I'd suggest that it'd be more productive to think about what specifically the Democrats and Republicans do that you don't like, why and how they do it, and what sort of system would get them to do something more to your liking. so, for example, if you think that the parties are influenced by big business too much, then ask yourself why and how that influence works. Businesses primarily care about things the government does that directly impacts them, so they're going to care mostly about things like taxes, regulation, and trade, and not so much about things like social issues or the proliferation of nuclear weapons. As for the how, the biggest way they influence politicians is through campaign donations, and to a lesser degree business's ability to influence public opinion through things like advertising. So if the big thing you care about is corporate influence, the problem really isn't the parties but the campaign finance system.
If you want to treat the disease, you first have to make sure you've got a good diagnosis.
I don't like parties either, but they seem to be something of a necessary evil. Or at the very least an inevitable evil. Like I was saying to Meerkat, I think it's better to focus on the problems caused by parties rather than the parties themselves, and think about how to change the system to minimize the problems. I see the main problem with parties as being excessive partisanship, and I think that ranked voting could help with that a lot. Even if the two main parties continued to dominate I think that having significant numbers of people voting for the Libertarians or the Greens or whoever before they push the button for R or D should help to reduce the us vs them mentality and make people more open to working across party lines. I think that if coalition building were explicitly part of the process of governing - even if only a small part - it would help change the political culture.
So the United States wouldn't exist if the states were all independent.
"For the contributors to this book, secession is not an issue confined to the past. They regard it as an essential remedy for the ills of today's overly large America. In this connection it is interesting to note that secession had the backing of the renowned American diplomat and historian George Kennan, who, in a manner that would have delighted Thomas Jefferson, called for America to be broken up into a number of regional commonwealths. "To begin the debate, and without being dogmatic, Kennan suggests that the Union could be divided into 'a dozen constituent republics'" (pp. 21–22).
Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century repays careful study by anyone interested in political philosophy or in American history. In their bold defiance of contemporary orthodoxy, the contributors deserve great praise."