2 party system a bad thing?
 

how many of you believe that the US would be better off without political parties-- if our leaders just ran as themselves, without affiliations?

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

Obviously it is bad, the two ideologies (Conservative/Liberal in a modern American sense) which Republicans and Democrats represent are so close that there is not much of a choice.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

Washington warned against a two party system in his exit speech. I believe he was right.

One can certainly argue that this would be a problem for the Presidency, namely that you would have 100+ names on a ballot and no one would know who they wanted to vote for. But I believe a partyless system would sort itself out. Only those people who had fought their way to the national spotlight, folks like McCain and (shudder) Hillary Clinton, would garner enough votes to become President. I wouldn't be too worried that Billy Bob Thompkins would win the Presidency.

Alas, politics lends itself to political parties for the same reason that labor eventually tends toward unionization. One simply hopes the parties don't stray too far from the collective herd as it were (I'm looking at you both, Mr. Bush and Mr. Reid).

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

a multi party system is dangerous in terms of legitimacy. Save you have 5 parties of relativly equal strenght, when the results come back at 20% 20% 20% 15% 25% you see that the winning party has about 75% of the nation agianst their ideals.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

[ QUOTE ]
how many of you believe that the US would be better off without political parties

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering how incredibly well America has done in its 229 years of existence, I think the two party system has served us very well. Switching to anything else seems too risky with no clear cut benefits.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Considering how incredibly well America has done in its 229 years of existence, I think the two party system has served us very well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, for the most part.


[ QUOTE ]
Switching to anything else seems too risky with no clear cut benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]
Switching to the free-for-all some suggest would leave us like some other countries, where legislative bodies are made up of coalitions. Not good.

But (here it comes [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ), the two parties we now have, have become, IMO, so arrogant it's not good for the U.S. That's why I keep looking for "outsiders and long shots" to vote for. No, I'm not voting for nut jobs and kooks just to voice my pissed-off-edness.

If enough votes start showing up in the "Others" column, maybe, just maybe, the Dems and Repubs will get the message. Maybe they'll start looking for ways to get over their differences and making decisions that more of us can agree on.

I'm not holding my breath.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's why I keep looking for "outsiders and long shots" to vote for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although they were members of the big 2 political parties, both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were genuine Washington outsiders when elected for the first time.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

Snce 1976, only Bush41 has been an insider. We clearly like outsiders (and governors specifically),

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Although they were members of the big 2 political parties, both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were genuine Washington outsiders when elected for the first time.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "outsiders," I meant outside of the two major/ruling parties. Sorry for the fuzzy language I used.

[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

I suppose a similair arguement could be made for slavery or segregation, given they took place in the country for long periods of time.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

Doesn't mean they're against anyone's ideals, they just like other ideals or candidates a little better. In the two party system we pften have to vote against the candidate whose ideals we don't like, but in the free for all system, we might actually be able to vote for the candidates/ideals we like the best.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

If the average American were smarter and had an attention span greater than that of a gnat we would be better off.

The two party system is the only way it could work unless we placed some sort of restriction on voting or Americans decided to stay informed. The average American is not informed on most issues and not particularly informed even on the issues that interest them. They vote along party lines because the party tells them to. If there isn't a key issue they are worried about, they don't vote.

If everyone stayed on top of the issues that matter most to them and the stances of public officials on those issues then perhaps we could move away from the two party system, but I dont think we can do that until then.

All that being said, the two party system doesn't work very well when both parties gravitate toward neutral ground. The fundamental differences in ideologies of Republicans and Democrats just aren't represented in the major political elections. Presidential, HOR, and Senate candidates end up taking the same position on so many issues that there is hardly any difference between the parties anymore.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

Anyone who sincerely wants to see a 3rd party become a force in US politics has to be willing to vote that way over and over no matter what the consequences. That means you vote for Nader-like candidates time and again even when it is likely you are insuring the win of the major party candidate you would least like to see in office. It is the fear of getting the least preferred choice, along with the major parties slowly synthesizing 3rd party ideals on both sides of the political spectrum, that keeps 3rd parties permanently on the sidelines.

