(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); The discussion of politics, and governments has everyone wondering if the world would be a better place without political parties.

George Washington asked one thing, to not make different parties and we did. America has shut down the government for days due to disgreements more than once. What would it be like if we didn't disagree and everyone agreed?

Probably not. Political parties centralize a vast array of opinions into a single, popular platform. Political dissonance and ineffective legislation is not a result of political parties but of stupidity, arrogance and self-motivated agendas. Money in politics does more harm for the effectiveness of legislatures than partisanship ever will.

But if you think about it, the economy, life in general, and peace would be a hell of a lot better without the parties.

And I quote from George Washington, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

"However, [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Economics and politics don't go hand in hand, so no. They are only casually related - at least as far as most of the Western world is concerned where free markets are only supplemented with government, rather than a market derived by the government.

I wouldn't say life would be better. Several areas in the world don't have political parties, or politics at all, and they're complete shitholes. Political parties don't bring ruin to lives, major setbacks to classification do. Look at Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tibet, Laos or Libya. They have no political parties and it's still repressive as can be. I'll take my bipartisan Congress if it means that I can take a shit in a house with running water. However, as far as the United States is concerned, we're one of the worst supporters of our poor in helping them build a life for themselves - this shouldn't be read as a rally for more entitlement programs or social aid but a call to help people not be stuck in a perpetual rut their entire life without being an exceptional human being.

As far as peace goes, we'll never achieve peace if people disagree. That's just a sad statement of reality. It's disappointing that people can't disagree - but again, we're not looking at political parties as a culprit. So many issues are so much bigger than just partisanship...

Some of the things abolishing political parties might help with though are deciding Western issues like abortion, food stamps and retirement aid.

I don't think the world would be a better place, but I currently feel that most political parties do not do a decent job of representing the people that even voted for them. I often make a point near elections to read through party manifesto's to see what they're doing and why I should even bother to vote yet none of the parties even mention anything I honestly care about. I'm particularly worried about freedom of speech at the moment because of shit like this happening:

You must login or register to view this content.

Someone was honestly arrested in this country for telling a joke, hell the joke may have been in bad taste but that's ridiculous. I would understand if the guy had directly threatened someone which certainly be malicious communication but a joke, unbelievable.

EDIT: I would really like for there to be an option on the election slip "I am not voting for any party as I agree with none of them" that way I and others could at least register that we have no confidence in the parties that govern the country rather than them just speculating that I and others do not care, that way perhaps the government could see how many people think they're doing a really shit job.

Anyway back to the question, I don't think it would be a better place but politicians should be well informed people from different sectors of society and different backgrounds, what really hacks me off is that there are politicians in parliament that have never worked a day in their lives, they've gone straight into politics from private school and have no fucking clue about how things work yet they're suppose to be representing these people, this seriously needs to stop. Now not that I like Nigel Farage or his party, I'd honestly prefer the UK to stay in the EU with some tighter controls on immigration, but I would honestly prefer if more politicians were a little like him, he's had over 10 years in business before he became a politician, at least he understand how the real world works unlike many of the others. Also take the recent web filters that they rolled out across the UK, Mr Cameron's greatest idea yet, everybody that had a shred of common sense with regards to technology said it would be a huge waste of time and money to implement and not work yet he didn't listen and went ahead, he has no understanding of how the internet works and why blocks would be infective but he pushed forward with the shitty idea and a few months after it rolled out it was a failure and nobody was even using it, wow who'd have though. Essentially what I'm getting at is politicians should not be legislating on things they don't not have a background in, Theresa May and Cameron's web filters were a huge fucking waste of time and money, As for staying in the EU, honestly the EU seems to be the only parliament that with a shred of commons sense that tries to make things better for the people and not for corporations:

You must login or register to view this content.

No it wouldn't, but two-party system isn't good either.

I don't see what's wrong with a two party system. In American politics, anyway, it's all controlled on money and the next election. Money speaks louder than ideology and all more parties would just further the stalemate. In the United States, the Republican and Democratic parties as close to the center as you can possibly get without a single unified party - which is beneficial when you're looking at local issues like zoning restrictions, property and excise taxes - rarely do the parties ever have a large divide on these issues and bills are pushed through with enough earmarks so everyone wins. It's only the hot button divides that are fueled by big money like oil, abortion and insurance and money would leak into every other party that entered the Capitol Building as well.

While some might like to believe they'd stand for their values, your values mean squat if you haven't actually been offered $850,000 for them.

But that's the problem.

They are trying to divide the country so people have to "choose" from one when in reality it doesn't matter what you vote because they are the essentially the same thing. That's not democracy at all.

US is more like plutocracy than a democracy.

The US is a republic, not a democracy or a plutocracy. The only way the US could be defined as a plutocracy is if funding limits were removed. When people say that money controls politics, (I hope) they mean lobbying money - not campaign contribution. Lobbies exist for all sides on an issue and special interest groups often find themselves with money to represent. AARP, for example, is one of the most influential lobbying groups for the elderly - they claim 40 million members (and counting), sell accessible health insurance, long-term care, auto and life insurance and brings in a revenue of $800 million. But we can't possibly associate that with the idea that 40 million elderly people all fall within the wealthy class, that would be absurd!

We have some strict failures though, and most of those failures fall on the younger generation in the United States. That's why most of Generation XYZ has completely different outlooks than their predecessors, because they're stuck in a system that has failed them for 60 years with no political voice. We'd be better off in this country establishing a minimum wage increase over a 35 year cycle and disestablishing the Fed, disestablishing quantitative easing, improving social training programs and improving public school districts.

One of the worst offenders to youth depreciation in the United States has been the inadequate means to deal with children in school, so they often graduate dumber than a door nail. We're then having a mixed competition of these ne'er-do-wells and struggling workforce competing for the same level of employment. Since it's also illegal for employers to discriminate or use personal information to set wages, we've basically created a system where lowest common denominator is your applicable value.

And none of that, none, has anything to do with political party divide.

Most problems when it comes to politics is ideology based with people unwilling to shift in to get agreements.
Partisan is a problem at times, made even worse when you have lobby groups.
When worse when you have a high number of safe seats, and a voting system which hurts voters.

Best way of putting it if voters start voting against you does that not hint your policy is incorrect.
Current line of thinking is most policy based on neoliberalism school economic and politics.

Humans suck at working together and seeing the bigger picture parties was designed to help reduce that. Parties should be reformed so they work better together along with politics in general. Given how many checks USA has no wonder how a small group can cause a shutdown.