No parties are there to represent a believe. If you abolished them then you would get 1,000's and 1,000's of different candidates going for election with different ideologies and different believes. It would be a nightmare. You would never get anything done.

I think Dylan hit the nail on the head. If you eliminate all political parties, everyone would vote for their neighbor, lol. Political parties are there for a reason...

I don't pretend to know much about politics, but 'abolishing' political parties wouldn't do much to change the situations you've described.  For one, you can take a label away from a group.... but that's not going to change the fact that certain ideologies can be grouped. Even if you remove the labels of political parties, there will always be -that- set of people who strongly feels this way, and -that other- set of people who feels the opposite way.  Just because you stop calling a horse a horse, does not make it NOT a horse.

Secondly, political groups allow people to easily and quickly identify feelings and opinions about a certain person or politician.  While there may be areas of the alignment that a politician might not agree with, to label himself as a Democrat member, Republican member, Tea Party member..... etc.... allows the general public to quickly tag on that person's set of beliefs and goals.  Then, the politician can concentrate on explaining those small few things he might not agree with (party-wise), instead of explaining everything that generally is grouped under the one heading.

A Thought that has occurred to me before, especially when essentially only 2 parties can get into the us house.
I mean, there are like, 6 times as many people in the usa than in the UK, yet we have far more party variation.
Even in the UK though, there is far too much party politics. The leaders tell their members how to vote making them useless in most regards. On Top of that partys will oppose decisions purely because a rival party proposed it, it's exceptionally frustrating.
I think a real point is party members need to vote independently instead of as the party demands.
Their are independents in the UK and Scottish parliaments, and I feel they tend to be far better than party members, they have no 'agenda'.

You can't remove political parties, but a decent voter class can help reduce the effects. America does not help reduce the effects.

If you get ride of the parties then the sheep wouldn't know who to vote for. They wouldn't know what to believe, what to love or hate, what is "right" and "wrong".  A good number of the political people don't have a clue what they are talking about. They like a party because they like the party not really knowing much about the standings of the person and party they are voting for.

Someone brought up "nothing would ever get done" I agree with you, but what exactly gets done now?

I say lets take it a step further. Lets not just demolish the silly little parties but the government itself. Not to get off of topic. To answer your question, it really doesn't matter if we should or not.

GenesisJunkie : One thing you mentioned was the sheep not knowing who to vote for. Then you touched on how a lot of people vote based off of party without really knowing much about the issues. Wouldn't that be an argument in favor of getting rid of political party labels? I mean, I find it to a bad thing that someone would vote for a Republican or Democrat based on nothing more than the fact that they are the same political party as them. Theoretically, if people did not know the candidates political party, then that might make them more likely to either not vote at all or pay more attention to what the candidate proposes. I don't see it as such a bad thing if people who vote based only on political party affiliation didn't vote at all. They aren't doing the country any favor by voting.

Not that I really think there would be a point in getting rid of the parties. Just a thought. In general, it doesn't matter. We have established political parties. Even if we officially got rid of them, there is no law that says you can't identify yourself as such, even though there is no official label. And if you watch Fox News, it would be pretty clear who the 'Republican' candidate is, and same with 'Democrat' when you watch MSNBC

rcarter2 : I could be a point to do it but even if the party system was demolished, what would really change? I don't think it would make any real difference so I am not for nor am I against it.

GenesisJunkie : It makes sense to have two major party systems to get more done.  Things never happen quickly in a democracy due to the organization of the government system.  Even having town halls takes time and people have various opinions.

Getting rid of government itself is a terrible idea.  Without a government in play, who would oversee economic exchange, who would provide common good services, pay for roads, etc?

Lose a government, even a low functioning one, and you lose a tremendous amount of quality of life.  All the goods and services we have are brought to us, however indirectly, through a government.

Anarchy doesn't work.  Let's face it.

Government is a necessary evil. Political parties are an extension of that necessary evil. The system used to day isn't exactly great, but there are many worse alternatives and not many better ones.

I think that this would be a terrible idea that would lead to confusement. Nothing would get done if there were no parties, and if something did get done, it would probably end up being something that the majority of citizens don't agree with. Government parties were created for a reason, without them, there would be all sorts of chaos across the country.

It might be an idea that America needs to try. I know far, far too many people who will vote for a government official "because he/she's a Democrat" or "because he/she's a Republican" and then complain later because they don't like the decisions this person is making. Yet, when the next election comes around, they still vote for someone solely by their partisan affiliation! It's madness!

I try, so very, very hard to get the people I know to do RESEARCH about the person that they're voting for but sometimes it feels like an act of futility. Perhaps if there were no parties, people would actually have to figure out what the person they're voting for stands for, what they believe in, and what they plan to do in office.

edit: Another thing I need to mention is that in the US, it seems far too often that when a person is running for office, and sometimes even after they've been elected, that it is not the person making decisions, but the party standing behind them. The person ends up becoming a puppet; a giant Oz head being controlled by a man behind the curtain, of sorts. And since we haven't had a president who wasn't a Democrat or Republican since 1853, these two parties have had lots and lots of time to gain power and further their agendas. It's really scary when you sit down and think about it.

To remind everyone, what first post says, is not that we demolish the Government but the categories in which we divide. The government would still be there, but there wouldn't be Republicans and Democrats, or any other parties, (the politicians would still be there, but they would not be divided by a category, or a group). In my opinion, this would let the government work together, as one big party, unified by improving our nation, and increase the diversity of ideas, and get rid of a sense of division, made by labeling. Also, as Zurenriri said, it would also take away votes that were only there because of the party. It would ensure better leaders running our country. And while it may seem like it would take away the division between parties, in the long run it actually would. As years go by, politicians would start forget about the labels that define them, and start thinking more about unique individual ideas. Politicians that were once from a smaller party, and were kept quiet by the 2 main parties, would have a chance to speak and introduce new ideas. Eventually, ideas would blend, and smaller un-official groups would occur, but the diversity of thoughts would be greatly increased. This something that may take 30 years or more (or less)  to take obvious effect, but it would be worth the wait. And one last thing to point out, government parties are not essential to the government, but simply a way to categorize. The government would function just as well, or even better without them. Since when was the last government parties helped democrats and republicans agree on something? Parties just drove them apart. Plus, the government is already in a horrible position, and things can't get much worse, with few risks and a lot of possible benefits, wouldn't it be worth the risk to try out this new idea? Oh yeah, don't forget vote on the above poll. 
~Mangepic