The only alternative is an agenda type of coalition, in which right leaning dems and left leaning repubs back a centrist agenda and urge citizens to vote for the candidate of whatever pary that backs that agenda. Of course those politicians have to also be willing to buck party discipline of their respective parties and accept the consequences that come from that.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

[ QUOTE ]
a multi party system is dangerous in terms of legitimacy. Save you have 5 parties of relativly equal strenght, when the results come back at 20% 20% 20% 15% 25% you see that the winning party has about 75% of the nation agianst their ideals.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But does 90% of the country truly hold the ideals of exactly 2 ideologies?

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

Do you think 90% of the population even has ideals?

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

[ QUOTE ]
a multi party system is dangerous in terms of legitimacy. Save you have 5 parties of relativly equal strenght, when the results come back at 20% 20% 20% 15% 25% you see that the winning party has about 75% of the nation agianst their ideals.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why you'd use a different voting method to elect the president.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=3784824
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=3745599

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

PS: I think a Proportional Representation system would be good too.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

I dont know if any of you have read the Federalist papers, mainly the ones written by James Madison, who basically wrote the constitution. He basically believes in a 2 party system, read federalist 10 and you can come to your own conclusion but parties like independant and green could be considered "factions". Factions is what Madison wanted to controll not eliminate, and he basically said they serve as a type of check on the current system.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

You make a very good point and reference.

The problem I see, is what's happened to the 2-party system. It's become, "Win at any/all costs. They're always wrong, we're always right. Vote their way and you're an idiot. They represent evil, we represent good."

Mr. Madison was, simply put, in a room with men of differing thoughts and opinions. They argued and debated. They fought like hell but they listened to the other side. And they found a way to get around their differences. They had the greater good as a final goal.

We don't have that today.

btw, I think it's sad more people don't even know what The Federalist Papers are. They're more than just interesting.

Do Parties Still Exist?
 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393324...ks&v=glance
In "The Future of Freedom" Fareed Zarkaria makes an impressive arguement that we currently don't have political parties anyway. There are no party bosses, no party structure or organization. Funding is primarily done by the candidate, as is his choice of what issues to support.

This can best be seen in the rise of wealthy and famous candidates that run personality centered campaigns. We elect people, not policies. Even our news coverage revolves
around personalities such as Bill O'Rielly or Lou Dobbs.

Five years ago the republican party stood for fiscal responsibility, humble (almost isolationist) foriegn policy, non-interference of government in business, and much else. The power of George Bush's personality alone almost completely transformed the party on almost any issue. Dems have also completely shifted thier posistions if for no other reason then to oppose Bush.

We currently live in a cult of personality society. It can be seen throughout our culture and is becomming the overwhelming factor in our politics. Anyone with charisma (Reagen, Clinton) and a modest amound of starting capital (Howard Dean) can run and get elected for president. There is no party meeting about them, there is no approval process. Parties are adaptable shells that latch onto a candidate and are morphed by him.

So do we have a two party system? Not really. A libraterian could run as a republican and simply change the parties policies to reflect thier own, the party would adapt. Running with a R or D next to your name is instant credibility and nothing more.

Re: Do Parties Still Exist?
 

[ QUOTE ]
A libraterian could run as a republican and simply change the parties policies to reflect thier own, the party would adapt.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul (Tom DeLay's predecessor) tried that. The party didn't adapt.

Re: Do Parties Still Exist?
 

Did he run for president? Was he popular? Is he charismatic?

Re: Do Parties Still Exist?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Did he run for president? Was he popular? Is he charismatic?

[/ QUOTE ]
He ran for prez on Libertarian ticket.

Very popular with Libertarians.

My dawgs got more charisma.

Re: Do Parties Still Exist?
 

I don't see the relation to my post then?

Re: Do Parties Still Exist?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the relation to my post then?

[/ QUOTE ]
And that doesn't surprise me. At all.

Re: Do Parties Still Exist?
 

Am I missing something. My sarcasm detector is through the roof.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

I think interest groups are what has really screwed up american politics. That was the main thing madison talked about/refered to in federalist 10 regarding factions. I think he would be amazed how much they have grown, and I myself also believe they are out of controll. But one of the things he talks about is not controlling the existence of factions but limiting their control, and he says thats basically the job of democracy. I really dont know how us voters let these interest groups have so much controll.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think interest groups are what has really screwed up american politics. That was the main thing madison talked about/refered to in federalist 10 regarding factions. I think he would be amazed how much they have grown, and I myself also believe they are out of controll. But one of the things he talks about is not controlling the existence of factions but limiting their control, and he says thats basically the job of democracy. I really dont know how us voters let these interest groups have so much controll.

