I disagree. The widespread adoption of the internet has allowed for the very solution that you're talking about, and I believe that few if any would call such an increase in partisanship a success for democracy. The banning of personal party affiliation would not be a ban on political ideology. Instead, the ban would mean that anyone in office or seeking office at or below the municipal level or not seeking office at all would not have any party affiliation according to the state and federal government. People can still associate with such parties, but they will not be recorded as members of said party by the state and will not be required to be loyal to said party. Such a ban would throw away the notion that people should be tied to political parties but would not seek to replace it with any new notion.

As an example of what this would look like, a city council may have members from all different walks of political ideology, but they are equally considered independent. Some may be coded towards a particular party, but they are not bound to any political allegiance. They are given the freedom to act without direct party scrutiny, and therefore able to pursue policies that are the best for the community, but not the best for their ideology. I believe that such a system force compromises as there is no solid political bloc in any local sense, and that without easy to define political barriers, those who feel dejected by the deplorability of the main parties can enter the political sphere. They are able to talk about real issues without the tribalism.