No Stupid Questions

Common sense

ranked-choice voting? that would eliminate much of the need for parties anyway

Non-partisan.

You know, I don't think there is a term.

So, I'll coin it: Washingtonism.

Our first President famously advised against political parties. He also stepped down after two turns, establishing a tradition that later became part of the Constitution after FDR won his third term.

He also had slave teeth.

George Washington didn't want political parties either. So whatever you are it's patriotic af.

Anti-zionazi??? The single issue that determines candidates for office in both parties is loyalty to Israel. DNC approval more important than RNC. The Green party only ever saying/doing anything 2 months before elections is as close to proof of being a RNC vote splitting organization.

We have the technology for liquid democracy. Every citizen has the right to vote on every issue, or delegate their vote to anyone they trust, who can delegate further. Sure, an administrator should exist for purposes of instant reaction to emergencies, and subject to continuous confidence votes when out of emergencies, but liquid democracy is only actual democracy. What we have is who gets the most money/zionist media love to make them look good when kissing babies or making promises of improving lives, but just implement zionazi warmongering once elected.

Political parties are inevitable with fptp elections. It will always come down to 2 candidates. Any 3rd candidate will only split the vote with whoever is most similar. People tend to naturally organize themselves into groups based on who they agree with most. I don't know if its possible to get rid of political parties all together but having more than 2 would be an improvement. The only way to do that is to change our elections. Either ranked-choice voting or runoffs when no one gets more than half the votes could allow for people to vote 3rd party without throwing away their votes.

There is a word anti-partyism, but it doesn't seem to be commonly used.

The literal answer to your literal question is called "believing that US politics should be non-partisan".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy
The US started as de facto non-partisan democracy. There is a de jure option.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
Direct democracy would probably give less power to political parties, but there still could be voting blocs. An example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Jewish_bloc_voting

It's hard to assign a name to a negative, as the alternatives are so plenty. Maybe describe the improvements you might like?

I, for one, like the ideas of liquid democracy.

It's a sign of above average intelligence. The two party system is what has destroyed the United States. Democrats and Republicans and the citizens who fear anything different are all equally responsible.

Anti-partisan maybe?

This is something called anarchy (not the form that's co-opted). It'll be more of a meritocracy if anything, though.

Following Washington's guidance is what I call it.

Simone de Beauvoir would call that the aesthetic attitude.

They will always exist, its natural for form alliances.

Seems like you just want to get rid of fptp and the emergent property of the two-party system under fptp. So maybe you can call yourself an "Advocate for proportional representation / multi-member districts"

Patriotism. Democracy. Representational Government. Freedom. Liberty. Take your pick.

Being normal. That's what it's called as a two party system is just bound for failure if one party does not uphold the social contract.

A nation of toddlers all screaming for something different and being unable to come together on a single point.

Edit for the downvoters: Without parties, you'd likely face some serious problems.

Coalition-building becomes nearly impossible. Right now, parties help aggregate different interests and forge compromises between, say, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, or between labor unions and environmentalists. Without that pre-existing framework, every single issue would require building coalitions from scratch among hundreds of individual legislators.

Voters would be overwhelmed. Instead of choosing between a few party platforms, they'd need to research dozens or hundreds of individual candidates' positions on every issue. Most people simply don't have the time or expertise to make informed choices at that level of granularity.

Legislative chaos. You'd essentially have a legislature full of independents trying to form temporary alliances on every vote. Look at how difficult it becomes when even a small number of members break from party discipline, and now imagine that as the permanent state of affairs.

Accountability becomes murky. Parties provide a way for voters to hold someone responsible for governance. Without them, when things go wrong, who exactly do you vote against?

The irony is that even in a "no-party" system, informal factions and coalitions would likely emerge anyway, but they'd just be less transparent and accountable to voters than formal parties are.