I was just mulling over this idea, and I thought I'd throw it out there to see where it bounces. Just thinking out loud, as it were.
Of course, I'm not proposing that the right to free association be removed, but just removing any kind of official government standing. There would be no party affiliations listed on the ballots, and the method of choosing candidates would be through a general primary with only a list of names - no party affiliation. The top few candidates would then go on to the general election. (I can't decide how many, but I'm thinking it should be more than two.) Needless to say, it would also mean that there would be no "majority" or "minority" leaders in Congress. At least from a governmental standpoint, politicians' party affiliations would be a private matter, viewed no differently than their religious affiliations.
So, theoretically, political "parties" would still exist, but they would not be recognized in any official capacity.
What do you think?
I like the idea of a return to States Rights, and reducing the size of the Central Government. Washington is where the Political two party system division does the most damage. The states have balanced budget amendments. Only the Central Government blows money, beyond its means, to boost the political parties; both want and get wish lists,
When the Constitution was written, the Senate was chosen by the State legislatures. There was also no Federal income tax beyond raising money during war; provide for the common defense. Promote the general welfare does not mean tax since promote can be done with volunteers. After these two changes were amended in the Constitution, the size of Central Government and the extreme waste of the two political parties began.
When Senators were chosen by State Legislatures, they were chosen by the people in the know; state government, to represent the interests of the State, in terms of Central Government Policies. Once the amendment was added, and Senators became chosen by the people, the choices for leaders changed from the local understanding of need and competence, to more about national prestige via their political party.
Today few senators are concerned just with their state. Most like the national spotlight and are outspoken on national issues important to the national party. We get a different type of person running for Senators, one more party orientated at the National level, for the needed bigger money and support. Few are there to only deal with the will of their state, as was originally the goal. Congress was designed to be more about the National issues, via open voter elections.
Ratifying the National income tax in 1913, allowed a way to grow central government, so the two parties had more power to share and leverage the citizen wealth, at the National level. This tax was never enough, and has resulted in huge deficits, since the two party version of everything, is way too expensive.
This house of debt cards, is like a pyramid scam. It cannot last forever. I would prefer only states can have the right to impose an income tax, but with their balanced budgets in place. The Central Government would work better if it was not so rich. that it become too money centric; bribes called campaign donations from other states.
During the last Midterms, each National political party was pumping money into state elections, so the will of the state was being perverted by the National Parties. I do not think this was in the best interests of the citizens of each state. Political parties in States, tend to find a better balance, since their citizens are closer to the action; watch local news. The more politically biased National News and propaganda, gets too deceptive and abstract, even with it impacts you directly.
