2 party system a bad thing?

[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.

[Cumulonimbus]

[ 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.

[BCPVP]

[ 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?

[Cumulonimbus]

[ 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!

[ 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.

[elwoodblues]

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.

[ 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.)

[CORed]

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.

[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.