Should political parties be banned?

Question

THIS WOULD SOLVE THE PARTY FUNDING PROBLEM - THEN - WITH TWO VOTES ON THE BALLOT PAPER - ONE FOR YOUR LOCAL M.P. OPEN TO ALL COMERS (WITH RESTRICTIONS) - AND ONE FOR PM OPEN TO ALL COMERS (WITH RESTRICTIONS) - WE COULD VOTE FOR "BOTH PEOPLE ON THEIR PROMISES AND WHETHER THEIR BELIEFS ARE ALIGNED WITH OURS OR NOT- NOT WITH SOME ANTIQUATED POLITICAL MOVEMENT.

THE CHOSEN P.M. COULD THEN APPOINT CABINET MEMBERS BASED ON ABILITY AND POLITICAL BELIEFS IN EACH AREA OF POLICY AND NOT BECAUSE OF GENERAL POLITICAL ALIGNMENT.

SURELY THIS WOULD GET THE BEST OUT OF INDIVIDUALS WHO STAND FOR OFFICE - EVERY HOUSE OF COMMONS VOTE WOULD BE A FREE VOTE AND THE "WHIP" SYSTEM WOULD DISAPPEAR OVERNIGHT.

THIS WOULD ELIMINATE MUCH OF THE "SLEAZE" IN POLITICAL LIFE TOGETHER WITH ANY PROSPECT OF A "HUNG PARLIAMENT" TOGETHER WITH AN END TO THE DEBATE OVER "PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION" AND WOULD RESULT IN A "GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE", NOW AND FOREVER - WORKING FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY. IT SEEMS SO SIMPLE!!!!

Answer 1

immediately,you should not surrender the right to self determination to anyone take responsibility for yourself if you need a master you are a slave.If you cannot organise the social with the people around you you have no society.If you surrender your right to justice  you must let yourself be raped or robbed as any defence or retribution makes you the criminal.The alternative is to have your wealth taxed so you can be policed,represented(ha,ha)and have wars you don't believe in fought in your name with your money making you responsible for there actions(sorry wandering of the point)

Answer 2

They are in my house.  Anyone so much as mentioning a political party by name goes without dinner and must go to bed at once with a cold water bottle.  There, that'll teach them.

Answer 3

People of like mind in the Parliament would still get together to vote and others would combine to oppose them. Some one would appear to organise each group. We would be back to square one. its human nature

Answer 4

Only if they are socialist, liberal or the greens

Answer 5

Jefferson thought so.

Answer 6

hmmm maybe ban the amount of money spent under the table and above the table.

make the candidates get out and talk to the people instead of running polls to get a clue.

Answer 7

George washington chose to have no party, but he is the only US President to make this claim.

If political parties were banned, it would actually increase voter confusion. People who think alike on several issues (or sometimes only a few) will always band together in support of whichever candidate thinks along the same lines. This is natural behavior.

Over time, political parties evolve. Some die out, new ones form. The Republican Party eveolved from a faction that split from the Democratic Party.

Some countries have hundreds of politcial partied. We have two main ones and a few "third parties" that throw in a candidate every now and then.

Even if every party was disbanded, in ten years or less, new ones (not nessesarily as powerful) would be formed.

Havinmg different parties doesn't mean you can't peacefully coexist. I tend to vote for one party and my wife tends to vote for another. We have a very happy and stable marriage.

Answer 8

I don't really get your suggestion



you might meant to have a federation.

But if you meant to banned all politicals, then the country, or the world would be chaotic, you will always have someone to incharge the suitiations, for example. you parents tells you what to do when you are very young

Answer 9

NO.  We would end up with a dictatorship.

Do we wish for a communist state?

A fascist state?

A military dictatorship?

Answer 10

An interesting proposition and along the lines of my thinking. Not exactly banning parties but rather electing a representaive who promises to support the majority view of their constituents on every issue.

How can everybody's views be taken into account?

By using myverdict.net.

Answer 11

Yes we should all become commies and leave the parties to birthdays

Answer 12

how about just true campaign reform

1. u can only donate to people  u can vote for

2. no pac's corporate or foreign donations

3. must be us citizen to vote

4. unlimited donations but public list of the donors

5. 3 month campaign cycle in stead of it getting longer each election cycle if u cant make up your mind in 90 days your probity to lost anyway to ever learn

have to add one more

6. no donations to political parties the polititions can give a part of there raised funds to their own parties

these are probily not the be all end all but it will go along way to helping solve the problem

just these 5 changes would fix it , but it will never happen

Washington warned about political parties

Answer 13

it would be easier to give the royals their job back but i do agree

Answer 14

I find politics very confusing, as I'm sure,many others do. Not sure how you would manage a country's affairs without political parties. I know a lot of people who just are not interested in the "Vote" and would rather the decision be taken out of thier hands- which means, at some point, we need spokesperson's. Jings, this is going round in a circle. Am I the only one who doesn't understand??

Answer 15

I like the concept.

What are these 'restrictions'?