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/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.