TED Conversations

Casey Kitchel


This conversation is closed.

Political parties should be banned in the United States of America.

In George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address, President Washington warned the American people of the dangers political parties pose to the nation's government (that of the United States under the Constitution). Considering the current government's stalemate and the abilities of political parties to “divide a nation”, it seems most evident that he was right in expressing his concerns for the future of this country and for the welfare of its people.

As it appears, elected officials are more concerned with maintaining their own party's control over their rivals rather than serving the interests of the people and opens up the debate on whether political parties should continue to dominate politics in the United States of America at the expense of the American people and at the expense of a functioning government.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 2 2013: I rather agree with your proposition; however, I can also see that parties - especially a two or three party system - have the ability to organize, coalesce and focus issues, actually have more incentive to compromise. To explain, "bi-partisan" action yields a higher level of justification of political action, and a higher level of societal cohesiveness,

    I think the United States needs public financing of elections as the only real way to fix the obsession to obtain money, the absolute necessity for vast quantities of money in politics, necessary to compete in US politics. Only public financing of elections will address this problem, and return representative government to the people.

    A second important change, would be to force the Senate to change its rule on filibuster, which is now a filing of a one page form by Senate leadership, which by filing, prevents a Constitutionally mandated simple majority vote where the Vice President (the Senate President) breaks a tied vote, requiring a 2/3's majority vote instead, which is not what the Constitutional stipulates. Our present paper filing to require a 2/3 majority, is quite extra-Constitutional. I believe it is not Constitutional.

    Reorganizing both Senate and House Committee structure would help, as well. I read that the last Supreme Court Nominee had to appear before 113 committees, many two or three times, before a confirmation vote. There is considerable redundancy of responsibility and power, originally providing work-a-rounds of obstinate members, but the system now allows any committee chairman, or a few committee members to block any legislation for any reason. I have over simplified this problem, but combined with money politics, this becomes a real problem. Maybe eliminating money from politics, will mitigate this problems too. Certainly committee politics is where lobbyist thrive.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.