Could he have done anything that would have prevented bipartisanship?

>>1611912

I assume you mean: Could he have prevented the two-party system?

The answer is yes. There are two different ways he could have done it:

First, he could created an electoral system based on proportionate representation and utilizing a preferential vote system to ensure that third parties are able to win seats.

Alternatively, he could have simply accepted calls for him to become king and instituted a monarchy with him as the first monarch.

Either option would have averted the two-party system.

>>1611937
but couldn't the supreme court or congress override either of the executive actions?

>>1611958
the supreme court couldn't really override shit back in the day, that's a pretty recent phenomenon.

>>1611958

You're forgetting those didn't exist yet, Washington could have set it up the way he said.

>>1611961

>congress didn't exist yet

Are you...

Are you retarded?

>>1611912
Even in a two party system factions of different but similar ideologies develop in both parties.

>>1611912

Ban political parties, single 6 year term for both congress and the POTUS, representatives can only stand for office in the state they were born in.

>>1612066

There is no way to ban political parties.

>>1612090

You can't stamp them out completely but banning them would go along way to preventing them getting a strangehold on power.

>>1612101

And who the hell enforces this?

Some magical neutral entity that somehow has no political affiliation? Banning political parties is something that happens in communist states. It is a very direct infringement on freedom of association. It can't happen in a proper democracy/republic. The best way to prevent a monopolization of politics is an electoral system based on proportionate representation and utilizing a preferential vote system to ensure that third parties are able to win seats.

>>1611912
By seeing reason and accepting the crown of the USA.

>>1612121
>And who the hell enforces this?

SCOTUS. The police. The usual people who enforce laws. Many countries have some or all parties banned, such as Nazis in Europe or anyone but the CCP in China. Banning them doesn't make the support for them go away, but it does make it much harder for them to operate.

>>1612130

>Many countries have some or all parties banned, such as Nazis in Europe

And that's a violation to freedom of speech. Say good-bye to the first amendment if you want that.

>anyone but the CCP in China

That's just flat out communism. Not a model to replicate.

>SCOTUS. The police. The usual people who enforce laws.

Wow. So now we have the police literally telling people they cannot participate in political activism at all. That's profoundly Orwellian.

>>1612147

Political parties don't have to be covered by free speech.

>Wow. So now we have the police literally telling people they cannot participate in political activism at all.

No, you have citizens engaging in politics on a local level instead. Elections become about who will do what the local community wants done, and not about which tribe they belong to.

>>1611912
Aside from the two parties going back and forth on issues, what other cons are there to a two party system?

>>1612159

>Political parties don't have to be covered by free speech.

Yes, they very much do. Otherwise the entire point of freedom of speech is compromised very severely.

>No, you have citizens engaging in politics on a local level instead.

So does that mean there are no elections beyond the local level at all in this system? So like China basically. Well, okay. That might not be necessarily bad in of itself, but once you start banning parties from participating, it becomes very bad.

File: MTE5NDg0MDU1MDEwMjQ4MjA3.jpg (16KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x300px

>>1611937
>>Alternatively, he could have simply accepted calls for him to become king and instituted a monarchy with him as the first monarch.


Nah senpai aint nothing to be doing with dat. Aristos are niggers.

t. Jefferson

why not just not recognize political parties?

like, on the ballot sheet you wouldn't list any parties the candidates affiliate themselves with.

That would protect freedom of affiliation and deal with the "two-party system" meme in one swipe.

>>1612277

That changes almost nothing.

Proportionate representation with preferential voting is the only way.

>>1611958
With his level of influence he could have totally pushed a Consitutional amendment.

>>1611912
Yes, hang the treasonous commies.

>>1612130
>anyone but the CCP in China

not even true technically

>>1611912
Become a monarchy.

>>1612066
And how would you go about "banning" them? Early American history didn't have registered parties like the GOP and the Dems are today, but it had factions instead. As the name suggests, they were just affiliations of people who shared common interests. A representative from South Carolina had more in common with his colleague from Virginia than the guy from New Hampshire, so it's only natural that they'd work together. How would you stop that?

>>1612241
>t. Jefferson

>t. crypto-aristocrat populist

>>1612277
Pretending something doesn't exist won't make it go away.