I get the rationale for having political parties. Even George Washington acknowledged the short-term benefits of political parties--though he clearly thought the negatives outweigh the positives. ("However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." [
But, in the context of a functionally two-party (majority-party-versus-opposition-party) system, is there a point beyond which the fundamental differences between parties becomes so vast that each party should naturally prefer a single-party state despite the obvious consequences this would have on the political system as a whole? When you sincerely believe the policies of the other party are actually wholly dangerous (or detrimental) to the country--when you primarily associate words like "disgusting" and "terrible" and "disastrous" and "bastards" and "liars" and "ridiculous" with the "other party" [
]--what argument can you really make against converting to a single-party system?