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 9 2013: Same is the case with India too. In India too political parties should be banned . All the democratic countries should ban the political parties and should opt for Direct Democracy.
    • thumb
      Jun 9 2013: Santokh,

      You're welcome to join this conversation on electronic direct democracy if you wish to discuss it further. http://www.ted.com/conversations/18759/does_your_country_have_an_elec.html?c=687722
      • Jun 9 2013: I have few questions you regarding E2D.

        Since voting would be done electronically, and the Internet seems to be increasingly hacked from inside the US and outside, how can we develop an internet-based election system that we can guarantee would be absolutely secure from hacking that could alter the outcome of elections?

        Our existing legislative body at the federal level consists of two houses -- one with representatives of each state, and the other representing individual districts within each state. How would we have to restructure our present system to incorporate the E2D system?

        Section 4 of this "manifesto" states that elected representatives must always vote on bills in accordance with the views expressed within the Party. Is this putting too much power into the hands of a single entity? What sorts of enforceable controls would be put on this entity that would ensure that its central leadership couldn't manage or manipulate matters for their own benefit?

        Many of the provisions of the manifesto would require major changes to our Constitution. Such changes have to be initiated either by Congress at the national level, or by individual state legislatures. Can you realistically see something like this happening with elected legislators (both at the federal and state levels) whose political campaigns are heavily financed by powerful financial interests would would strongly oppose any such change?

        And, last, the name used for this document is "Manifesto." Don't you suppose that name, as well as the fact that it would put the people back in control of their government, is likely to associate the movement with Communism and the document with the Communist Manifesto, thereby killing the movement in this country before it even gets off the ground here?
        • thumb
          Jun 9 2013: Hi Jim,

          I'm glad for all your questions, it would however be better if you post any further questions on the Conversation so that others that are also involved in E2D can give you answers for solutions that I'm not aware of. I'm not the leading character of this movement, just a small part. We do have an admin for the E2D website that seems to visit the conversation and he's much better at answering these question then I am. That being said, I'll give you the best answers I can.

          Paragraph 1. This TED Talk is a possible solution http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bismark_e_voting_without_fraud.html.
          But there are also other ways of assuring that the system hasn't been manipulated like comparing the results to opinion polls, and if they differ very much an inquery would have to be made.

          Paragraph 2. We would have party members of a DD party voted onto the position of say the house of representatives for a set period of time, once there s/he is pledged to cast all votes in accordance with the majority of the party.
          Most DD parties want to (at first) exist within the institutions that already exist and change them toward the DD approach,such changes will take time. the only other option would be revolution, and you don't start a party for that.

          Paragraph 3. It is not putting more power into anyone's hands then there is power put in people today, the only difference would be a higher accountability for your voting. If someone would break the pledge they would be disgraced and stripped of power as soon as possible.

          Paragraph 4. see paragraph 2.

          Paragraph 5. Yes, the fear of communism will be a problem. but it is not what any DD party is going for, simply majority rule. And the meaning of manifesto is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto it has no political siding.

          Hope that helped a bit.

          I'm sure that you have questions to those answers and if you could, could you please post them on http://www.ted.com/conversations/18759/does_your_country_have_an_elec.html
    • thumb
      Jun 9 2013: Let's see, India is close to a billion in population. DD is functional up to about maybe a 1000 population. After that it's problematic. We learned this in the USA awhile back. So, India could become 100,000 thousand little countries. That should work well.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.