The US should not have political parties.

1) \\\Having no parties, doesn't allow for teamwork. Politicians would then start to play dirtier. /// If what you call teamwork is a grand argument where people have to obey the parties policies or they get dumped, then yes, people use teamwork 2) \\\These two parties dictate most of what the government decisions like passing bills electing politicians etc. These two parties have subtle dualism. This would create an unbalance/// No, what It would create is a government that is not run by bias people but rather representatives who have their own ideas and don't mirror their party's policies. Here's an example, one of the earliest presidents (one of the first 10 I believe) actually STOPPED supporting the party's polices. (I think the party name was the democratic republicans) He was expelled from the party for trying to have some new policies. Since he had no party, he had no chance to be elected next year (someone please enlighten me on is name I'm blanking out). If we had not had political parties this man could have had some groundbreaking policies! But we will never know, because of political parties! 3) \\\Well what about the funding?!? My 2nd point will talk about how potential politicians that could have some revolutionary ideas would have a hard chance to get their name publicized because they wouldn't have sufficient funding because organizations like to fund one party./// This is simply not true, even if you were an aristocrat you still wouldn't be able to buy yourself the presidency. On the other hand, the candidate with the most support from organizations will win, so it's still the richest man wins either way! If there were no political parties, we wouldn't bombard the media with commercials, create billboards, and sell ourselves to the public! The elections would be based on reason, and the candidates actual policies, not his party. For example, lets say Candidate A is democrat and Candidate B is republican. Most people would go with the candidate of the party they support, so most democrats will support A and most republicans will support B! Either because of "party pride" or because the democrat or republican policies have not changed! 4) \\\When you have a bunch of different candidates trying to run people won't want to take the time to be educated on every politicians views and ideas./// Actually, when candidates aren't framed by their parties, the people will have too look more closely at the candidates policies before they vote. Instead of saying "Oh that's a republican, he's going to be against the public" or "That's a democrat, he's going to be unpatriotic" NO! They would say "hmmm this guy's for health care, against the war, but for a border fence!" This would make it so the candidates would practically be tailored to the voter's needs! 5) In his farewell address, George Washington warned against the negatives of political parties with these words: "The common and continual mischief's of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public counsels 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 occasional 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." Yet, we have this "Team Edward vs. Team Jacob" approach to political parties, they are like rivals "Yankees and RedSox" if you are a Yankees fan, and you find out one day that all the Yankee players are using steroids (I don't mean this) you would still root for the Yankees! It's like the sectionalism that occurred before the civil war: if your from the south, you support the south, even if you don't agree with them, same for the north. Thank you for this debate and I urge a pro vot