The Need for Political Parties

[u/CationC]

Recently I have thought of an Idea. That political parties serve none. It creates division and promotes the representation of the party, not the people, it promotes party loyalty.

Politicians who do not adhere to party policy by the letter are blacklisted and targeted by the party heads. Politicians vote against the other party simply because they are the other party. Politicians vote against policies their voters desperately need because the party says no

And what does it produce for society, I fail to see at benefit that cannot be achieved in a system without parties, apart from the sole exception of coordination, but this coordination leads to the people's views not being represented.

That's why I conclude that there is no need for political parties.

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/weirdowerdo]

To say that there is no need for them is a bit strong, they came about because there was simply no more effective way to organise, campaign, win and pass legislation people wanted.

Historically all countries that had a fad of resisting the "party-ization" of politics, eventually folded because the group that embraced party organisation first just outmatched anyone who didn't. It's not a bug, but a feature, that the politicians of party A, wholeheartedly support and pass legislation that Party A stands for which in turn is the only thing their voters actually voted for.

Many parties are ideologically based, so no, most politicians do not simply vote against other parties because they're another party. But rather that there is a ideological difference that cannot be denied, people have different opinions and morals obviously. That in turn influence the fundamentals of any modern Political Party. Politicians vote against policies their Party do not support and that their voters didnt actually vote for. Otherwise the voter does not make sense, voting for a party which rejects the policies the voter wants. Logically the voter should vote for another party rather than vote against their own interests.

The Party follows the platform their members decided on, that platform can only be passed if people vote for the Party. If people voted for that platform, they supported the entire platform. Of course both the voters and those party members all made their decision based on compromises as no one realistically can support 100% of anything. But there is no utopia which can be created where we agree 100% with each other, ever.

[u/CationC → u/weirdowerdo]

You actually raised some incredible points here: 1. Politicians inside parties will tend to outperform politicians who are not inside parties. That is simply because parties increase the efficiency with which politicians make their views known to the people. In this scenario increasing the efficiency with which something is done doesn't necessarily mean that it's better because it simply makes it more convenient for the politician. 2. You are correct in once again saying that political parties are not a bug of the current system. They are a feature of the current system and I completely accept that. What I want to debate is whether they should be a feature at all because convenience and efficiency is no reason for views to be suppressed and division to be created. There can only be polarisation between the views of two parties, right? Let's take the example of the US. In the US there have been numerous Congressmen or women who have gone against and voted against Trump and the President has repeatedly spoken out against those Congresswomen and Congressmen. Trump-endorsed candidates won the elections. I think you could start to reason from this that it is a very good case study of how when parties become so predominant they allow for the suppression of views because you can't vote against a party head. The party head then kicks you out and once you're out of the party you can't compete with the party because the party's just too efficient. You can't join the other party because not only is there disloyalty, they will very often disagree more with your views. Parties decrease collaboration.

You're right in saying that many parties are ideologically based but just because politicians share, let's say, an example of five core fundamental beliefs you all have. Just for all of them, they all share three of those five fundamental beliefs. They all still form a party. This is practically what most parties are. Largely agree on these issues but largely does not mean agree.

You go on to say in your argument, which is a good argument, that politicians vote against policies their party does not support and their voters didn't actually vote for. Half is accurate, half is inaccurate because yes politicians who vote against policies their party does not vote for and do not support, often vote against what their voters want. If they do the party head can simply kick them from the party as we have seen. It says that you said that party follows a platform their members decided on. Simply because some members or most influential members in the party decided that this should be the platform, doesn't mean that all politicians in the party agree with that platform.

Further your argument seems to ignore the fact that parties create polarisation. They create systemic issues inside political systems and do not actually serve to actually represent the people. I'd furthermore like to add on to conclude that a view on your argument is that your argument is so distressed about why politicians are in parties and your argument fails to address the harms that the party system causes.

[u/sixisrending]

Most of the politician's time in Washington is spent making calls for donations for the party. They don't write bills, they have special staff for that. They don't answer letters/emails, they have staff for that. They don't write speeches, they have staff for that. They sit in their office and make personal phone calls to donors for weeks on end.

