American WI: Are Parties Avoidable?

[Emperor Norton I]

In the early days of the American republic, factionalism and political parties were feared as a possibility, as well as the prospect that politicians would strive to serve the interests of their party before the nation. Obviously, parties have come into being, factionalism in political life exists, and arguably, politicians serve party interest before national interest.

There may exist a bias in myself and many of us as we live in an age where this is common and seen as perhaps natural, but was the rise of parties and political factionalism a natural an inevitable evolution? Is there any way that this could have been avoided?

 

[Shawn Endresen]

Only through anachronism. Majority rule elections with single-seat constituencies naturally produce parties. Proportional representation assumes the existence of parties. Instant-runoff and multiseat constituencies can create a democracy that functions without parties - but no one will concieve of the first in that era, and the second are without precedent in British North America as far as I know.

 

[ryackov]

Even without parties, there will be various well-known coalitions or alliances of politicians, supporting various ideas or causes, along with trading political support.

 

[MNP]

No, it's impossible. People with similar interests align together and gain greater power which increases desire to align.

 

[Tom Veil]

Only through anachronism. Majority rule elections with single-seat constituencies naturally produce parties. Proportional representation assumes the existence of parties. Instant-runoff and multiseat constituencies can create a democracy that functions without parties - but no one will concieve of the first in that era, and the second are without precedent in British North America as far as I know.

Most U.S. states initially used multi-seat districts to elect their House members. Several continued to use multi-seat districts until the first mandate for one-seat districts in 1842.

 

[Tootlez]

I do believe this is possible... but not in the United States. We're a competitive people, parties are more of the backbone of us.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Even without parties, there will be various well-known coalitions or alliances of politicians, supporting various ideas or causes, along with trading political support.

No, it's impossible. People with similar interests align together and gain greater power which increases desire to align.

Agreed; any political system is going to have factionalism of some sort. People with common interests and ideals are going to work together.

 

[MNP]

The interesting thing in the historical America was that the founders thought of interests in terms of regions (i.e. states) where we tend to think of interests in ideological terms. While part of that might be the practice of the free movement, ease of communication and reduction of subsistence activity, ideologies seemed to develop very fast in the US and certainly there was various parties in Britain before even if wasn't like what happened later.

Balancing the US constitution in terms of ideological interests (parties) v. regional interests (states) might be interesting.

 

[Snake Featherston]

The only way for a real one-party system in the USA is something like a full-fledged Reign of Terror, and thus the emergence of a totalitarian system and even then there was still plenty of factionalism in all the historical totalitarian societies.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Balancing the US constitution in terms of ideological interests (parties) v. regional interests (states) might be interesting.

Actually, the original constitution was set up to do that reasonably well since Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures instead of being elected. In theory that should have kept the Senate representing the states, while the House was more party/ideology aligned.

In reality, once the national party system filtered down into the state legislatures it became an ideological debate, and there were eventually crippling practicality issues with that arrangement, which is why Senators get elected now.

 

[MNP]

Actually, the original constitution was set up to do that reasonably well since Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures instead of being elected. In theory that should have kept the Senate representing the states, while the House was more party/ideology aligned.

Sorry I didn't mean balancing parties against regional interests.

I meant balancing various parties instead of regional interests.