AH Challenge: No Poltical Parties

Your challenge if you choose to accept it, with a POD of 1789, prevent political parties from becoming prominent in the United States. Maybe the constitution bans Government officials from serving in a political organization?
 
I don't think a POD after 1789 could work out. The easiest way I could see is if the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention put their concerns on paper and add a ban on political parties to the Constitution.
 

Keenir

Banned
Your challenge if you choose to accept it, with a POD of 1789, prevent political parties from becoming prominent in the United States. Maybe the constitution bans Government officials from serving in a political organization?

Just have politicians continue the tradition of standing for office, rather than having it change to them running for office.
 
In a democracy - or in a republic, in this case - political factions are inevitable. In the Federalist papers, Madison discusses the possibility of factions arriving, and of the necessity that they do develop to foster stability. So an American republic lacking factions would thus by nature be volatile and violence-prone. But in order to prevent all factions, a dictatorship along the lines of France under the terreur is in order. Perhaps under the Federalists, or the Democratic-Republicans if the Alien and Sedition Acts could be made to suppress all dissent...
 
And yet, the Constitution actually does nothing to restrain factions. We see it, the Republicans operate in a parliamentary manner, the Democrats less so but we are whipping them into compliance. But the system is not designed to function that way. I guess I shouldn't blame the Founders for it, I mean they did a pretty good job despite their truly incredible consumption of alcohol, but their naivete in that bemuses me.

Is it possible to create a system that lacks political factions? Even in a cult-of-personality develops factions.
 
The problem with this lies in the nature of government. Any political system where power is delegated in more than one or two hands is going to lead to factions forming, to increase the relative power of individuals. A system of government which is on the large end in terms of participation (a democracy, inclusive oligarchy, etc...) is going to encourage this more and more, because the individual is going to be diluted in the overall political arena.

And the American system of government, particularly the means by which the president is elected, also encourages the formation of parties, specifically a bipolar party system. broad-based national coalitions are often internally divided, but they have a much easier time competing against regional parties or individuals. Wider base of support, greater organization, etc...

I can see the parties having relativly less sway, or being less official (either of these might not even need a pre-1789 POD), but to get rid of a party system entirely and keep the government reasonably democratic isn't going to happen. Sooner or later, somebody will see the value of political alliances.

Now, I suppose that you could keep the franchise restricted a bit longer, and during this time the butterflies might prevent political parties as we know them from coalescing, but I don't know how long this system could hold out.
 
Many cities have nonpartisan elections. In theory there's no reason this couldn't happen to a nation, esp one like the US that early on only has a small fraction of its population able to legally vote, white males of a particular church with substantial property.

Have the Federalists and Anti Federalists form a few years early. Have Washington asked to become party leader by both groups. Have him refuse them both, publicly and strongly, setting a precedent that's followed by all presidential candidates til the 20th century.
 
Your challenge if you choose to accept it, with a POD of 1789, prevent political parties from becoming prominent in the United States. Maybe the constitution bans Government officials from serving in a political organization?

You are aware that even if political parties as we know them are not prominent in the US "partisanship" will still exist in American poilitics.
I suppose the Founding Fathers could have explicitly forbidden federal officials and candidates for federal office from joining or participating in political parties. That would do nothing to prevent political parties from forming at the state and local levels however, nor would it preclude people with specialized intersts from organizing into groups in order to support and influence public policy and politicians or prohibit an individual from belonging to a special interest group or political party and then resigning from it prior to becoming a candidate for federal office.


Many cities have nonpartisan elections. In theory there's no reason this couldn't happen to a nation, esp one like the US that early on only has a small fraction of its population able to legally vote, white males of a particular church with substantial property.

Have the Federalists and Anti Federalists form a few years early. Have Washington asked to become party leader by both groups. Have him refuse them both, publicly and strongly, setting a precedent that's followed by all presidential candidates til the 20th century.

Candidates for the presidency will still need supporters and backers, and will still need to take stands on the issues of the day and will still have a voting and public policy record. In other words, they may claim to be non-partisan in the tradition of Washington (as you've laid it out), but that non-patrisanship would be nothing but a facade. But then again, maybe after 200 years we'd have a more perfect union today, one in which the President (and I'm speaking generally, not about any specific OTL POTUS)actively, with an open mind listens to all points of view and then decides, based upon them, what is in the best interest of this nation, and crafts a course of action or make a decision accordingly.
 
Top