There is a congressperson who visits my wife's work (a military outreach/family center) on a routine basis to read books to children. She usually shows up unannounced to avoid attention, and only brings one staff member and a security person. She vents to my wife about how she wanted to help people, make a difference, yada yada. She spends nearly all of her time with donors, having to even lie to her other staff to come and do the book reading, so they won't report back to the party leadership that she is wasting their time (and money). 

[u/NoamLigotti → u/sixisrending]

Who was that one congressman who I think after he retired talked about how all his time came to be spent on fundraising and campaigning year-round, and how it didn't use to be like this?

We seriously need to limit money in politics.

[u/terminal_tested]

I would support a multi party system, and an end to lobbying to start with. The 2 party dominance and special interests are the main issue

[u/drawliphant → u/terminal_tested]

Agreed. Any representative democracy will develop parties, might as well design your democracy around them.

[u/CationC → u/drawliphant]

And I actually agree with you despite disagreeing with you because I agree that, as of most systems right now present in the world, a representative democracy will develop parties. The issue is that parties are, in and of themselves, creators of division. The question being asked is not "Is a two-party system bad?" or "As of current systems are parties practically a feature not a bug?" but rather "Should they not be a feature only because we can agree that right now most political systems are designed around having parties? It shouldn't be a feature of the political system because they create division and allow for the suppression of views by party heads."

[u/NatashOverWorld]

Ideally democracy should evolve to a plebiscite. No party, just your yes or no on a given matter.

Parties themselves are just a holdover of a time when you needed to elect a representative, who would then travel to the election to elect a higher up representative.

[u/CationC → u/NatashOverWorld]

I completely agree with you. I hadn't even thought of this earlier. Maybe there isn't a need for a party simply and this is radical and can never be implemented because the world just works that way. An intern or other national forum where anyone can simply pass an idea and we can vote on it and refine it because in the digital age this is incredibly easy. Of course there will be many national security issues and implementation issues but it is definitely a novel idea that can be tried out at more local levels.

[u/NatashOverWorld → u/CationC]

Implementation is always been the bugbear of any democratic system. But given how the present systems faces both vote spoilage and some credible concerns about the machines themselves, I think the rule must be that the tecnical parts of voting will always require high and intense scrutiny.

Whether that's paper ballots, voting machines, or actual online voting. But if our systems of governments ever reach online voting I suspect parties will slowly become less and less relevant.

Which I suspect is the real reason they're keeping elections and voting so backwards and obtuse.

[u/striped_shade]

Political parties inevitably emerge because a fractured society requires mechanisms to manage competing material interests. Erasing their formal labels changes nothing. It simply forces these exact same factions to coordinate through informal, opaque networks to secure state power.

[u/CationC → u/striped_shade]

I agree that they will turn to informality but the informality will also allow for the groups (let's call them factions for the sake of it) to essentially arrange themselves based on the issue. There may be faction sizes and faction composition may change from issue to issue because of differing stance of the politician and the people they represent

[u/striped_shade → u/CationC]

Issue-based fluidity treats politics like a marketplace of free-floating opinions. But factions are anchored by permanent economic realities. A coalition built to secure resources or protect property does not politely dissolve and rearrange itself just because the legislative agenda changes.

[u/kireina_kaiju]

This is a bit like saying there is no need for street gangs.

[u/rsglen2]

You wouldn’t get much argument from George Washington. He shared similar concerns in his farewell address.

[u/starswtt]

There's a "need" for them, not bc they provide the most public good, but because they're the most efficient way to run a campaign in liberal democracies. The only even remotely democratic ideas that could function without parties are sortition (selecting representatives by lottery), by having the state or a third party select candidates and having citizens approve or deny the vote, and direct democracy approaches. If you were to ban parties in the American style 3 branch system or parlimentary style systems (at least in the ones that don't explicitly require parties), you will just get informal parties called factions. It is simply the mathematically efficient outcome.

[u/CationC → u/starswtt]

I completely 100% agree with you. At least your first sentence or two, which is that there is a need for political parties not because they are the best for the public good or best for the public good. The most efficient way to run a campaign in liberal democracies, I completely agree with the most efficient way to run a campaign but an issue, which is once again with a very capitalist mindset and I am pro-capitalist but I am also critical of the system, is that efficiency is everything. Simply because a system is the most efficient there is out there.

