Reddit mentions of Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America (Cambridge Studies in Public Opinion and Political Psychology)

Re: 2
First, You've made a claim (I.e., that individuals have more power without parties), but you've not provided any evidence for it. Until you muster compelling evidence for that claim, we (including you) need not take the claim seriously. But there is more.

Second, you will need to respond to an objection to your claim: your view (eliminating all parties) is conceptually impossible. Explanation:

Whoever is in power is, by definition, a political party. They might not have a name or explicit platform, but they are a group of people (so they are organized) with resources (like, ya know, being in power), and they they make decisions (so they exert power as a group). We can call that party the status quo party (because they are already in power).

A true no party system would require that no group of people be in charge.

And that would be a sort of direct democracy or anarchy (or something like those). But the thing about direct democracies and anarchies and the like is that majorities rule. So there ends up being a ruling party either way. The ruling party might not have a stable identity or set of preferences, but neither do current political parties — think about how Trump and Sanders changed the two major parties in just one election season or how Republicans and Democrats have drastically changed preferences during their existence. So even if we attempt to eliminate parties altogether, we end up with at least one party – again, by definition. We might end up with at least two parties: the one in power and whoever is critical of that group.

To be clear, this objection is not the "eliminating parties is hard" objection. Rather, it is the "eliminating parties is conceptually impossible" objection. This objection would pressure you to weaken your view to something like the following: we should eliminate all parties that can be eliminated (since eliminating all parties is not possible).

NB: that weaker view might be so weak that it is not fundamentally different than a two party system like the one we have (because there will always be a party in power and some party that opposed some set of actions of the party in power. In short, the only conceptually plausible version of a view like yours might what we already have.

Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America is a good book. In summary he looks at the history of partisan politics and the roots of current political ideology in America and points out that traditionally parties were not ideologically based but typically determined by your social network and community-- simply a coalition to elect candidates. He shows that contemporary political ideology started to solidify in the 50s and 60s, which later shifted parties as people began to "sort" themselves into the two major parties based on ideology.

In the 50s American political scientists were actually complaining that the party platforms were too similar. Anthony Downs Economic Theory of Democracy stated that two-party systems would lead to nearly identical party platforms in their attempts to appeal to the largest number of voters. This thesis also tended to assume that the effect would skew the platforms to be more centrist, which national elections tend to do.

Also in Anthony Down's analysis though was a cost-benefit equation for voting. He argued the impact and thus benefit of voting was exceptionally low and the cost of voting--informing yourself about candidate's platforms and physically going to vote was high. Ideologically distinct parties help to address this paradox of voting by reducing the cost of voting as you have a pretty good idea of general policy stance based on party affiliation alone. Also, individual candidates then have more of an opportunity to point out the flaws/risks of their opponents, as well as highlighting the benefits of their own policies--helping the other side of the equation as well.

Also, while I'm not very knowledgeable about the UK government, your parliament is many times the size of our legislative branch while simultaneously representing a smaller populace. This could allow for more distinct parties and platforms to form and get enough backing to impact government.

Facts are the Overton Window in the US has shifted far to the right.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0731/America-s-big-shift-right

For further reading:

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/%7Ejcampbel/documents/LaymanCarseyReview2006.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Political-Ideologies-Parties-Cambridge-Psychology/dp/110762052X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441497124&sr=8-1&keywords=hans+noel&pebp=1441497107719&perid=0VZBRMD97S0YE83XXXX6

E as suas fontes quais são? Até agora você também só fez afirmações sem fontes, eu pelo menos posso apelar pra anedota, né? Mas já que a minha análise não é o suficiente pra você, segue uma fonte acadêmica:

http://www.amazon.com/Political-Ideologies-Parties-Cambridge-Psychology/dp/110762052X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441497124&sr=8-1&keywords=hans+noel&pebp=1441497107719&perid=0VZBRMD97S0YE83XXXX6