[subego]

Does anyone here actually believe in this?

Judging by how people talk, they seem so exasperated with the other side that I get the impression they would rather the "opposition" just fell off the face of the Earth.

By way of prediction, I'm going to say a large majority (75%) don't like it.

[subego]

Crap. Wrong forum. Nice going moron.

Move me or kill me.

[Gossamer]

Not in the least.

[::maroma::]

The 2 party system divides this country like nothing else. Its a bad thing no matter how you spin it.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by subego 

Crap. Wrong forum. Nice going moron.

Move me or kill me.

No personal attacks, even against yourself. Post reported, infracting coming.

[exca1ibur]

I think it pretty dumb. You have a nation that claims to be united, yet the political structure is divided.

[Kerrigan]

The two party system is pretty stable, it makes it very tricky for one single party to grab hold of politics and become entrenched. Take this year's midterms for instance.

People just complain about it because it is so familiar.

Multi-party parliamentary democracies have all the same problems, and then some. They have to deal with collapsed governments, and parties constantly reinventing themselves in weird ways (the conservativeness of New Labour and the phoney 'green' policies of the Tories, for instance). It also paves the way for extremist parties to grab hold of a country's regions, like the NDP neo-Nazis in Germany.

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by subego 

Move me or kill me.

Angela....double-fudge brownies.....Angela....double-fudge brownies....

[Millennium]

What's the alternative? The two-party system as it stands is really nothing particularly special; any multi-party system would look very similar if all but two parties dropped out. Are you advocating a one-party system instead?

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by rickey939 

Angela....double-fudge brownies.....Angela....double-fudge brownies....

No seconds until everyone has had some!
You have GOT to be kidding!


OT:
I think one problem is that the parties, in an attempt to distance themselves from each other, polarize their views and in the end actually don't represent the average voter well, just the extremes on each side.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

I think one problem is that the parties, in an attempt to distance themselves from each other, polarize their views and in the end actually don't represent the average voter well, just the extremes on each side.

This is also my view of the situation. There's basically a big bunch of normal people (centrists) who are essentially subjected to the whims of two small groups of nutjobs.

[macintologist]

The biggest problem with the American two party system is that the extremists from both parties have a big say in who they nominate as a presidential candidate, so in the end its the centrists and moderates that end up losing because the moderates of each party are considered "weak" and never end up winning.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

What's the alternative? The two-party system as it stands is really nothing particularly special; any multi-party system would look very similar if all but two parties dropped out. Are you advocating a one-party system instead?

Yup. One party with various positions with the best man or woman for that position, just like a company.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

Yup. One party with various positions with the best man or woman for that position, just like a company.

BING! Or no party at all, and best man for the job

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

BING! Or no party at all, and best man for the job

A no-party system would be better than a 2 (or more) party system IMO. Make it a true democracy and do a straight up 1 to 1 vote. 1 person = 1 vote. Our system, as it is today, is so broke its laughable. And we still tell ourselves that voting is the cornerstone to our society. Bull. If it were, then we would have a stable system that isn't horribly corrupt. Instead we have a corrupt, terribly flawed system that allows people who don't really win to actually win. And where does that sort of thing lead us? Exactly where we are today.

[SirCastor]

The two party system doesn't work for me, I don't feel comfortable affiliating with either party. Things are too extreme these days for me.

A frustrating thing for me is my view of Politicians: They spend one quarter of their term trying to accomplish something, another quarter catering to the people who are supporting them, and the remaining half sucking up to constituents so they can rinse and repeat...

And the whole thing is like that, Politicians have become more interested in themselves than in the good of the country/state/county/city etc.

So yeah, I don't think a two party system is working. Too late to fix it though.

[Big Mac]

Two parties are far from ideal but better than a multitude of tiny parties, ala Israel, for example. There are structural factors (winner-take-all) that are responsible for the perpetuation of the two-party system. I could envision a superior arrangement, but I could also imagine things much worse.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

No personal attacks, even against yourself. Post reported, infracting coming.

Reported for snoring.

Anyways, one party system is best. You can get things done faster and without worrying what the people think. Like China.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

What's the alternative?

A proportional representation system or mixed proportional representation/majority voting system. A pure majority voting system is inflexible and undemocratic.

[Atomic Rooster]

First of all the U.S. has the weirdest form of government. Shoulda kept a parliamentary system. Much more sympathetic to more than two parties.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

No personal attacks, even against yourself. Post reported, infracting coming.

