Guy asks, "Can we Outlaw Political Parties in the USA and be Constitutional?"

Asked Friday, July 04, 2020. https://www.catholicamericanthinker.com/Outlaw-Political-Parties.html

I say "Yes!! We can and should outlaw any entity that assumes unconstitutional government power for itself to displace and replace our Constitution.

Democrats would finally qualify for something --  the first political party to be banned from participation in the US.

Is this "Guy" serious? It's now perfectly okay to do away with Freedom of Association? And, as if putting a different label on that association is somehow going to do away with the beliefs these people carry?

This way of thinking is going down a very dangerous route, because, if you label what some people believe as "unConstitutional" in your book, next thing you know, your way of thinking will be unConstitutional.

Watch out for what you wish for.

PAC's should be eliminated completely!
Corporate donations should be limited to the same amount as individual contribution limits.

Our present system is currently trashed.[delete]

No it isn't. It has just entered some very bad road.

Oh, okay. I'd rather not spark another civil war.

I guess withdraw the idea.

Parties are ok with me.
2 or 3 major parties will suffice with a no party affiliation option.

When you start having too many parties with power, you end up with a coalition government like Canada.

Parties are just a freedom of association. That doesn't mean that states have to put party names on ballots. I don't think parties are even mentioned in the Constitution. Parties just happen to be the only entity that can raise enough money and have a political machine large enough to conduct a national campaign in all 57 states.

HawkTheSlayer wrote:Parties are ok with me.
2 or 3 major parties will suffice with a no party affiliation option.

When you start having too many parties with power, you end up with a coalition government like Canada.

t

You are just too used to a two party system in the US, that could change over time. A coalition is not outside the bounds ?

vege57 wrote:

HawkTheSlayer wrote:Parties are ok with me.
2 or 3 major parties will suffice with a no party affiliation option.

When you start having too many parties with power, you end up with a coalition government like Canada.

t

You are just too used to a two party system in the US, that could change over time. A coalition is not outside the bounds ?

The two-party system is just the result of a system that votes the man, not the party.

Which means, in the end, there will be a winner and a loser.

In the RARE, and usually unfortunate, cases where there is a three-way race, the winner is often not that popular. Clinton won with FORTY-TWO PERCENT of the vote. He had more votes cast AGAINST him (for his two opponents) than FOR him.

And that was his strategy - since we know that Ross Perot was an old-time covert Billy-Jeff supporter.

Another case was, 1968. Nixon won - by a pubic hair. It was very, very close.

If George Wallace wasn't in there, drawing off some Dixicrat votes, Humphrey would have won. I'm not a big Circle-D supporter, but Nixon was such a fa-cop, we'd probably have been better - and then Reagan could have come in in 1972, instead of 1980.

vege57 wrote:

HawkTheSlayer wrote:Parties are ok with me.
2 or 3 major parties will suffice with a no party affiliation option.

When you start having too many parties with power, you end up with a coalition government like Canada.

t

You are just too used to a two party system in the US, that could change over time. A coalition is not outside the bounds ?

A coalition is in fact how the major parties operate.

The former Communists (now call themselves Democrat Socialists) tried their own party for 70 years, and made little headway. Once they went into the Circle D party, they have basically made the party their own. Old-time Democrats like Zel Miller, a reasonable man (I'd have voted for him over Bush) are now marginalized (especially Miller, who is now dead).

Reagan did the same on the R side. Conservatives were a banished minority, ignored, from 1964 to 1980; but Reagan brought them in, accepted their support, and offered the Rockefeller Wing of the party, the chance: Come with us and win. Sit it out, and lose, once again.

If there is to be a Libertarian revolution, it will not come from the Libertarian party, which is a circus. It will come from libertarian-minded people becoming active in the Republican Party (the Circle-D is all authoritarian statists) and gaining majority support.