2 party system a bad thing?

[chessforlife]

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

[The Don]

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.

[fluxrad]

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).

[theweatherman]

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.

[BadBoyBenny]

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.

[DCWildcat]

[ 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?

[TomCollins]

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

[ 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

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

[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.