2 party system a bad thing?

[lehighguy]

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

[blackize]

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.

[BluffTHIS!]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.