forming already in his time! I really think they are an inevitable aspect of electoral democracy and finding ways to work with it is the better choice.