That's really funny!

[marden]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

The 2 party system divides this country like nothing else. Its a bad thing no matter how you spin it.

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

I think it pretty dumb. You have a nation that claims to be united, yet the political structure is divided.

So you want a monopoly or you want it even more divided. Brilliant.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

What's the alternative? The two-party system as it stands is really nothing particularly special; any multi-party system would look very similar if all but two parties dropped out. Are you advocating a one-party system instead?

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

Does anyone here actually believe in this?

Judging by how people talk, they seem so exasperated with the other side that I get the impression they would rather the "opposition" just fell off the face of the Earth.

By way of prediction, I'm going to say a large majority (75%) don't like it.

You speak as though all that needs to be done (besson) is to legislate a third party.

That is not correct.

The two party system just EVOLVED out of need and desires of the people. If there were a need or the desire to have a 3rd, 4th, 5th or whatever, party it would happen based on the people.

Now, if you are drumming up support for a new party what would your basis be for existence?

The Green Party is for ecology.
The Libertarian party is for losers.
The Socialist Party is for Commies.
The Independence party is for those are too fuzzy to fit anywhere else.

So, what's your party's raison d'etre?

[dcmacdaddy]

two-party? No.

multi-party? Yes.

I'd like to see a situation where we have 3 or 4 significant political parties. I would also like to see the election process changed such that if any election is not won with an absolute majority (50% + 1 vote) by one candidate then run-off elections would be required.

[marden]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

two-party? No.

multi-party? Yes.

I'd like to see a situation where we have 3 or 4 significant political parties. I would also like to see the election process changed such that if any election is not won with an absolute majority (50% + 1 vote) by one candidate then run-off elections would be required.

We already have a 2+ party system that is only + by definition.

It is functionally a 2 party system because there is no clamor for a third party beyond that clamoring by a few extremists/activists who disagree with the extremists/activists in the other two parties.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

A proportional representation system or mixed proportional representation/majority voting system. A pure majority voting system is inflexible and undemocratic.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between proportional representation and what we have now. Are you suggesting some kind of rule by consensus, and if so then how do you suggest consensus be arrived at in a system with such diverse viewpoints?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

I'm not sure I understand the difference between proportional representation and what we have now. Are you suggesting some kind of rule by consensus, and if so then how do you suggest consensus be arrived at in a system with such diverse viewpoints?

No, he's probably pointing towards the `winner-takes-all' system vs. a simple proportionality system (you count all the votes of a party and -- depending on the proportionality -- these parties are appropriated the respective number of seats in parliament). It means that (similar to the Presidential elections in 2000) a party may have a majority although they haven't received the majority of the votes. As you can see in the States or in England, usually you effectively get a two-party system while in countries that have some sort of proportionality rule have more than one party. There are also democracies that have a mixture of both systems to vote (e. g. Germany).

As long as there aren't too many parties in parliament (there are usually rules to prevent that), it's not less stable than a democracy with a `winner-takes-all' system. Although there are counter-examples (Italy and Israel come to mind).

Personally, I wouldn't want to have only two choices, I don't think my political views would be compatible with either one of the Big 2 as the political spectrum they cover is too large.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I don't think so. I feel that in an attempt to get votes, any democratic political party will try to include ideas from the "other side" in order to steal their thunder. Eventually, what you have are pretty much what you get in America or other similar democratic countries today: two parties that are so similar to each other that it's often a crap shoot whether you are voting for any sort of "change" at all.

This can often be seen even more in multi-party democracies as well – Canada is certainly example of this, as parties such as the Liberals and Conservatives have become progressively closer. The existence of extremes on either side can also leads to "major" parties broadening not just to a Right or Left, but to both sides at once. However, I feel that's a good thing – and the need for many governments to form coalitions with other parties in times of weakness is, IMO, a Good Thing.®

But...what the hell do I know?!

greg

[subego]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

I think one problem is that the parties, in an attempt to distance themselves from each other, polarize their views and in the end actually don't represent the average voter well, just the extremes on each side.

I think this takes place more in the primaries, where riling up the extremist base pays the most dividends. By the time you get to the general election, the candidates are already pretty distanced.

Originally Posted by marden

So you want a monopoly

That's exactly what I thought. Bad idea.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I don't think so. I feel that in an attempt to get votes, any democratic political party will try to include ideas from the "other side" in order to steal their thunder. Eventually, what you have are pretty much what you get in America or other similar democratic countries today: two parties that are so similar to each other that it's often a crap shoot whether you are voting for any sort of "change" at all.

