Note: This was draft I was saving for when the country gets into the meat of the next election but my blogging buddy, Judy Thompson, over at https://sayitnow.wordpress.com/ asked a question about political parties whether there should be a 3rd or maybe none at all….so I decide to answer her with this post (it will be back during the next election).
College of Political Knowledge
American Politics And The Process
Paper #1
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
―
Like many Americans, I have been increasingly disappointed by the candidates promoted by political parties because they tend to back candidates who are ultimately focused on personal gain and/or only advancing issues predetermined by party priorities while moving further away from responding to the needs of their constituents. According to The Guardian, in the 2024 election, the number of eligible voters who did not cast their ballot is more than the total of those who voted for either of the party candidates. So, maybe the real issue is that our political party system just isn’t working for most Americans anymore. Assuming this is even partially true, what if, instead of just complaining about the parties or holding our noses and voting for the “lesser evil” every November, we actually fired the parties—took away their grip on our democracy and built something better.
For decades, we’ve been told we only have two choices. But more and more Americans don’t feel truly represented by either major party. We’re exhausted by the noise, the blame games, the endless culture wars that solve nothing and only serve to increasingly marginalize portions of our citizenry. Americans want real solutions on housing, healthcare, education, wages, and the future we’re leaving for the next generation. And we’re not getting them. So, maybe it’s time to ask a radical but necessary question: What if the problem isn’t just the candidates but the political party system that keeps producing them?
The Case for Firing the Parties
A. They Were Never Supposed to Be Permanent
Political parties aren’t mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. The Founders didn’t design a system based on organized political factions. In fact, they explicitly warned against it. George Washington, in his 1796 farewell address, foretold that political parties would eventually “become potent engines” for individuals to seize and abuse power, dividing citizens and distracting the government from serving the public good. In a letter written by John Adams in 1780, he regarded the division of the republic into two great parties as “to be dreaded as the greatest political evil.” In a 1789 letter from Thomas Jefferson, he wrote: “If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”
Yet political parties arose almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified. These early versions of political parties formed largely out of necessity to organize debates and mobilize voters. Political parties were tools for winning elections. But over time, the tool began to control the system itself. Today, parties aren’t just optional organizers of ideas, they have become gatekeepers of power, often more loyal to themselves than to the people they claim to serve.
https://thefulcrum.us/bipartisanship/dangers-of-two-party-system
Our political system without these beasts would be more open and would promote collaboration between the politicians without the restraints of some silly party mechanism.
Gerrymandering would not be an issue….
I say the sooner we get rid of these thugs the sooner this country will return to its place as the trend setter for democracy.
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
I’m reminded of Poe’s “Pit and the Pendulum”.. the title fits here because that’s our choices right now… the pit or the pendulum.
The whole party system tells you what to believe….and in turn voters have become lazy. chuq
one thing about having distinct parties: it gives you a hand to hold, whether you vote one way or the other. But you should be shown that the ticket you have on voting day does NOT say you MUST vote one way or be hanged at noon…
Judy I just think our system would be better off without the ‘tribalism’ of parties. chuq
1. Role of Major Parties in Stability
In many democracies, especially the U.S., the two major parties (Democrats and Republicans) act as anchors for political stability. Here’s how:
Organizing government: They provide a framework for how elections, legislatures, and executive branches operate. Without them, the rules of governance would be fragmented.
Aggregating interests: Parties consolidate a wide array of individual opinions into coherent platforms. Without them, every voter’s opinion might have to compete individually, making decision-making chaotic.
Predictable transitions of power: Parties ensure that after elections, there is a known process for transferring authority. Without major parties, disputes over who should lead could become frequent.
2. Why People Fear “Anarchy” Without Them
The term “anarchy” in this context doesn’t usually mean complete lawlessness but political chaos:
Fragmentation: Hundreds of small parties or independent candidates could split votes so much that no one has a clear mandate.
Gridlock: Lawmaking could stall completely if coalitions are constantly forming and breaking.
Uncertainty: Citizens, businesses, and foreign partners might not know who really governs, undermining confidence in institutions.
So, when critics say “anarchy without the two parties,” they mean institutional disorder, not necessarily violent anarchy.
3. Implications for Democracy
Pros:
More choices for voters could increase representation for minority viewpoints.
Could break the monopoly of entrenched power and reduce polarization along strict two-party lines.
Cons:
Elections could become confusing and indecisive.
Minority or fringe parties might have disproportionate influence if coalitions are constantly shifting.
Accountability might decrease because no single group holds clear responsibility for policy outcomes.
4. Implications for Freedom
Potential gains: Individuals might feel freer to vote for candidates who truly match their beliefs rather than compromising for a major party.
Potential losses: If government effectiveness collapses, basic freedoms could be threatened indirectly—for example, if law enforcement, social services, or the economy become unstable due to lack of governance.
✅ Summary
Two-party systems act as stabilizers, aggregating interests, simplifying elections, and ensuring smooth governance.
Without them, the system could become chaotic, but “anarchy” is more about political instability than lawlessness.
Democracy might be more representative in theory, but less functional in practice.
Freedom could expand in voting choice but contract in practical governance if the state fails to deliver essential services or maintain order.
Geez! What to say? The parties have created the crap we are in now….without them the voter would be forced to look deeper into candidates and that cannot be a bad thing. chuq
We have two major political parties as you do. However, we also have the Liberal Democrats with 65 seats, Scottish and Welsh MPs with a dozen or more seats, plus Greens and Reform with 8-10 seats. Then there are the Northern Ireland parties, who mostly back the Conservative Party. So there is usually enough opposition ganging up to hold the government to account. At the moment, Starmer has a big enough majority to force any laws through, but that can change if enough of his own MPs rebel, as they did recently with changes to the State Retirement Pension. He had to backtrack on that because of opposition.
Best wishes, Pete.
We have some fringe parties but the 2 biggies help to marginalize them so they get very little exposure and the voter is too damn lazy to look for an alternative. chuq
“blogging buddy” Im blushing, lobo, actually blushing. and I really opened a door there, didn’t I. You’re right, and I’ve been subjected to it, indirectly, as I mention. “My way or the highway” pretty much sums it up too. And I think a no-party system would not, as Im sure people will argue about, cause chaos, but it would simplify choices for candidates, not parties. too many people vote the party and to hell with who’s running. If you are a Democrat and your candidate is an as-yet un-convicted Axe Murderer, you will forgive him his errors and vote him in, because, reasons.
It would force people to actually look at the candidate and his record, and go from there. Never mind his political leanings, it’s him you’re voting for. And Im sure there are a lot of people out there who claim one party but quietly vote the way they want, party be damned, just to keep peace in the family.
And I’ve said this before: the Republicans seem to cause the most trouble, the bigge$t dream$. and money be damned. The Dems spend most of their time in office mopping up afterwards.
I am glad you liked it. I stopped voting party after the 1980 election when I saw what was in store for the nation with Reagan…..I write that I have not voted for a winner since 1976….I look for a candidate with a message that is realistic and helps the people of this country. chuq
The only time I voted Republican was when Nixon was running. I felt sorry for him, for some reason, and then he turned into Watergate, and there goes the marriage, right there. he made a wonderful diplomate, but a lousy president. Sadly. And the only reason I stay Republican on the list and rarely vote that way, is because I can. Not because I have to.
After the 1980 election I saw what the GOP was up to and that the Dems were not being aggressive enough….so I have looked elsewhere ever since. chuq