[/ QUOTE ]
You, sir, are exactly right about the original intent of the two party system. I don't think he, or the other "old white guys" who put the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights together, would be amazed. I think they'd be disappointed and, possibly, disgusted.

They'd be disappointed at what's happened to this country. What we've allowed to happen. Slowly, small step by small step.

The original idea of limiting control of the "factions" was in line with the idea of limiting control of the government. That's also why they devised the system of checks and balances.

We voters allowed the special interest groups to gain so much control by not controlling the people we elected to represent us. Nominees make elaborate plans, promise everything, get elected and then settle in. Comfortable that once in office, they can pretty much do what they damned well please.

We voters tell them what they're doing/not doing is OK by us by re-electing them. We don't insist/demand they account for their actions.

I keep hearing/reading about, "It's all those other guys/women. Not my guy/lady." Well, it's all those guys/women.

OK, it's getting late. I'm packing up my soap box and heading to bed.

btw, I admire folks who can refer to one of the FP's and seem to actually have read it. Good job.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

An uninformed and incompetent voting block should be assumed for democracy. Our elections are working as intended.

Our founders realized the flaw of mob-democracy and thus placed extremrely high limitations on the legislator. It was always assumed congress would be stupid but powerless. We have steadily given them more power over the years.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It was always assumed congress would be stupid but powerless.

[/ QUOTE ]
The "stupid" congress? "Always assumed" by who(m).

I thought the original intent was that the Legislative Branch not be stupid. They were to have the good sense to write reasonable law.

"We, the people," elect them to represent us. We give them the freedom to make decisions in our behalf. Isn't that what's meant by a democratic republic?

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

Thanks those FP's are some good reading, but some can be hard to read. However I think it can also be said in terms of interest groups that many of the groups check each other. There are only a handfull of dominate interest groups, and those interest groups spur more interest groups that are against their cause and so on. I think this effect is very minimal but does have some merit if you believe in this theory. However no matter how you look at it, these groups are really out of control.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

for the posters who said that americans are too dumb to handle more than 2 parties, are the people in Canada that much smarter than you? We have multiple political parties including the Block Quebecois which is based in only one province and whos whole purpose is to try and get quebec seperated from canada. Since our past election the government has had less than 50% of the parliament seats, and so has had to compromise with other groups in order to get laws passed. While it crippled the governments ability in many respects it also seems to me it more fairly represented the people of Canada.

NOTE this is ignoring the fact that the canadian prime minister this past term is the guy who was directly involved in a corrupt government that stole taxpayer money.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

[ QUOTE ]
a multi party system is dangerous in terms of legitimacy. Save you have 5 parties of relativly equal strenght, when the results come back at 20% 20% 20% 15% 25% you see that the winning party has about 75% of the nation agianst their ideals.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a flawed argument. In a 5-party system, the views of the people are represented much better than in that of a 2-party. 75% of the nation would not be against the Presidents views. Their views just wouldn't be as perfectly represented as they like. Your argument is flawed in that you're basically saying that 2 parties will represent the people better than 5 parties will. Poppycock!

The problem with a two party was illustrated perfectly in the 2004 election. How many times did you hear the phrase "the lesser of the two evils"? Just because I voted for John Kerry does not mean I want him for President ... there's just nobody better to represent my views. If it was a 5-party system and I voted for somebody closer to my ideals, but he lost ... I'd deal with it because I'd accept that I am the minority in this country of 300 million, and then I'd wait for the next election where I could hope that maybe more people would have my views so that my party could win.

5-party > 2-party. And it's not even close.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is a flawed argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pot and the kettle, buddy. Your whole post really just states that multiple parties are better without really showing how.

[ QUOTE ]
In a 5-party system, the views of the people are represented much better than in that of a 2-party.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. But, the eventual winner will not match the rest of the country's views very well, else they would have voted for his party instead of the one they did.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with a two party was illustrated perfectly in the 2004 election. How many times did you hear the phrase "the lesser of the two evils"?

