Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

A goverment without political parties???

What would be the benefits/ drawbacks to a government without political parties?


Asked by skittles1108 at 11:31 AM on Mar. 12, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 26 (26,421 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (12)
  • What NP said. The founders warned us about getting involved in party politics, and it was because it becomes polarizing. People focus more on nitpicking and outright fighting than on getting anything done. What is good for the country becomes a moot point as long as someone wins. Our founders had the right idea. People should be running for office and elected based on what they have to offer ~ not on the letter (which means squat thanks to special interest groups/campaign donations) hanging behind their name.

    I wouldn't mind eliminating parties IF the way donations are handled would be changed drastically. But, given the current level of polarization, mixed with the overall level of stupid about politics, it would take three generations to fix the mess. Maybe a dictator in fact (instead of just name) would wake some people up.

    Answer by Farmlady09 at 2:00 PM on Mar. 12, 2011

  • I wouldn't want a dictator. I enjoy having choices when it comes to politics. That's the wonderful thing about living in this country. Also we do have a choice to change our political party if we're unhappy with the way our senators, congressmen and or President are doing their job. If we had a dictator alot of our freedoms would be lost.

    Answer by Kathy675 at 11:52 AM on Mar. 12, 2011


    These are just 2 examples of what happens when there are no political parties (or they have been 'ended') and one man heads the nation. I really don't want this here. We are people which means we aren't above this happening. It could happen anywhere that the citizens aren't diligent.


    Answer by jesse123456 at 12:24 PM on Mar. 12, 2011

  • Well you'd either have several million lobbying the capitol daily, sending a gazillion emails about stuff, etc OR you'd have a dictator.

    Answer by meriana at 11:42 AM on Mar. 12, 2011

  • Well, China is a one party rule. Lybia, Russia used to be. Hmmmm...

    Answer by Carpy at 11:43 AM on Mar. 12, 2011

  • I'd prefer MORE choices, not less.

    Answer by lovinangels at 11:58 AM on Mar. 12, 2011

  • A government without political parties is what the founders intended when they wrote the constitution. If they'd ever imagined that down the road people would unite into factions that supported candidates, they would've organized it completely differently. What they intended was for individuals to run based on their own merits, and people to vote on those individuals based on those merits. They never intended the lowest common denominators to spend a bunch of money and agree to play yes man to a group who wasn't even on the ballot.

    The other examples here of "one party" systems aren't what they meant either. They wanted no parties, just people.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 1:13 PM on Mar. 12, 2011

  • We'd be no different than any of the other countries lead by dictators....just look at the rise and fall of some of what were once greatest civilizations, all due to the rule of a single regime! Our "checks and balances" system is what prevents such a regime from happening here! You cannot allow a single regime from assuming power, it never ends well!

    Answer by LoriKeet at 12:04 PM on Mar. 12, 2011

  • OMG Skittles! I'm so confused now with the choices we have, please no more choices! LOL

    Answer by Kathy675 at 12:11 PM on Mar. 12, 2011

  • Oops!! government, not goverment!!

    Comment by skittles1108 (original poster) at 11:32 AM on Mar. 12, 2011