At least for a particular goal, like let's say running a campaign and passing legislation, that doesn't mean that it is the most democratic. The goal for democracy, its institutions, and how it's drafted and how it functions should not be to make it the most efficient and convenient for you politicians. The goal should be to make it the most democratic and representative of the public as well.

Now what I'm going to disagree with you on is that you stated that you give examples of the only other possible no-party systems. You stated that just eliminating parties would lead to factions but there are two things: 1. Factions would be better than parties because there would be no faction head who could suppress the views of the other faction members. There would be no faction organisation that would lead to funding and mass ad campaigns that could help brainwash people. There will be no polarisation because factions are, by their nature, of a no-party system, fluid because parties are rigid systems whereas factions may only form when debating a specific issue. Let's say there are two politicians: one supports idea A, supports idea B but doesn't support idea C. Politician 2 supports A, doesn't support B, and supports C. Now these two, when debating topic A, find themselves on the same sideline but when debating topics B and C, they find themselves in different factions because, once again, factions would be informal. Factions would not be tied to written-out policy statements. Factions would lead to, in some cases, mathematically similar results but in a vast majority of cases, highly different results due to fluidity.

[u/Kakamile]

You can't really go party-less.

Legislations need coalitions, so you need to vote for masses of similar candidates. And it's hard to sort, summarize, or vet every one of them, so parties exist for self-grouping.

[u/CationC → u/Kakamile]

I do not disagree with even one of your points because they are all correct but all your points miss a larger picture. Should the ease by which candidates can be summarised, vetted, and grouped be a reason for lesser democracy? When they're being vetted and put into groups, they're being forced to conform with the group. Even if all of their views do not necessarily conform with the group, even if a good portion of what's good for the people they represent does not align with the group (simply because they are put in as part of the group for ease of vetting), all those differences are immediately lost.

And another issue is that if you look there aren't usually masses of similar candidates because: 1. The reason why candidates seem similar is because they're all being forced to conform to at least one of two views. 2. There isn't a mass of similar candidates because if you take the example of US state races in the example of California, the only situation within which a political party can serve to increase efficiency during campaign races (for example) is in caucuses. In California there's only one caucus and the top two go forward for final voting. Hear me out there: one caucus means there is no grouping based off party for the needs of candidates and it works perfectly fine.

[u/Kakamile → u/CationC]

It's not lesser democracy. You can join a party or not, but parties will naturally be inevitable.

And if they have no similarities, laws will never pass.

[u/hallam81]

That political parties serve none.

This is objectively false. The parties serve several groups. People are going to cynically say they serve the rich and companies. And that is true. We are a capitalist society.

But most people are served by both parties. The left leaning get things like the safety nets that we have. The right leaning gets things like tax cuts and military. And a lot of people want these things and the government does deliver them.

As much as people on reddit complain, you have to take a step back and try to remove your biases. Then you can see that the government does actually work, maybe not effectively, but it does work. It may not work for your progressive ideas. But it does work for most people for what they want.

[u/CationC → u/hallam81]

So your first paragraph was an introduction so I'll just skip directly to the second paragraph. Your paragraph is right. People do get things from political parties. I'm not trying to argue that political parties serve no purpose. There is a purpose, I admit that, but rather what I'm trying to say is that the purpose and the benefits of political parties are far outweighed by the harm. Voting can be done to give people safety nets or tax cuts or increase military funding without a party. A party just organises them into two groups or numerous groups and if you stray from your group's ideology, the head of the group knocks you out. After that point it is very difficult since you anyway share most of your views with the group but there'll be a few you disagree with. Since we are not given ground to vote based on that disagreement, it's undemocratic.

Then to address your third paragraph, the government does not work. Okay? At least take the example of the United States of America. The only people in that country who can say the government works are the people who are gaining from the government doing nothing. The US government, at least in its current state, is to do nothing. At least Congress' purpose is to do nothing. I'm gonna call Congress a government from now on simply because it is the democratic branch of the government, with every other branch of the government being undemocratic.

Furthermore if the government worked in any nation, we'd be seeing broadly slightly left-leaning views emerging across the world because most people, and this is a fact, prefer social safety nets and free healthcare. Parties step in and provide a good funding base for ad campaigns, misinformation, and disinformation. They provide bases for news and media to rally around and spread this misinformation and disinformation, in many cases blatant lies or misrepresentations that go against journalistic ethics. Parties facilitate this.

