You know, I've been thinking about that. There is this political researcher called John Judge. He is co-founder of COPA (Coalition on Political Assassinations) and 911citizenswatch.org. He always cites President Washington and President Jefferson, who, according to Mr. Judge, believed that political parties, themselves, were inimical to democracy.
In short, the reason for this is because, by definition, political parties take power from the masses and give it to the few. Judge cites Jefferson, who apparently said, that in any society you can only have two parties no matter what they call themselves: the aristocrats who want to take power from the people and give it to the rich and powerful few; and the "Democrats" who want to take power from the few and give it to the people -- but in a TRULY democratic society you don't need a Democratic party.
John Judge says (and I think he's on to something here) that it would be more democratic if we could vote on issues instead of for this or that politician from this or that political party. We've had the technology since the thirties when radio was avaliable to have national, inclusive debate and discussion on the issues.
Judge cites Jefferson again, who apparently said that given a choice between a government without a newspaper or a newspaper without a government, he woulld always choose the latter. The point is that Jefferson believed that information flow was even more important than the apparatus of government or those organs of the state that carry out policy.