An end to political parties

[Vizsla]

Politicians rarely utter anything other than the driest of homilies in defence of the most monotonous party line possible. How few of their mindless blatherings do they actually believe in? How vanishingly rare that a politician says something genuinely heartfelt, interesting or witty?

Political decisions are taken and alternative viewpoints sort behind closed doors. Even minor divergences are ruthlessly ironed out before the masses get a look in. Thus the paying public is presented only with the most facile and simplistic of choices.

For 500 odd years the English parliament managed without parties. For hundreds of years prior to that the Great Council and the Witan operated without parties.

Picture the scene:
A parliament comprised solely of individuals who owed loyalty only to the good will of their immediate electors and not to the machinations of a few grey suited party apparatchiks. People who would support or fight legislation based only upon the dictates of their own consciences or their electorates perceived best interests. Governments would be comprised of like minded individuals free to leave or join as they saw fit dependent only upon the choices made.

Is this possible?
Is it desirable?
Would it change anything?

[Justice and Mercy]

Political parties are groups of people with somewhat similar beliefs who come together to put those beliefs into legislation.

Freedom of assembly.

They should NEVER be funded by or connected to the government in ANY WAY other than that some members of political parties come into office.

[Vizsla]

Political parties are groups of people with somewhat similar beliefs who come together to put those beliefs into legislation.

So I should just give up on my aspirations because the political party to which I belong is doing some of the things I believe in? Aren’t I sacrificing my principles to the lust for power? Doesn’t this betray the trust my electors held in me?

[Justice and Mercy]

So I should just give up on my aspirations because the political party to which I belong is doing some of the things I believe in?

No.

If there's another party you like, support them.

If there's an individual from a particular party you like, support them.

There's rarely going to be a candidate that agrees with EVERYTHING you do, and even less a chance of them winning.

[IrishHitman]

So I should just give up on my aspirations because the political party to which I belong is doing some of the things I believe in? Aren’t I sacrificing my principles to the lust for power? Doesn’t this betray the trust my electors held in me?

There's nothing stopping you from going independent.

[Zephyrus]

So I should just give up on my aspirations because the political party to which I belong is doing some of the things I believe in? Aren’t I sacrificing my principles to the lust for power? Doesn’t this betray the trust my electors held in me?

Then make up your own party or revolt, if you feel that strongly about it.

[C-Rob]

I was trying to argue against you, OP, but then I realized that parties are retarded.

[Junius]

Political parties are the organs by which it is possible for our representative style of democracy to operate in any coherent, and productive, manner. Unless we revert to a completely direct style of democracy, then our society can only work when their is a group of people in power with a unity of purpose. If every member of a parliament were independent, how long would it take to form a government, to appoint ministers and produce legislation. As it stands now, we have nearly perfected an imperfect institution. Like Churchill said democracy is the worst form of government, but we have nothing better (paraphrased for effect).

Though if you were talking about the failings of democracy as a whole, not just about political parties, I would have gone for: “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

[Vizsla]

Thank you all for your insightful answers. I'd rep but I'm not allowed to yet.

I’m not American so freedom of assembly means zip to me.

fergusmck, you make some good points.
So why are political parties necessary? What evidence is there that we need political parties to make things work? In the beginning the US did not have political parties. It functioned well enough. George Washington was dead set against them apparently, or so says wikipedia.

If the government needs to be an entity consisting of like minded individuals then couldn’t we elect the executive separately to the parliament and have the executive appoint paid specialists to run each government function? Any legislation put forward by the government could then be voted on by the parliament of independents.

The advantage of this system would be that the reasons for a particular course of action would be discussed openly in full public view. As it stands (in England) parties do things for political reasons and hide their true motivations from the punters.

Churchill was right democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. If democracy is far from perfect then why can’t it be improved?

Your final argument that voters are too ignorant to be trusted with really important decisions has never been put to the test. Taking this argument to its logical extreme would result in a hidden form of dictatorship. The counter argument is clearly the ‘wisdom of crowds’. Whilst individually people may be thick gobshites. Collectively they arrive at the correct outcomes.

(I have been discussing my half baked ideas with drunken people in pubs, some of whom turned out to be wiser than anticipated.)

[Junius]

vizsla, it's called the Civil Service. A separately appointed executive, sans political parties, would still run into the same problems as that which would arise from an indepedent legislative. That is, you could never find a candidate which would represent a majority of the population. A series of run off elections would have to occur, resulting in de facto political parties through agreements of similarly minded people supporting each other.

George Washington was opposed to political parties, but they arose anyway. The only reason that he was able to keep them out early on was because of his position as the major military figure of the war of independence. The Iris Political Party (IPP) was the first modern political party, and it grew out of Irish MPs uniting to try and gain home rule for Ireland. It was because of their agitation that Ireland became a sovereign state, events were in place for a 32-county Ireland parliament before 1916 made that an impossibility. Political parties ensure stability and coherence, allowing a group to speak with a common voice, and allowing for a government to be formed without weeks and months of different indepedents having to negotiate, before their government falls apart at the first sign of division. It will always be the case that people will unite to gain power, and enact their own beliefs. It is a political reality, and it cannot be changed.

Bonus:

An equation for arriving at the intelligence of a crowd is to take the IQ of the lowest scoring member (of an IQ test) and divide that by the number of people in the crowd. .
I hate to say, I really hate to, and I fear someone will say Godwin's law, but do you think that the 'inherent wisdom' of the crowd was correct when they reached the decision to elect the Nazis to the Reichstag? I don't believe that people will always do the right thing, that is why we have the law in place.

[Viking Prince]

Politicians rarely utter anything other than the driest of homilies in defence of the most monotonous party line possible. How few of their mindless blatherings do they actually believe in? How vanishingly rare that a politician says something genuinely heartfelt, interesting or witty?

Political decisions are taken and alternative viewpoints sort behind closed doors. Even minor divergences are ruthlessly ironed out before the masses get a look in. Thus the paying public is presented only with the most facile and simplistic of choices.

For 500 odd years the English parliament managed without parties. For hundreds of years prior to that the Great Council and the Witan operated without parties.

Picture the scene:
A parliament comprised solely of individuals who owed loyalty only to the good will of their immediate electors and not to the machinations of a few grey suited party apparatchiks. People who would support or fight legislation based only upon the dictates of their own consciences or their electorates perceived best interests. Governments would be comprised of like minded individuals free to leave or join as they saw fit dependent only upon the choices made.

Is this possible?
Is it desirable?
Would it change anything?

Picture this scene:

A legislature composed of like minded people wanting the same outcomes from the political process. They were elected with a common organization assisting them in many aspects of a political campaign. Such cooperation is considered desirable in business with the formation of corporations, farmer coopoeratives, residential homeowners associations, etc. Why should such cooperation not be desired in this one aspect of social organization?