Disband the Democratic and Republican parties

I'm not a big fan of either party, but historically when government's banned certain political parties, it served as a prelude to dictatorship or military rule. Hardly an ideal outcome to say the least... I believe that both political parties need competition and multiple parties. We need a vibrant system that represents a spectrum of opinion and interests, not a co-opted political system with two parties who essentially represent the same interests, at the expense of the broader population. It is well established that electoral outcomes in this country are determined by powerful monied interests that finance the political campaigns of major party contenders. Inevitably, the bills which Congress passes and are signed into law by the President are written by lobbyists working for these small cliques in way that serves their narrow interests. One thing is for certain, the two major political parties have been co-opted by these special interests, and in order to restore a semblan... Read more

When benevolent-minded autocratic leaders sieze power, subsequently disbanding non-compliant political organizations it always results in making countries more free and prosperous. History has shown us numerous examples of it - Soviet Russia, The People's Republic of China, Cuba, Argentina...

We only need one party, right Dan?

Dumb idea. Besides, it'll never happen. One of the best ideas would be that the two parties put their boxing gloves down and start working together. Then, and only then, will results be seen.

Rather, they (and even some of these unknown third parties) should band together, combining their best ideas, weeding out the bad, and being more of an example to the rest of America. After all, we are the United States. So, let's start acting like we are -- well -- united!

Suits me. It will leave the road open for my own political vehicle, the All-Night Party, by which I plan to attain power and generally ignore everything else on this stupid list. I do promise, however, to provide a minimum of one scandal a week during my term as President for Life. And a lot of interns in the White House....

Actually, historically speaking, it could be argued that America is the world's most stable democracy BECAUSE there are only two parties. Britain is second and it is basically a two-party system. Australia, Canada, and Japan are other fairly stable examples. Multi-party coalition governments, such as exist in most of the world, are constantly collapsing. France has had, what, 5 constitutions. In multi-party states requiring governing coalitions, the heads of state often have the power to dissolve the government and (sometimes) call for new elections. This is the recipe for chaos, corruption, and totalitarianism.

An excellent idea. How can only two parties ever be representative of a great country like the US and cover all of its people's needs? I've never seen such a political divide in thinking between two groups...the 'I support Bush because he is Republican' or I support Kerry because he's not Bush'. As grown-ups, we should look at each initiative and see which is right and appropriately addresses each issue, which in some cases might be a 'liberal or Democratic solution' or it might be a conservative one that is better. I don't understand this blind devotion to one party regardless of who is heading it and what their policies are. So how about the people voting on issues separately as they occur? In the future, perhaps some bright spark might invent a way of recording instant votes across the populace on pre-debated important issues (perhaps televised)so that whatever is the best considered solution (by a vote of over 75%) will be accepted, analysed and legislated by elected representativ... Read more

...they are corrupt and have held a total monopoly of power for over a hundred years... You make it sound as if the same people continue to run these parties from the grave. Times change, people change, ideas die and are born. These parties, for better or for worse HAVE changed and evolved over the years. I fail to see how dissolving them would change anything but the names.

That can't be legally done. Only the American people and their lack of involvement can force that kind of change.

Lets not forget Whitewater and the 140 pardons for convicted felons in the last week of the presidency. Opps! Sorry - those were democratic stunts.

They haven't been banned so they can't be dis-banned. I suppose you mean disband. That is, to dissolve. Dissolving political parties is the purview of totalitarian governments and distatorships. That's not how we do things in a democracy.

I suggest to dissolve them because they are corrupt and have held a total monopoly of power for over a hundred years. Something has to be done. The courts break up capital monopolies all the time, I thought the courts could break up parties as well, as long as it could be proven they have an unfair position and do things to exclude others from fair competition. And, of course, that would be easy to prove. So, if they were broken up, it would be because of their actions, not because I want to be totalitarian.