Do we need political parties?

[mzungu]

I am interested in why we need political parties? Imagine if corporations and the armed forces were run with political parties in their hierarchy.

Does anyone have a really serious argument as to why political parties are good and what their benefits are to society?

I am not advocating totalitarianism but I feel that a Parliament or Senate or Congress can function very well without political parties as all the politicians would be free to express their will without party dogma hindering their decisions.

 

[Dreamer8]

We would be Better off without them.
But tbh, parties like republicans and democrats pretend to oppose in public.

But they both have the same agenda behind closed doors. They just use circumstance and "change the guy in the white house" to make it seem like we actually have a voice in government

 

[Skavau]

Parties are almost a natural occurrence. If you have a parliament of independents then some who feel similar on many issues will simply congregate together and establish some kind of charter that binds them together. into a group within the parliament. If that group then makes up a majority you effectively have a party running the place with a de facto unorganised opposition.

Parties are in many ways more trouble than they're worth and electing independents will increase individual politicians accountability to the public rather than simply just being able to hide under the banner of the main party. An example on this would be say bigoted politicians in certain parties that get elected despite their ignorant statements on many issues just because they're under the banner of a big party. This would not happen in the case of independent elections.

 

[mzungu]

It is true that parties are a natural occurrence but they tend and do divide public sentiment. One may think that a certain party is made up of similarly minded people but this cannot be the case as nothing is black and white. Suppose a leftist party proposes a legislation that many in the right will accept but are bound not to vote in favour lest they loose votes or transgress on their anti left dogma.

Politicians should be accountable to the people and not to their party. Can you imagine what would happen if any institution were to be run by a multi party system? The employees would be split into several groups and each would support his party.

My opinion is that parties do indeed provide for the "Divide and rule" philosophy.

This is not an issue of "Left" Nor "Right". It makes common sense for all politicians to owe their allegiance to the people and not to their party or sponsors.

 

[Skavau]

It is true that parties are a natural occurrence but they tend and do divide public sentiment. One may think that a certain party is made up of similarly minded people but this cannot be the case as nothing is black and white.

A party unless really broad it what it allows is made up of politically similarly minded people. Though of course, currently people with more extreme views can hide in party ranks and continue to be elected and unchallenged on their statements. It also makes that party appear less appealing to anyone looking in as whilst the constitution of a party might be acceptable, the opinions of those within it are not.

Suppose a leftist party proposes a legislation that many in the right will accept but are bound not to vote in favour lest they loose votes or transgress on their anti left dogma.

Yes, this is another problem of political parties. Political games.

At any rate, any party whips will sort that out (though that's another problem in itself).

Politicians should be accountable to the people and not to their party. Can you imagine what would happen if any institution were to be run by a multi party system? The employees would be split into several groups and each would support his party.

My opinion is that parties do indeed provide for the "Divide and rule" philosophy.

No disagreements here. Politicians should answer to us first and not their party.

 

[Living in the Light]

I'm independent and there are elements of both parties that I like. I simply want candidates to do the right thing instead of appeasing their constituencies

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

Aren't political parties simply the result of people disagreeing? Banning political parties is simply bringing in mind-control dictatorship and total pc. It's been done many times before by Communist gov't's all over the world. Many governments have banished political opposition.

 

[mzungu]

Aren't political parties simply the result of people disagreeing? Banning political parties is simply bringing in mind-control dictatorship and total pc. It's been done many times before by Communist gov't's all over the world. Many governments have banished political opposition.

No it is not. Independent MPs can still disagree with each other. Political parties are nothing more than a divisive force in society and their aim is to divide and rule.

Who says that no parties means no opposition? A republic and a Democracy has no need for parties nor despots.

 

[Mystman]

Politicians should be accountable to the people and not to their party.

How do you envision this, specifically?

Holding elections, where all candidates are forced to run as independents, so that voters have to choose between 100+ candidates? (many voters probably can't even accurately tell you what the plans of the Republicans/Democrats are, let alone when there are 100 different options..)

In a multi-party system the politicians are accountable to the people. If a party makes a mess of things, they'll lose in the next election. If not, the fault is not with the concept of a multi-party system, but with other factors (TVs bombarding us with misleading ads, etc) that would also play a role in single-party systems.

As for practical use of parties in parliament: it allows for specialisation. If every member of parliament is forced to be independent, he/she would have to be very knowledgeable about every topic that is brought up for a vote. That is simply unrealistic. Running a country is complicated, laws are complicated, the possible side-effects of laws are extremely complicated, etc etc. With a party system, a sub-set of the members of a party can get specialized on a topic like healthcare or education, form solid policy ideas based on the overall philosophy of the party, and then be assured of the support for those ideas by the other party members.

 

[mzungu]

The result is almost always Bipartisanship where 2 parties essentially rule consecutively. They always end up having the same political agenda and the people are left hanging on empty words.

MPs will be elected as they have always been. The only thing that will be missing will be the parties. Honestly if you apply the party system to any entity such as the armed forces, businesses, police, schools, churches, then do you think they will be able to function?

If all MPs were independent then they would be free to vote for what they believe is right and not what their party tells them to vote.

Voters will be voting for THEIR local MP only. No more National MPs. People will know who they are voting for and why.

 

[Mystman]

The result is almost always Bipartisanship where 2 parties essentially rule consecutively. They always end up having the same political agenda and the people are left hanging on empty words.

--

Voters will be voting for THEIR local MP only. No more National MPs. People will know who they are voting for and why.

As in, all people in a particular area vote on a bunch of candidates, and one person is then declared winner and sent of to Washington/London/Athens to go represent the will of the people in that area?

That is the exact recipe for the bipartisanship that you dislike. "Man, I really like Ron Paul, but he has no chance of winning... and I don't want Obama to be re-elected. Sigh, Romney it is."