[/ QUOTE ]
And why couldn't this also become the lesser of five evils?

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your whole post really just states that multiple parties are better without really showing how.

[/ QUOTE ]

Argh. I'll try to keep it short.

More accurate representation. A much higher voter turnout. More accurate representation. It would break the monopoly of the two-party system. More accurate representation! All kinds of different individuals would come into the limelight, expressing their many views on how to handle the country's problems. Need I say it again? More accurate representation!!!

I mean, seriously, 300 million people cannot be accurately represented by two different political views. There's way more political views in this country than just two.

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. But, the eventual winner will not match the rest of the country's views very well, else they would have voted for his party instead of the one they did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does Bush represent this country's views?

[ QUOTE ]

And why couldn't this also become the lesser of five evils?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, it could. But being a poker player, I'm sure you understand that the chances are much much slimmer with five parties.

I'll elaborate more later on anything, because this topic really intrigues me. But I gotta go cook some chicken!

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. But, the eventual winner will not match the rest of the country's views very well, else they would have voted for his party instead of the one they did.

[/ QUOTE ]

May I play Devil's Advocate?

Assuming, first, that we could even put together 4 or 5 parties - not likely, but say we did. Those 4 or 5 parties would also be represented in the House and Senate.

If a President were chosen from a ballot of 4 or 5, he would, IMO, be representative of quite a mix of voters. Not totally representing the majority, but that's not done now with 2 parties.

This sounds like the only way our government is ever going to start making decisions based on a wider range of opinions/agendas. Nobody will get anything done without coalitions. Coalitions made up of people who compromised and agreed on what they had in common.

I can see the downside of that, also. Israel's Knesset comes to mind. Not necessarily the best example, either direction.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

On most major issues Americans tend to split in black and white terms. When you see things as either black or white having two parties makes sense.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

[ QUOTE ]
On most major issues Americans tend to split in black and white terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so.

Abortion: You're either for it, or against it. Or against it unless the mother's life is in danger. Or perhaps if she was raped. Or the morning after-pill is OK - or not, because conception has already taken place. Or even birth-control should be illegal because it doesn't prevent conception. Or abortion before the third trimester is OK. Or lots of other positions, I'm sure. Major issue. Lots of positions.

Gay Marriage: For it, or against it. Or against civil unions too -- or for them. Or against the government being involved in marriage at all. Or it should be left up to the states, and other states should honor marriages in other states -- or not honor them. Or it should be made illegal, or legal, at the federal level. Change the constitution, or don't change it. Major issue -- lots of positions.

I will grant you that Republicans tend to be more cohesive in their beliefs. So, "Republican" vs. "Not Republican" would probably work better than "Democrat" -- because Democrats tend to have a lot more diverse opinions than Republicans. (Yes, this is a generalization, not an absolute.)

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

Something to keep in mind is that while America has had a two party system for nearly all of it's history, it hasn't been the same two partys. The Democrats can more or less be considered the decendants of Jefferson's Democratic Republican party, but the Federalist party died out and was replaced by the Whig party, which in turn died out and was replaced by the Republican Party. It would not greatly surprise me if we turn out to be in the beginning stages of another transition. I'm not sure yet which party will be replaced. Maybe both. The Republicans are riding high at the moment, but I think that may change after the next two elections. I'm also uncertain as to what party or parties would replace the current ones. Libertarians? Green? Reform? None of those has much strength currently.

Re: 2 party system a bad thing?
 

The polarization between the two parties has gotten very destructive. Prior to the 1990's, there was an acknowledgement that it was generally necessary to compromise with the opposition party, given that under our system, we often have a divieded government -- House of Representatives, Presidency and Senate are often not all controlled by the same party. In 1994, after the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, they tried to use the budget process to force their agenda on the President and the Senate. Then they tried to push through the impeachment of Clinton for lying about a [censored], after failing to make any of many more serious allegations stick. I think the process has been basicly broken since then. A take no prisoners attitude has become entrenched in both parties. The Democrats are certainly not blameless here, but I think the Republicans have largely bee responsible for this. Part of the problem is that Chriustian fundamentalists have become a major bloc in the Republican coalition, and these are basickly people who don't like to compromise, and tend to see anybody that disagrees with them as evil.