contras were raping and pillaging and death squading democratically elected and majority supported civil servants.

tho Im sure the sandos were not angels.

One step would be moving towards more nonpartisan redistricting that creates fewer gerrymandered safe districts for extremist politicians. Actually just take any political reform that Republicans oppose and do that.

Is there anyway to get rid of parties in politics? I know it's not realistic, but what kind of laws/regulation would be needed to accomplish it?

I'm not as educated as some others on different political systems, but from what I've read, a parliamentary system seems better than our modern 2-party system. It seems nearly impossible to switch to though, or for a truly viable 3rd party (or lack of parties) to arise.

It's actually easier for a 3rd party to take over an existing party by appealing to its base, as the Tea Party tried/kinda did, like Trump did, or like Bernie almost did.

Eliminating parties entirely is likely impossible, and perhaps undesirable. Getting a group of people to agree with you is the whole game in politics, and it's only natural for such a group to get a name. Eliminating our two party system would require eliminating elections won by plurality winners in a given geographical area.

Instant runoff voting (aka ranked ballot, ordered ballot, preferential voting, etc) would also help immensely if you really wanted 3rd parties to get off the ground.

Then the GOP & Dem bases could split along more progressive or conservative or moderate elements within their own ranks, and people would be able to vote for their 1st choice, even if unlikely to win, while not wasting their vote, and ultimately still coalescing around the frontrunner among all the 3rd parties or main R/D party within their spectrum.

Kinda like a primary within the GE itself, which means that 3rd parties could draw from both bases, instead of our 2 party system becoming more polarized due to extremist elements in one of them capturing their party.

The republican primaries was a glimpse into what that would look like

The rational will be too fractured and the fringe can win a plurality. No ty

You basically can't, because people are social creatures who are inclined to form groups. There exist some nonpartisan elections for some posts such as judgeships in some states, but it's easy to tell which candidates are more or less aligned with which party.

Correct, the fringe winning by a small plurality is a horrible outcome. IRV would solve that, allowing for many choices but ultimately still requiring majority preference.

A parliamentary system is one in which the executive comes from the legislative branch. It isn't inherently multiparty.

The relevant concept is Duverger's law, which holds that the system tends towards a two party system if you have electoral districts which have a single winner via first past the post/winner take all voting.

There are several alternative voting methods. IRV is one of the more popular. Arrow's impossibility theorem more or less holds that there is no perfect voting system and every system is capable of failure. So, while the American system is flawed, the existence of President Trump is not automatic proof that the system is flawed.

A law could be passed banning having R or D (or any party)by any candidates
name on voting ballots.

Disagree, and so do the Founding Fathers!

The Founding Fathers were morons who thought they could create a political system where factions and parties would not emerge.

A holocaust of all registered republicans would be my pick

I don't disagree! But since lots of Trump supporters pretend to revere the Founding Fathers, I like to comment on that every once in a while.

Back to the point - Trump is definitely evidence of a flawed system. All systems might be flawed, and this might still be one of the better ones available, but there is most definitely evidence that the current system is flawed.

right, that's not great. But CIA agents literally tortured folks to death during the War on Terror. Also not great.

Pretty good idea just wrong party

Another reason you can't eliminate parties is because they reduce search cost through signaling by brand name / affiliation. Ain't nobody readin' no policy details of 60 motha****as with (I) after their names. On the other hand, you only have to find the (R) to vote straight-ticket racist with one lever pull.

Agreed. Let's start with a celebratory waterboarding party on the Republicans before moving on to a full holocaust.

...which itself followed the precedent set by Ford pardoning Nixon.

It says something when this exchange can happen twice in a few months. I'm not sure exactly what but it definitely says something.

From wiki, the only Cabinet/sub Cabinet guys to do more than a year were Bush 43's OMB director, 3 guys from Watergate and one guy from Teapot Dome in the 20s. No one has done more than 3 years.

I don't think most people really understand how remarkably uncorrupt and scandal-free the Obama administration was and how much of a moral and ethical sinkhole the Reagan administration was.

I think you and I picked up this theory the same place which is why SK disagreeing is kinda funny lol

It says that hes probably a Russian bot.