Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

View Poll Results: A10s MP
Fold 4 28.57%
Call 4 28.57%
Raise 6 42.86%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-20-2005, 02:24 AM
BadBoyBenny BadBoyBenny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 66
Default Re: 2 party system a bad thing?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-20-2005, 06:38 AM
blackize blackize is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 267
Default Re: 2 party system a bad thing?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-20-2005, 11:27 AM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default Re: 2 party system a bad thing?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-21-2005, 12:57 AM
DCWildcat DCWildcat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 358
Default Re: 2 party system a bad thing?

[ 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?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-21-2005, 01:05 AM
TomCollins TomCollins is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 172
Default Re: 2 party system a bad thing?

Do you think 90% of the population even has ideals?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-21-2005, 07:28 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 2 party system a bad thing?

[ 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
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-21-2005, 07:32 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 2 party system a bad thing?

PS: I think a Proportional Representation system would be good too.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-21-2005, 10:35 PM
FishHooks FishHooks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 596
Default Re: 2 party system a bad thing?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-21-2005, 11:06 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 2 party system a bad thing?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-21-2005, 11:43 PM
lehighguy lehighguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 590
Default Do Parties Still Exist?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393324...ks&v=glance
In "The Future of Freedom" Fareed Zarkaria makes an impressive arguement that we currently don't have political parties anyway. There are no party bosses, no party structure or organization. Funding is primarily done by the candidate, as is his choice of what issues to support.

This can best be seen in the rise of wealthy and famous candidates that run personality centered campaigns. We elect people, not policies. Even our news coverage revolves
around personalities such as Bill O'Rielly or Lou Dobbs.

Five years ago the republican party stood for fiscal responsibility, humble (almost isolationist) foriegn policy, non-interference of government in business, and much else. The power of George Bush's personality alone almost completely transformed the party on almost any issue. Dems have also completely shifted thier posistions if for no other reason then to oppose Bush.

We currently live in a cult of personality society. It can be seen throughout our culture and is becomming the overwhelming factor in our politics. Anyone with charisma (Reagen, Clinton) and a modest amound of starting capital (Howard Dean) can run and get elected for president. There is no party meeting about them, there is no approval process. Parties are adaptable shells that latch onto a candidate and are morphed by him.

So do we have a two party system? Not really. A libraterian could run as a republican and simply change the parties policies to reflect thier own, the party would adapt. Running with a R or D next to your name is instant credibility and nothing more.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.