• Is the two-party system the best to run American politics?
    48 replies, posted
Question: Is the two-party system making the United States ungovernable? I'd argue that the two-party system is bad for American politics. It is incredibly polarizing and often results in deadlock. Instead of evaluating on an issue-by-issue basis, most Americans are drawn towards siding fiercely with the party they identify with, which is usually inherited from parents. I would argue that increasing the amount of viable political parties would encourage Americans to evaluate more closely the issues that each stand for and vote more intelligently. Our current 'third parties' only serve to draw away votes from the major two; they are not viable winners of elections. I think this needs to be remedied to allow for more choice in how the U.S. is governed.
The more choices the better, to be honest.
[QUOTE=DangerStranger;32676917]The more choices the better, to be honest.[/QUOTE] i'm shitty with politics, but if there are more choices, wouldn't votes be more evenly distributed, meaning more people wouldn't get the party they want voted in voted in?
I think there are many questions here. First, is a two system better or equal to a three party system? Then is a three party system better than a four party system. Then is a four party system better than a five party system? And so on. The question becomes, would more parties fighting for dominance be better than just two? One common thought is that there should be no party system, rather that people should vote on their ideals. Would this goal be realistic and how could it be achieved without immoral means? An immoral mean for example would be force. The last question to bring up to what extent a party platform can represent an individual. Although the Democratic party is very varied, they all vote Democrat. Does the Democratic party represent all Democrats well enough, or would they be better off in breaking off into smaller parties?
It's been discussed pretty well here [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1130313[/url]
Two party sucks, because it is pretty much black and white. There is no middleground, and of course much less diversity. Here in Australia the people can form their own political parties, which is why we have Labor, Liberal, Nationals, Greens, Christian Democrats, Sex Party and even a Communist party (as well as many other parties). It means that their can be a party for pretty much everybody, and doesn't force the people to choose between black and white. However, coalitions can and will form in a multi-party system, such as the infamous Liberal and Nationals coalition but also the Labor and Greens one, but to a smaller extent. Although Labor and the Liberal + Nationals coalition are the most popular parties in Australia, the smaller parties still have a chance at the elections. I think that there are a couple of Greens in Parliament, as well as three Independants.
Indeed, a two party system can lead to an 'frog in boiling water' situation where moves towards the centre are met with moves towards the opposite by the opposition (the ONLY opposition), which, when repeated, can lead to a move to the opposite side all together for both sides, one being far left or far right, one being centre left or centre right respectively.
Considering both parties are pretty much right wing there really isn't a lot of choice over there.
A single party system that works on the behalf of the people is better than a two party system where each party works for themselves.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32680164]A single party system that works on the behalf of the people is better than a two party system where each party works for themselves.[/QUOTE] Just out of curiosity, how would a one party system work?
[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;32680260]Just out of curiosity, how would a one party system work?[/QUOTE] You can only vote for people in that party.
[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;32680260]Just out of curiosity, how would a one party system work?[/QUOTE] You only vote for people in that party, but due to the removal of partisan politics the people in the party will not be concerned with their party winning the election but focusing more on solving actual problems. A single party system is mostly the same as more parties, but the advantage is that it cuts out middlemen and allows problems to be tackled earlier and more efficiently than a partisan system. For example whilst a country is in economic ruin, the two main parties could be at each others throats and dividing the nation between one party or another instead of actually working to fix a problem. (Even when they get into power, instead of tackling the problem they blame the other party.)
I don't know.. I don't think so. Have one government and all people its citizens. Have one annual budget, have mutual goals and interests. No controversy, no bullshit allowed.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32681118]You only vote for people in that party, but due to the removal of partisan politics the people in the party will not be concerned with their party winning the election but focusing more on solving actual problems. A single party system is mostly the same as more parties, but the advantage is that it cuts out middlemen and allows problems to be tackled earlier and more efficiently than a partisan system. For example whilst a country is in economic ruin, the two main parties could be at each others throats and dividing the nation between one party or another instead of actually working to fix a problem. (Even when they get into power, instead of tackling the problem they blame the other party.)[/QUOTE] Yeah and what does that single party do when there is opposition with in the country? Since you basically eliminated rivalry on a party to party level you're going to end up having infighting with in the party instead.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;32683083]Yeah and what does that single party do when there is opposition with in the country? Since you basically eliminated rivalry on a party to party level you're going to end up having infighting with in the party instead.[/QUOTE] Depends on what kind of opposition. If the party is working very effectively to improve the nation then most opposition will come from reactionaries who want the old system back or left wing who think that the party isn't putting in what they want as quickly as they should or at all. If it effectively runs a nation and is improving it, it should work well. (Given no major external influence.)
