Political parties consistently work for those who give them the most money rather than the people that politicians are meant to serve.
Politicians are elected by the people and they’re meant to serve the people. In every action they take, they should be doing what they believe to be best for their constituents. Yet every political party has whips, members who are responsible for making politicans from their party vote in the way that the party wants them to. So, you can vote for someone because you want them to work in your best interests, but their party can force them to work against your best interests.
That doesn’t seem right, does it? Should we ban political parties, then?
As tempting as that might seem to some of us, it probably isn’t that simple. Parties do bring a degree of order to government that might be missed. Leadership roles in legislative assemblies, like the House of Representatives and Senate in the US, tend to go to a senior member of the dominant party. There could be much more chaos when it comes to voting to fill these roles without parties.
Also, how do we define membership of a political party? If we ban them, it’s likely that politicians with similar beliefs would still group together informally. How do we identify whether an informal grouping has crossed the line into a political party?
While in theory, banning parties can seem attractive, the idea seems to be impractical in the real world.
There is a way to achieve much the same result, though, and while making no changes to legislation. Voters can simply refuse to vote for any candidate who is a member of a political party and only vote for independent candidates. While that may make selecting the best candidate more complex, it has the benefit of ensuring each vote goes to someone who plans to do what’s best for the voters rather than their party.
Political parties have helped the wealthiest 10% of Americans hoard 68.3% of all US wealth, leaving the poorest 50% to share just 2.5%. In the EU and the UK, political parties have limited the poorest 50% of their populations to wealth shares of just 4% and less than 6% respectively.
If banning political parties isn’t possible, should voters do the next best thing and virtually ban them by voting for independents?
What you just read? ☝ Shouldn't more people read it?
Share it now, before you forget