A proper multi-party system does not involve this voting for the lesser of two evils, and therefore allows for newcomers on the political scene, and for established parties to fall in popularity.

 

[RuthiePople]

It is true that parties are a natural occurrence but they tend and do divide public sentiment. One may think that a certain party is made up of similarly minded people but this cannot be the case as nothing is black and white. Suppose a leftist party proposes a legislation that many in the right will accept but are bound not to vote in favour lest they loose votes or transgress on their anti left dogma.

Politicians should be accountable to the people and not to their party. Can you imagine what would happen if any institution were to be run by a multi party system? The employees would be split into several groups and each would support his party.

My opinion is that parties do indeed provide for the "Divide and rule" philosophy.

This is not an issue of "Left" Nor "Right". It makes common sense for all politicians to owe their allegiance to the people and not to their party or sponsors.

I know that the Lord in general goes by the customers of the day and He sets up authorities as the good book says. There are things that can go good or bad but we as Christians need to be in constant prayer for our leaders as the Bible says. There are many things I don't understand but through prayer God helps me day to day to know my part.
Ruthie Pople

 

[wintermile]

Politicians should be accountable to the people and not to their party.

In the U.S., foreign governments influence U.S. Policy.

Foreign Lobbying Influence Tracker - A Project of ProPublica and Sunlight Foundation​

Some people are sold on what appears to be right.

Parties make money.

 

[Chris81]

There is no need for political parties. Just put me in charge and I will take care of business!

 

[Leap]

I am interested in why we need political parties? Imagine if corporations and the armed forces were run with political parties in their hierarchy.

Does anyone have a really serious argument as to why political parties are good and what their benefits are to society?

I am not advocating totalitarianism but I feel that a Parliament or Senate or Congress can function very well without political parties as all the politicians would be free to express their will without party dogma hindering their decisions.

People naturally form cliques, gathering together with like-minded folks, so parties are just one of the "little platoons" of civic society.

The problem is not the parties but the way that our politics has no solid core and foundation that the politicians are elected to serve rather than manipulate. This is what happens with "man made" law - no matter what people may claim to the contrary, the political process itself is essentially above the law because it can undo one law and replace it with another. So long as that is the case, the political system becomes a means of wielding power through lobbying...which pours money into the hands of parties which then jockey for position and influence in order to gain more 'funding'.

To get past that would take a core and foundation that is beyond the legal process; a kind of "divine right of constitutions" situation, where the core, like kings in "divine right of kings", is beyond question and alteration. Its no cure, as it could still be manipulated, but it is a far less fertile ground for lobbyists than our current situation...and it is that which gives the party system such clout.

 

[keith99]

I think the answer becomes rather obvious when one asks the obvious question?

If no parties then what instead?

I see no reasonable alternative. Well unless one wants only the very rich or those even more professional politicians than we have today to be able to run for office.

I'm sure someone will say the state shoudl provide election funds, but funds do not provide an instant team and state provides funds also have the problem of deciding who is going to receive them. Which ios apt to either create a barrier or allow any nut to run (and do it on your dime).

 

[wintermile]

I am interested in why we need political parties?

Through the use of party affiliations, whomever serves the State also secedes from sovereign organizations. The State needs political parties.

People naturally form cliques, gathering together with like-minded folks, so parties are just one of the "little platoons" of civic society.

Stefan Molyneux broadcasts how we can do better equipping our cliques with proper fundamentals rather than strewing them along giving them a little and then taking a lot from them for purposes of the State.

 

[Creech]

President Washington actually spoke out against political parties in his farewell address, believing it causes division and disunity. A candidate should only run on their own ideas and beliefs of what is best for the country.

Although I am a registered Republican, I think we need to phase out of this 2 party system. ATLEAST a mult-party system would be better.

 

[mzungu]

President Washington actually spoke out against political parties in his farewell address, believing it causes division and disunity. A candidate should only run on their own ideas and beliefs of what is best for the country.

Although I am a registered Republican, I think we need to phase out of this 2 party system. ATLEAST a mult-party system would be better.

Washington was on the right track; However I have yet to see a reply that justifies the need for political parties.

Can anyone actually give me a good reason why we need them. An answer such as "We need them otherwise we will open the door to tyrants" etc is not sufficient. I want a good argument in favour of political parties. It seems that the only answers I am getting are based on the fear of not having them or simply we need them.

Anyone?

 

[Mystman]

Washington was on the right track; However I have yet to see a reply that justifies the need for political parties.

Can anyone actually give me a good reason why we need them. An answer such as "We need them otherwise we will open the door to tyrants" etc is not sufficient. I want a good argument in favour of political parties. It seems that the only answers I am getting are based on the fear of not having them or simply we need them.

Anyone?

There is no such thing as the perfect political system. Therefore, a justification for system X will often be of the form "well it's better than system Y in areas Z".

For example, if we've established that we prefer a democracy, there are a number of forms in which the public can have its voice heard. All forms have disadvantages. Winner-takes-all elections of individuals (e.g. US presidency, parliaments where every area is represented by 1 person, etc) often result in voting for the lesser evil, a problem less present with the proportional representation in proper multi-party democracies.

Another problem is that being good at getting elected is not the same as being good at ruling the country. When you have to vote for a person, this effect is amplified (voting for the guy who you want to have a beer with, etc). When you vote for a party with a specific philosophy, the problem is still present, but not to the same extent.

A party can earn a reputation for being competent and responsible with power. Our VVD, CDA and PvdA may not be the flashiest parties, their leaders annoying, some of their ideas completely opposed to mine, but in their long histories they have consistently produced boring smart people who kept the country running somewhat smoothly. These boring smart people, with their compromises and necessary but unpopular policies, might not have stood a chance if they had to be elected individually.