America a two party state?That would be republicans and conservative religious democrats Can you even goddamn image?The horrors!
I think a third party would help get rid of the "us or them" thoughts that seem to plague US politics.
I like it because being in a large inclusive party means you don't have to adhere to everything in the platform and can develop a kind of government that's best for each local area, which is good for a country as large as the US.
it would be black and white, but at the moment its just white and whit... or black and black
If we'd actually listened to Washington we wouldn't be in this whole mess with parties. We should vote on people based on their individual views, not by which one follows a stereotype that we like.
[QUOTE=child birth;32676940]i'm shitty with politics, but if there are more choices, wouldn't votes be more evenly distributed, meaning more people wouldn't get the party they want voted in voted in?[/QUOTE] The parties would make alliances. That way you also get much more sensible politics. The bipartisan system is really bad.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/media] [b]TL;DW[/b] The two party system fails because it does not represent the majority of citizens; Most people vote for party A not necessarily because they agree with what party A is saying, but because they don't want party B to win and vice versa.
Posting what I posted in the Perfect Government thread There are no political parties. At all. The way voting works is each county (or however low you want to go) floats a candidate, and the whole state votes on the candidates (or for bigger states you can separate states into regions) Then, once a candidate has been picked for the state, the region that the state is in votes on the candidates. Whoever wins that, moves onto the national election. Whoever wins that becomes an elected official. The voting can either be done with a popular vote(I think it would be best), or an electoral college similar to what america has now. In congress (or whatever) everything is done blind. Congresspeople are not allowed to socialize or become friends with other congressman. When someone wants a bill to be passed, they send it anonymously to a speaker who does not vote or give any opinion, who then reads it out anonymously to congress. Anyone wishing to debate the bill sends an anonymous argument to the speaker, who will then read it aloud. When it comes time to vote, all voting is done blind. Each legislator votes without consulting anyone else, and without knowing who said what, so we don't have the forming of political parties. I call it the zero-party system
How can you make decisions in a government when there are only two parties present, bickering over which one gets their will through.
[QUOTE=Falchion;32685459]How can you make decisions in a government when there are only two parties present, bickering over which one gets their will through.[/QUOTE] Because they are intelligent enough to recognize that solutions are possible to problems, and don't necessarily require different answe- ahaha who I am kidding we're doomed.
[QUOTE=neos300;32685400]Posting what I posted in the Perfect Government thread There are no political parties. At all. The way voting works is each county (or however low you want to go) floats a candidate, and the whole state votes on the candidates (or for bigger states you can separate states into regions) Then, once a candidate has been picked for the state, the region that the state is in votes on the candidates. Whoever wins that, moves onto the national election. Whoever wins that becomes an elected official. The voting can either be done with a popular vote(I think it would be best), or an electoral college similar to what america has now. [/QUOTE] The one major problem of this is that it doesn't represent the majority of people, at all. Watch the video above and see why. Your system is basically First-Past-the-Post with a little twist. [editline]8th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=neos300;32685400]Congresspeople are not allowed to socialize or become friends with other congressman.[/QUOTE] That's kind of impossible. They do work at the same place, you know.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;32685219] [b]TL;DW[/b] The two party system fails because it does not represent the majority of citizens; Most people vote for party A not necessarily because they agree with what party A is saying, but because they don't want party B to win and vice versa.[/QUOTE]Primaries help a lot.
There's certainly a risk of the main parties becoming stereotypes, with little more than a different face behind them every so often. For example, in the Uk we have three "main" parties, the heads of which tend to largely fill the role of giving a voice to the party and taking the flak for something silly the party has done. At the same time, we also have loads of minor parties. And yes, they give a voice to the people. But they also come across as little more than jokes. Take the UK Independence Party, which (as its name would suggest) desires seemingly nothing more than for the UK to withdraw from the EU. Yes, it does have other policies, but there just isn't as much trust that, if elected, this party could run a country after their main issue has been dealt with. Then again, we also have the Monster Raving Loony Party, which demands the banning of semi-colons (because "no-one knows how to use them") and the introduction of a 99p coin (to "save on change") so who could complain?
what was that famous quote by Washington on political parties?
The two part system gives US 1 more option than communist Russia.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.