2 party system a bad thing?

[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.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
how many of you believe that the US would be better off without political parties

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering how incredibly well America has done in its 229 years of existence, I think the two party system has served us very well. Switching to anything else seems too risky with no clear cut benefits.

[ QUOTE ]
Considering how incredibly well America has done in its 229 years of existence, I think the two party system has served us very well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, for the most part.


[ QUOTE ]
Switching to anything else seems too risky with no clear cut benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]
Switching to the free-for-all some suggest would leave us like some other countries, where legislative bodies are made up of coalitions. Not good.

But (here it comes [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ), the two parties we now have, have become, IMO, so arrogant it's not good for the U.S. That's why I keep looking for "outsiders and long shots" to vote for. No, I'm not voting for nut jobs and kooks just to voice my pissed-off-edness.

If enough votes start showing up in the "Others" column, maybe, just maybe, the Dems and Repubs will get the message. Maybe they'll start looking for ways to get over their differences and making decisions that more of us can agree on.

I'm not holding my breath.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
That's why I keep looking for "outsiders and long shots" to vote for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although they were members of the big 2 political parties, both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were genuine Washington outsiders when elected for the first time.

[El Barto]

Snce 1976, only Bush41 has been an insider. We clearly like outsiders (and governors specifically),

[ QUOTE ]
Although they were members of the big 2 political parties, both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were genuine Washington outsiders when elected for the first time.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "outsiders," I meant outside of the two major/ruling parties. Sorry for the fuzzy language I used.

[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[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.