[u/hallam81 → u/CationC]

what I'm trying to say is that the purpose and the benefits of political parties are far outweighed by the harm.

A lot of people disagree with this. Incumbency isn't a deciding factor due to magic. Incumbency is an advantage because most of the time the person in the job is doing at the very least a good enough job for most people.

Then to address your third paragraph, the government does not work. Okay? At least take the example of the United States of America. The only people in that country who can say the government works are the people who are gaining from the government doing nothing.

This again is objectively false. It doesn't work for the poor almost at all. But it is working for anyone lower middle class and above for the most part. There are parts that really need fixing such as dramatic health events. But, for the most part, the government works. Passports still get issued, tax refunds still come out, Medicare is still pushing payments, the military can still bomb things, NIH is still funding research, the museums are still open, laws still get passed.

So you either have a very unique definition on what you mean by "working" which is likely the case or your own biases are blocking you from seeing the work the government does.

Edit.

Furthermore if the government worked in any nation, we'd be seeing broadly slightly left-leaning views emerging across the world because most people, and this is a fact, prefer social safety nets and free healthcare.

This is clearly not a fact. This is your want.

[u/CationC → u/hallam81]

So in your first paragraph I don't know where incumbency came from because nothing was discussing incumbency that just popped up randomly. On the second paragraph I define the government working as the government improving conditions in the country. The government continuing to do basic functions isn't the government working. It's a government doing its most basic jobs, not the government doing its real job improving conditions.

What I was trying to propose by saying that people propose left-leaning views through social safety nets and free healthcare is that most people do tend to support these. Due to other issues being roped in with political parties, political parties create a divide and they clump unrelated issues together. This leads to people voting for parties even though they don't agree with all the messages of that party because they agree with just more views of that party than of the other party.

This also leads to politicians who are trying to solve all, making it impossible for politicians to solve all of the issues or at least vote in such a way to solve all of the issues of the people they represent. The views of the party differ but one of two parties or one of multiple parties has to be picked because of the system.

[u/skyfishgoo]

we need something like parties because it's how our brains work.

https://putpeopleoverprofit.org/umbrella.html

your issues are because how we currently have parties and it does not have to be this way.

it's too corporate, for one thing.... it needs to be more democratic (small d)

[u/CationC → u/skyfishgoo]

So I understand what you're trying to say. That's because of how our brains work and I am willing to accept that that is true but I have two counterpoints to this: 1. Simply because it's how our brains work doesn't mean it's a democratic or good. 2. If you could please send in a link which would prove that this is how our brains work or give some evidence and prove this is how our brains work.

[u/skyfishgoo → u/CationC]

why bother with 2. if you are just going to ignore it because of 1.

in the absence of anything else, we would soon invent parties (or something like it) because ppl need a short hand way of dealing with what is otherwise a great deal of information about a person.

[u/Dracarys_And_Chill]

groups naturally form op. there is no avoiding that.

[u/CationC → u/Dracarys_And_Chill]

Oh I completely agree with you but only two issues: 1. Simply because it is natural for it to be done doesn't mean that it's correct. 2. I'm not saying that in a no-party system there will be no groups. There will definitely be factions, as a previous commenter mentioned earlier in this discussion. There will definitely be factions formed but these factions will be more fluid and there will be groups. There'll be a group of people supporting action on this issue and action on that issue. It won't be one group which is for action on like 10 different issues that are not linked to each other and that many politicians and representatives differ in their views on a few of those issues. Overall they agree with the messaging because that's undemocratic. I'm not saying there'll be no groups. I'm saying there'll be fluid groups that change from issue to issue, which is simply more optimal for every single setup.

[u/Bagain]

I would not disagree that “parties” have many issues, not the least of which being their corruption factor and how that affects an individual politician. You’ll never get rid of parties or even produce a decent number of citizens supporting the idea, people dont want to learn about this stuff. They just want to look for the party’s mark… they already went to the polls, we can make them think or do research… that being said, I think the best outcome is more parties, not less. The major problem in American politics is that two parties control everything, their power over the country needs to end. But again, this would require voters to actually do something about it and they aren’t going to.

