Should political parties be abolished.

Con posts a misleading remark in a feeble attempt to pin this on me, as though I will be withdrawing from this debate simply because he has errored. However, this is not the case.I'm going to respond to each of his remarks, and then post my case against political parties, as I am listed as PRO.CON states, "When I posted Con I meant it as I am against the subject of the question, so therefore I can still win the debate."This is not standard operating procedure. The title of this debate, which is all we have to go by in light of the fact that he did not post a formal resolution in his opening post, is "Should Political Parties be Abolished." It was not, simply, "Political Parties." The title of the debate was not merely a subject, but a prompt, and CON has listed himself as against that prompt. It's highly misleading of him to list himself as CON and then attempt to take on the opposing view.CON states, "I suggest that my opponent becomes more open minded to the ways this can be viewed."This is a laughable point as it presupposes that I am in some way in the wrong for viewing a duck as a duck, or a clear statement as a clear statement, or a prompt for a prompt. He clearly stated in the title of this debate: "Should Political Parties be Abolished." You cannot simply say that we should bend the rules, literally remove several worlds and change the entire meaning of the prompt, and simply pass it off as being "open-minded." CON states, "I understand the confusion and I take that upon myself, but I thought this was a website for debates not chat rooms for perfectionists."First of all, there is no confusion. There was a clear prompt that we were to debate, and CON is now trying to bend the rules and change the resolution to suit his own ends, which is a highly deceptive tactic that voters should take into accunt. This is indeed a website for debates, but by no means must one be a "perfectionist" in order to list himself as the proper position on a resolution he himself has created. CON states, "If you don't want to continue the debate I understand, but I will be saddened by your retraction from this."He insinuates that I will accept his jaded terms and withdraw from this debate. That, however, is not the case. I will merely be arguing the PRO side of this resolution, as that is the side I agreed to upon acceptance of this debate.Pro's Case C1) George Washington Warned Against Political PartiesWashington made some scathing remarks on political parties that we can all learn from: "I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy." The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension... is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. [1]He speaks of despotism, referring to the spirit of gaining and maintaing power in order that one may lord it over others. He suggests that this dominates the public discourse where political parties exist, as this spirit he speeks of and the lust for revenge is part and parcel of human nature. People will become ultimately divided and act not out of the common good, but out of spite for one another, which ultimately makes everyone worse off. C2) Political Parties are Divisive Washington, in fact, also made this point: "(Party politics) serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another." [1]But there is further evidence of this, whether it is party line votes in the Senate, blind allegiance to one's party or party leader, groupthink within a party, playing politics with the most important issues of the day -- e.g., Obama et al. refusing to raise the debt ceilng in 2006, in much the same way that the GOP has been doing recently -- and alienating people based on what they happen to believe.Pew look into this, and found some interesting result. According to the Associated Press: "A new survey from the Pew Research Center finds Americans are divided by ideology and partisanship not only when they cast ballots, but also in choosing where to live, where to get their news and with whom to associate. And peaceful coexistence is increasingly difficult. According to the poll, the share of Americans who hold across-the-board conservative or liberal views has doubled in the last decade, from 10 percent in 2004 to 21 percent today. Only 39 percent of Americans have an even mix of liberal and conservative positions, down from 49 percent 10 years ago.[..]." [2]Not only have political parties caused people to become ideologically entrenched, but they have isolated people from one another, including even where they ought to live. Glenn Beck actually made a simiar point not long after Obama won reelection [3]. On his radio show, he said that people should, essentially, purchase farmland and live nearby like-minded people. This kind of rhetoric is what is dividing the country. C3) Political Parties Foster Ideological Entrenchment There always exists pressures to comform to what the party platform says. For instance, if a person is fiscally conservative, but supports gay marriage, they'll be shunned by many Republicans, including primary voters. If a person wants to run as a Democrat, but is pro-life on the issue of abortion, they'll be shunned. They lead to conformity, groupthink, and intransigence, and that is the last thing we need at this point in time.C4) People tend to vote for parties, not individuals Jesse Ventura actually made this point not long ago. People can essentially vote without putting in any real effort. If you're liberal, you can vote straight-line Democrat. If you're conservative, you can vote straight-line Republican. You don't have to know anything about the candidates and what they stand for. If we were to remove party labels, it would be imperative for voters to educate themselves about the candidates and the issues and make more informed decisions, which would likely lead to better governance. [1] http://open.salon.com...;[2] http://jacksonville.com... [3] http://www.rightwingwatch.org...