But still, having 5-6 independent candidates running reduces partisan tension by increasing the number of "poles" to gravitate towardsIt's broadly doable. Rojava-style Democratic Confederalism + iDemocracy + a legislature with population levels on par with New Hampshire.
Of course even if there were no parties it would still wind up like Nebraska where everyone knows who is who.
The only version of that I've seen anywhere is some kind of runoff I think.That aside, how would "primaries" work in a nonpartisan system ?
@Nanwe is the specialist on Third and Fourth, not me.You could argue this was more or less the system in the early Third Republic in France (although I think there was no withdrawal requirement - @Redolegna?) before national organised parties really emerged on the left.
You shouldn't assume they would exist. As already mentioned you might have a two round system similar to jungle primaries in the US, but you could just as easily have normal FPTP (that's what Nunavut and NWT do).That aside, how would "primaries" work in a nonpartisan system ?
That'd be pretty dope though esp. if all the candidates are still technically non-partisan and you end up with like 10 pro-admin candidates and 20 anti-admin candidates that switch between being the frontrunnerIn any “partyless democracy”, a pro-administration faction and one or a number of anti-administration factions are still likely to emerge. These factions may be fluid and they may even resemble more a union of constituency associations than a formal party, but regardless some sort of party division would emerge.