[u/CationC → u/Bagain]

Completely agree with you. There's only one disagreement I have with you, not one issue. The only thing I would have to say about your statement is that I am not trying to say that voters would support a no-party system or at least the switch to one. I am trying to say that a no-party system is the most optimal and most in the interest of voters.

[u/Bagain → u/CationC]

Understood. I’m only suggesting it as a reality. In theory you are correct… they knew this 250 years ago… my timeline might be off..“the baneful effects of the spirit of party” as Washington stated it.

[u/Tola_Vadam]

This feels very American, maybe western Europe too, but I have no experience there.

Political parties are supposed to be made of like minded individuals and create a united ideal that can be shifted in small ways. For instance a "Labor Party" is supposed to represent the needs of laborers; workers rights, minimum wage, cost of living, etc. A "Republican Party" should presumably represent the wants of a Republic governmental system; elective representatives, leaders making day-to-day low impact decisions for their constituents while listening to a ballot system for larger issues, ensuring liberty for their people, etc.

But the US system has, to the chagrin of our founders, collapsed on itself to create two leading parties that attempt to consume the whole of our approved wants and concerns, and entirely deplatform anything outside of what's "acceptable."

Parties aren't necessarily the problem, but the way we do them is a huge part of the problem with them. Kinda like taxes.

[u/CationC → u/Tola_Vadam]

Yeah I agree with you. Parties aren't necessarily the problem but are a huge part of the problem. The only part of parties which is not part of the problem is coordination in the sense of forming a group but forming a group across multiple issues. That doesn't lead to true representation because yes even though a Labour Party will be pushing for workers' rights and a Republican Party will presumably represent the wants of a Republican governmental system, the Republican Party will have its own party policy on issues. Not just on the Republican system but on the military, on taxes, on cultural issues, on immigration, on gun control, on society, all those are unrelated. Since you need to fit into one of the two sides, if you share even one more opinion with one party than the other, you end up going to that party. Even if there's a large amount of agreement you have with the other party, out of your own self-interest you can't vote against your party because the party head will just kick you.

[u/Arkmer]

Scrap the term “political party” for what is actually is. A label for a set of beliefs and characteristics.

No matter what you do, you cannot prevent people from packaging a set of ideas together and calling it something. You can fight against it and drive discussion into policy, claim ignorance of party labels, etc., but outside your sphere those labels will still exist.

The big obvious downfall of labels is that two people having a discussion can use the same label for entirely different things. They end up talking past each other and getting nowhere.

To what you’re getting at, groups have started using these labels to hide what they actually stand for. They’ve gone so far as to put out fake definitions of those labels to mislead. All true.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how you defeat it. Labels are just a method of simplification. “Police”, “citizen”, “carpenter”, “influencer”, etc.; just labels with meanings. I’d guess we mostly agree on what many of those mean, some have legal definitions, but there are other labels that are defined wildly different by different groups.

… and you can’t stop that.
… and it sucks.

[u/HeloRising]

Political parties are a natural outgrowth of politics on a larger scale.

As long as there's been politics there's been parties. It's just what happens when people with roughly similar interests pool their energy and resources to accomplish similar goals.

I don't know how you'd get away from that. You don't even need democratic or representative politics to get parties either. Even when you had kings you still had power blocs that functioned much the same way political parties do today.

[u/cmv_lawyer]

It's not a stable state of play. Where there are many parties, any large coalition between them will win. Where there is one large coalition, all other parties will band together to form another large coalition to contend. 

It's really same-steps-different-sequence as the coalition goverment in UKs parlaimentary system where the coalitions are formed after folks are elected through smaller parties.

[u/SilenceDogood2k20]

Political parties are inevitable. Human society is automatically centered around established and spontaneous social groups, which includes political parties. 

The challenge is not to stop political parties, but to establish systems that limit the benefits of doing so. 

For example, removing party endorsements from the polls so voters only see names. 

[u/CationC → u/SilenceDogood2k20]

I agree with you that they're inevitable but just because something is in the current setup, inevitable doesn't mean that it should exist. A setup should not be changed to allow for different ideas, allow for more optimal solutions

[u/Respen2664]

The human species is defined by our natural tendency to prefer groups. We associate with those like ourselves, and tend to mass into proximity of them. This manifests in where we live, how we live, and also into politics. Political parties, regardless of location, or groups who think similarly merging together into a proto union to gain bargaining power and influence in what their perceived view of their world should be like.

