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.