4 ms·

How would one abolish political parties? What does abolish mean? Fundamentally, political parties are based on freedom of association. Freedom of association

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
- Alpha3031 3y ago
  > 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. Make the state legislatures proportional, impose a deadlock-free contingency procedure and repeal the seventeenth amendment. Either that or random ballot. Though, I wouldn't necessarily consider either of those good ways of solving that problem, which would probably involve increasing the size of the senate as well somehow.
em-bee 3y ago
freedom of association need not apply to political representatives nor need it be institutionalized. that means, i think it is reasonable to demand that a political representative be neutral and not have any associations for which it could be argued that they represent a conflict of interest. parties influence or even control who gets to stand for election. why should that be the case? anyone should be able to stand for election, regardless of affiliation. in many countries, parliaments have a concept of requiring that members of parliament vote along their party. that should be illegal, MPs should only vote according their conscience. influencing them should be illegal. lobbying should be illegal. none of this restricts freedom of association.
- JackFr 3y ago
  I voluntarily join a club. I get benefits from the club and I have responsibilities to the club. Of course I can eschew those responsibilities and then the club can deny me the benefits or kick me out.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    yes, but when that club demands that you vote a certain way in order for you to remain a member, or when the club is responsible that you were listed as a candidate, then you are dependent on them and no longer a neutral representative of those that elected you. and that is whats wrong with the current system, as it doesn't allow you to vote in ways that are actually in the interest of your constituents.
- Curvature5868 3y ago
  We can’t even achieve this in the judiciary. See Federalist Society.
- wingspar 3y ago
  >> that means, i think it is reasonable to demand that a political representative be neutral and not have any associations for which it could be argued that they represent a conflict of interest.>> This statement directly contradicts your view that ‘none of this restricts freedom is association’ Define ‘demand’. Voters demand, like their opinion is they won’t vote for someone who has associations. Or government demands that candidates have no associations.
dfxm12 3y ago
I don't think we can abolish parties, but I think reducing the damages of a two party system starts with proper campaign finance reform. The two parties have considerably more money than other politicians. This means a few things: - 3rd parties can't compete - Campaign spending spirals upwards because of the consolidation of money - Regular people can't run without party support - Politicians get campaign money in exchange for giving in on policy - Lobbyists can consolidate their efforts (it's easier to buy one or two parties than many)

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

Alpha3031 3y ago
> 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. Make the state legislatures proportional, impose a deadlock-free contingency procedure and repeal the seventeenth amendment. Either that or random ballot. Though, I wouldn't necessarily consider either of those good ways of solving that problem, which would probably involve increasing the size of the senate as well somehow.

em-bee 3y ago

freedom of association need not apply to political representatives nor need it be institutionalized. that means, i think it is reasonable to demand that a political representative be neutral and not have any associations for which it could be argued that they represent a conflict of interest. parties influence or even control who gets to stand for election. why should that be the case? anyone should be able to stand for election, regardless of affiliation. in many countries, parliaments have a concept of requiring that members of parliament vote along their party. that should be illegal, MPs should only vote according their conscience. influencing them should be illegal. lobbying should be illegal. none of this restricts freedom of association.

JackFr 3y ago
I voluntarily join a club. I get benefits from the club and I have responsibilities to the club. Of course I can eschew those responsibilities and then the club can deny me the benefits or kick me out.
- em-bee 3y ago
  yes, but when that club demands that you vote a certain way in order for you to remain a member, or when the club is responsible that you were listed as a candidate, then you are dependent on them and no longer a neutral representative of those that elected you. and that is whats wrong with the current system, as it doesn't allow you to vote in ways that are actually in the interest of your constituents.
Curvature5868 3y ago
We can’t even achieve this in the judiciary. See Federalist Society.
wingspar 3y ago
>> that means, i think it is reasonable to demand that a political representative be neutral and not have any associations for which it could be argued that they represent a conflict of interest.>> This statement directly contradicts your view that ‘none of this restricts freedom is association’ Define ‘demand’. Voters demand, like their opinion is they won’t vote for someone who has associations. Or government demands that candidates have no associations.

dfxm12 3y ago

I don't think we can abolish parties, but I think reducing the damages of a two party system starts with proper campaign finance reform. The two parties have considerably more money than other politicians. This means a few things: - 3rd parties can't compete - Campaign spending spirals upwards because of the consolidation of money - Regular people can't run without party support - Politicians get campaign money in exchange for giving in on policy - Lobbyists can consolidate their efforts (it's easier to buy one or two parties than many)