Given how our system is set up, political parties seem to be a natural result.

I think the answer is for more people to become involved in the political party organizations, to provide a larger base of people who control the parties. That's what I do in my local party organization. It gives me a voice in the endorsement process up to the Senate level. For congressional districts and state legislative elections, individual influence is important in our state, which has a caucus and convention system. The DFL party endorsement here is crucial, and delegates to the various conventions are by elections held at the precinct and convention level.

Too few people participate in this, and far more delegates to conventions could attend, but our precinct caucus meetings are far too small. More participation would help this process more representative, but participation is purely a voluntary thing, so...

ETA: We still have primaries, and anyone can become a candidate in those primaries. For example, if I chose to do so, I could enter the Democratic primary for any position and my name would appear on the ballot whether I was endorsed by the party or not. The primaries are not actually private, but the endorsements are made by the official DFL party process.

to help the people but enough to give the false impression they are doing something so that they get elected. Right, it is a big club. Their club, for their benefit.

could vote.

We now have two parties which are both subservient to the moneyed interests of corporations. The "landowners" have been replaced by CEOs.

about the safety net.

Which is why I vote based on policies and principles rather than party or politician.

Note to save the probable argument: I have never voted for a Republican. I can't even imagine doing so. I usually vote for the Democrat. Sometimes, when the distance between the differences on issues important to me is miniscule or none, I have voted 3rd Party or written in a preferable candidate.

Further note: I have voted in every federal election since 1966. My vote has never swung any of the elections I voted in. Nor would it have no matter how I voted.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

local candidates do not have to declare for a party so there is no designation of party when we go to vote. Just a list of names.

I absolutely hate that. On the local level that means that you can be electing someone who is supporting the exact opposite of what you want to vote for but you do not know it. Most of them (Dems and Rs alike) give nice generic speeches or pamphlets, tell you about their great family, smile a lot and say relatively nothing about what their positions are. Local candidates may still do that if they have to affiliate with a party but at least you have some idea where they are coming from.

One of the benefits of a party is that it usually has a platform that tells us what the candidates from the party support. Unless all these individual candidates you are talking about come out with their own platform we are going to be voting on ALL candidates like we do here with the local offices.

You can look up the endorsed candidates before the election occurs. The endorsements are made at the local convention level. In some cases, in smaller communities or districts, though, no convention is held and no endorsements are made.

Here in St. Paul, there are endorsements down to the school board and commissioner levels. Check the DFL website and drill down to your community or districts on that website, sometime near the election.

https://www.dfl.org/

senator, a representative or even a president this way - many still would not have the info we need to vote. I personally can live with it but how many just vote incumbent because that is the only name they know.

I will admit that our MN system is better than Iowa where I lived when I was younger. There the R party was so dominant in our NE IA area that us Democrats actually registered R because all the local officials were running in the R primary and would run unopposed in the general. It looks like they may still be doing it like that today.

use that endorsement liberally in their campaign materials. They'd be fools not to, here in St. Paul.

Typically, turnouts in those odd-year local elections are incredibly low. For me, that's the real shame in all of this, and it's also a shame that local political activities at our caucuses and conventions are so poorly attended.

I can't imagine being a political activist without actively participating in the process that examines and endorses candidates. That seems fundamental to me. For example, the DFL precinct I chair has an allotment of 18 delegates to the local district convention. The largest attendance at our precinct caucus during the delegate selection period has been 12 in 2008, and even then, only six people were willing to be a delegate at the very interesting state senate district convention. We could send 18 delegates. Other precincts have the same dismal turnout at caucus meetings, so our convention has way less than half the number of delegates it could have.

What that means is that only a few people make the endorsement decisions. On the plus side, it means that those who show up have influence as individuals on the process. Being a convention delegate has let me meet and talk to every candidate, clear up to the national Senate level. Why wouldn't everyone on DU be part of their local Democratic organization. That's a question I've asked before, only to read excuse after excuse for non-participation. Amazing!

The nominations that they promote or halt.

Parties are how we get good things (and bad) done in politics.

...as is the line between caucuses and parties. I think that if there were no parties, representatives would still come together in caucuses.

I'm not sure what the point of your question could be.

Name any country with any democratic-ish system that does not have political parties!!

From time to time, the leadership of political parties ossifies and either new parties are born, or smaller parties form, start to take seats, and force changes in the policies of the larger parties.

Countries that a vibrant democracy also has a lot of parties.

We have two large private corporations running our government.

both houses and a statewide office holder- and that's not counting Bernie. The Vermont Progressive Party is alive and well.

How important is that party's influence in actual legislation?

state senator and Anthony Pollina, also a state Senator are Progs.


Here is a list of local office holders:

http://www.progressiveparty.org/elected-progressives/local-officeholders


There is one statewide P office holder, Doug Hoffer, Auditor of Accounts

Senate:

https://www.progressiveparty.org/elected-progressives/state-officeholders/senate

House:

https://www.progressiveparty.org/elected-progressives/state-officeholders/house

I'm not familiar with your state's politics in detail.

I'd like to see 5th parties. 20th parties.

but I read a book by a constitutional lawyer claiming
that the 2 party system is somewhat embedded in
our constitution. This makes a bit of a black/white
situation.

But a parliamentary system can be very messy as well.
Look, how Bibi just managed to pool all the conservative
parties and keep Likud in control of that pool. He essentially
eliminated all of the moderate parties.

So are more parties better? I don't know the answer.

Because there is no mention of them. The founders were opposed to parties. They felt parties would create division where there was none just to get elected. And they were right. People are demonized just so someone else can get elected. See the Federalist Papers for the views of the founders on parties.

after reading the replies I might be changing my mind but for now I say we'd be better off without them