system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Outright banning political parties would be a positive in the United States

I believe that banning political parties in the US would be a general positive for the people and nation as a whole. Here is my reasoning.

You won't have any political cushions, politicians would have to stand on their own two feet and explain their policies and why that matters and why it would benefit the people. It was interesting when the legislative elections were approaching, and for my highschool, we did a mock election where we all had to do research. Interestingly enough, the independent won the majority because he actually had to talk policy instead of people voting on party loyalty. Party loyalty is another problem, lots of people don't make informed decisions, they'll either vote red or blue. 


It would also make fairer elections. Currently in the presidential elections, only the swing states matter. Even massive states like California or Texas or New York that are firmly one party will not receive much attention by their party's candidate, because why go there and waste time? Its firmly your color. If there were no parties, there would be lots of candidates, every state would become a swing state as it could only take a few percentage points to flip to one candidate.


It would also allow smaller voices to be heard and gain traction. Currently if you're a democrat, you won't appeal to socialist ideas. Maybe economically left ideas like minimum wage, but unless you want to lose, you're going to pander and go with what the democratic voters want. Under a no party system, smaller voices will be heard as they don't have to side with the democratic party and thus pander if they want to win. 


It would also reduce the us vs them mentality that a lot of Americans have. There is a hostile relationship between Republicans and Democrats, and it doesn't make any sense since the political parties are so broad. 1/2 of the political spectrum is a huge place to encompass for a single party. A democratic voter could either be a 70s hippie promoting communes and peace and love, or a 1950s Soviet Communist or a democratic socialist. A republican voter could either be an anarcho-capitalist or a neo-nazi or a traditional conservative. So instead of having hatred towards someone based on their political party alignment, you'd actually have to learn their views. The us vs them just produces a toxic environment. It also applies to the government, where even if a bill in congress would be good, someone may vote against it just because it was proposed by the other side.


Political parties just incredibly simplifies and dumbs the political system down. It isn't good for the voter or for the government. It shouldn't matter if making a political vote is easy or not, a voter that doesn't vote out of impulse is better than one who votes by party color.
gpt
In a republic where there are over 500 voting members of the legislature, you need voting blocs to pass anything more than a resolution confirming the blueness of the sky.  No meaningful debate can happen unless those legislators nominate representatives (formal or otherwise) to argue their position and speak for them.

If those voting blocs exist, they must perpetuate themselves.  They'll take an interest in ensuring that allies are reelected and enemies are opposed.  They'll gather outside formal settings to discuss their philosophy and interests - they'll caucus.  They'll strategize about how to advance their agenda.

And now you have a party.


If we did away with parties, they'd reappear overnight in whatever configuration the law did permit.  George Washington was right about many things, but this fight is futile.