2 party system a bad thing?

[FishHooks]

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.

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.

[FishHooks]

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 ]
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.

[lehighguy]

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.

[ 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?

[FishHooks]

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.

[mr_whomp]

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.

[CORed]

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.