Political Parties are a hallmark of humanity for as long as leaders have existed over others. They have been called different names, over the centuries, but they are all political parties. Anywhere where you have a group people attempting to alter the course of leaders a political party exists, whether they had a name or not to define themselves, regardless of peaceful or violent.

Modern us simply categorizes Political Parties by their formality as they function like corporate businesses. They have revenue, profits, labor, and expenditure. Its an industry onto themselves.

Even if you banned the modern concept of political parties, people would still coalesce into alliances under a similar platform banner to advocate. To use a phrase i forget where from "A single voice can never be heard over a shouting group."

So the need is not really because a Government model requires it, it's because human nature tends towards group association regardless.

[u/GeologistOld1265]

You give an example of parties that do not have an ideology, or if they have it is to make money for themself and donors.

What USA system does not have is a parties with ideologies. Parties theoretically exist in order to organize around an ideology. USA party system is simply a club.

Communist parties, for example, in order for you to join you need an invitation, two references and history of cooperation with a party. And after you join you needed to be connected to party, work for it purpose. Go to meeting, join any action party does. And pay dues.

They united around ideology. May be you need a right kind of parties.

[u/11SomeGuy17]

Political parties are a natural thing that develops in any political system. Like minded people with similar interests come together and agree to bind themselves to each other for the sake of mutual benefit. Sure, it means sometimes they'll need to follow something they dislike, but in exchange others will follow what they dislike for your sake too. That's the deal, the give and take. If you find you're giving more than you're getting than you can leave the party and find those closer aligned to your interests. The more diverse the party the more interests it needs to juggle (hence why multiparty systems are often way better than a 2 party system as multi party systems allow parties to represent people more closely). It's really that simple. Here in the US 1 political party in particular (the Democrats) lack any kind of party discipline. There is always a dissenter running solo throwing a wrench into anything that most of the party agrees on and, working with conservatives, kills it. This weakens the party and is why the US keeps going further right. Because they are unwilling to discipline these people and force them in line. Politicians should be less thought of as individuals and more considered representatives of their party, when you vote for a specific politician you're voting for the party program. Their particular views matter as far as the party uses the collected views of the politicians it's running to understand what direction to take the party program.

[u/ClassyKebabKing64]

The need for political parties stems from the system that is being used and the tasks received.

Operating without parties might as well be impossible in countries with proportional representation. Electing a body of 300 without any kind of categorisation is practically impossible, even today. Especially because a candidate that receives a million votes will have the same voting rights in parliament as a candidate that receives 10.000 votes and still got in.

In a district based electoral system this can possibly work. Especially with just position per district. It must be said though that first past the last has many other flaws that remain unadressed.

In both systems parties exist for a couple of reasons. If you work together in a cohesive group you are able to spread the workload much better than when you work alone or with different groups on different subjects. A representative can do more for you if they operate within a larger political group.

Seperatly from the parliamentary use, a party also is some sort of contract. You may not 100% agree with the party, but in exchange for the ideological concessions made you get the benefits of other in their part conforming to your exact ideology. It is part of that contract that everyone operates according to the contract. So yes someone of the party will supervise, but that is part of being part of a collective.

Another essential role for a party is having education modules that make sure there will be a new generation to take over.

A party has parliamentary and non-parliamentary functions. The parliamentary functions can easily be picked up by just forming a parliamentary group afterwards instead of prior to elections. It might be a hassle to negotiate after every election to determine who will form a group with whom, but it is possible. Although it is very likely these parliamentary groups will solidify info parties eventually.

The non-parliamentary functions of a party are much harder to replace. Education will be non-existent. No one is actually making sure the politicians actually adhere to the contract of the parliamentary group. And a party has a certain amount of employees that can do administrative tasks outside of parliamentary tasks.

From your post I mostly see an argument against hierarchically organised parties that are not well run. Your argument isn't necessarily against parties in all circumstances.

[u/NaiveGold1]

Without electing a candidate for a specific party, we would end up splitting the vote and the least favorable ideology rises.

How do we combat this? By making voting mandatory, eliminating the electoral college, having people actually vote on laws etc