It is tempting to think that political parties came into existence in this country if not when the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, then at least by the time Vermont ratified it on January 10, 1791.

That is, it is tempting to think that the Constitution – somewhere, somehow, even if indirectly or implicitly – addresses an issue that has defined virtually every aspect of our electoral process for over two hundred years.  Right?

Wrong!

The Constitution says nothing about political parties.  Not only that, but the Founding Fathers explicitly did not want American politics to become partisan.  In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton and Madison both warned against the dangers of domestic political factions.

Moreover, the first president of the United States, George Washington, was not a member of any political party at the time of his election or throughout his tenure as president.  In fact, Washington argued that political parties should not be formed for reasons he stated in blunt terms his Farewell Address.  Washington's analysis is not only brilliant, but remarkably prescient.

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, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, 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.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It 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 finds 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.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

The irony is that Washington's objections were ignored by his vice president, John Adams, who succeeded him.  Adams was elected in 1797 as a member of the Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, while James Madison, our fourth president, was elected as a member of the Democratic-Republican Party.  Hamilton and Madison evidently ignored their own objections as well as those of Washington. 

Dissolving political parties in this country is by no means a simple matter.  It would mean, for example:

1. Eliminating the requirement that voters register under a party affiliation.

2. Doing away with party affiliation by elected or appointed office holders.

3. Redefining criteria for deciding passage of legislation, at national and state levels.

4. Eliminating primaries/caucuses to declare a winner for each competing party in national as well as state elections.

5. Eliminating political conventions along with the concepts of delegate and party standard bearer.

One can only guess how the electoral system in this country would have evolved had Washington's advice been heeded.  Is it too late to do that now?  Points two through five entail sweeping changes, but point one seems straightforward and a good place to start.

Under a no-party system, it is doubtful that the following would have been elected president of the United States:

• A wealthy playboy from Massachusetts.
• A peanut farmer from Georgia.
• A philandering governor of Arkansas.
• A community organizer from Chicago.

On the other hand, the following probably would have been elected president under a no-party system:

• A general who led the Allies to victory during WWII.
• A governor of California.
• A naval aviator who fought during WWII.
• A governor of Texas.  

Finally, under a no-party system, it is doubtful that a former secretary of state who was being investigated by the FBI for potential breaches of national security while in office would be taken seriously as a candidate for the presidency.  On the other hand, it seems clear that Donald Trump (and perhaps Ted Cruz) would easily be elected president of the United States.