For me, it's because I have a basic grasp of politics and the economy.

I actually have formal training in political science, so I think you'll understand why I don't (non-negligibly) update my beliefs in the direction of the policy advocated in your post simply because you claim to understand the basics.

I don't appreciate baseless accusations. What do you even mean when you say I didn't check the literature? What evidence do you have of whatever it is you're thinking of?

Baseless? Hardly. You addressed exactly zero of the standard arguments for the beneficial effect of political parties in your post (let alone refuted them). Entire volumes have been dedicated to exploring at least 3 of the 4 questions you raised.

Oddly enough, you actually claim that political parties obliterate information, whereas the majority of political scientists believe that they provide voters with additional information that would be too costly to accumulate on their own. Since you didn't even mention as much, seems to indicate that you are unfamiliar with the relevant literature.

This is not a contemporary policy debate. It is a question that opens with a contemporary example.

Opening with a contemporary example is exactly what I meant we shouldn't do. Discussing politics rationally is hard enough as it is without bringing in examples that people have already "chosen sides" on. It would be much wiser to draw your example from Ancient Athens or the Republic of Venice or anything that people aren't emotionally invested in.

Also, aren't we supposed to hold off on proposing solutions?