This can often be seen even more in multi-party democracies as well – Canada is certainly example of this, as parties such as the Liberals and Conservatives have become progressively closer. The existence of extremes on either side can also leads to "major" parties broadening not just to a Right or Left, but to both sides at once. However, I feel that's a good thing – and the need for many governments to form coalitions with other parties in times of weakness is, IMO, a Good Thing.®

You mentioned coalition governments and Canada. That's interesting because it's quite rare in Canada. The largest party in the House will usually form a minority government, and then have to make continual deals with other parties to pass legislation. For instance, the governing Conservatives might get support for more defense spending from the Liberals, and the next day get support from the NDP (a "socialist" party) to limit campaign contributions. It's very dynamic.

Of course, the Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP can get along reasonably well because there is little extremism found among these parties. The NDP is "Fabian" not Marxist, and the "religious right" has little influence on the Conservatives. And like the rest of the "Anglosphere," the political philosophy of Canada is essentially classical liberalism when possible, with limited social welfarism when expedient (politically speaking).

Fortunately, a tradition of coalition governments isn't found in Canada. If it were, the Liberals would be in power constantly, either in majority governments, or in Liberal-Conservative and Liberal-NDP coalitions.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

The biggest problem with the American two party system is that the extremists from both parties have a big say in who they nominate as a presidential candidate, so in the end its the centrists and moderates that end up losing because the moderates of each party are considered "weak" and never end up winning.

Aren't both Bush and Clinton considered essentially moderates? They certainly didn't make the religious right or liberals very happy, respectively.

[Kevin]

I want there to be an ability to say, be against the death penalty AND abortion...

Not necessarily that in particular, but the ability to be able to run for Pres and not have to follow their "guidelines"

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Aren't both Bush and Clinton considered essentially moderates?

Yeah pretty much. Even though some will claim Bush is a far righty.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I want there to be an ability to say, be against the death penalty AND abortion...

Not necessarily that in particular, but the ability to be able to run for Pres and not have to follow their "guidelines"

Theoretically possible already. Clinton was pro-death penalty and pro-choice. It's not unimaginable that a future Republican president will be pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You mentioned coalition governments and Canada. That's interesting because it's quite rare in Canada. The largest party in the House will usually form a minority government, and then have to make continual deals with other parties to pass legislation. For instance, the governing Conservatives might get support for more defense spending from the Liberals, and the next day get support from the NDP (a "socialist" party) to limit campaign contributions. It's very dynamic.

Of course, the Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP can get along reasonably well because there is little extremism found among these parties. The NDP is "Fabian" not Marxist, and the "religious right" has little influence on the Conservatives. And like the rest of the "Anglosphere," the political philosophy of Canada is essentially classical liberalism when possible, with limited social welfarism when expedient (politically speaking).

Fortunately, a tradition of coalition governments isn't found in Canada. If it were, the Liberals would be in power constantly, either in majority governments, or in Liberal-Conservative and Liberal-NDP coalitions.

Yeah, absolutely, that was a mistake in wording on my part. I didn't mean "coalition" in the normally-used "coalition government" sense of the word (which is fairly rare, yeah), but I meant it more in terms of what you stated – that the minority in power usually has to work extensively with parties on both ends of the political spectrum in order to remain effective.

My bad.

greg

[kc311v2]

Originally Posted by marden 

The Green Party is for ecology.
The Libertarian party is for losers.
The Socialist Party is for Commies.
The Independence party is for those are too fuzzy to fit anywhere else.

Um no, the Libertarian party is for smaller government and more liberties, which is why I belong to it and is something our founding fathers had a vision of and attempted to establish.

My $0.02:

The 2 party system is corrupt, divisive, and ineffective at building a nation for the people. It has been a nation for the corporation for as long as I can remember, hence the whole Congress and Enron scandals, and I firmly believe the current system has greatly contributed to that effect with the evidence that I've seen.

That's my opinion. And I don't know when the word "Liberal" turned into a demeaning term, but from now on when someone calls me that, I'm going to take that as a compliment.
And no I'm not an extremist.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by kc311v2 

Um no, the Libertarian party is for smaller government and more liberties, which is why I belong to it and is something our founding fathers had a vision of and attempted to establish.

That's debatable. They were closer to classical liberals really, since many were quite accepting of un-libertarian policies, like slavery, trade protectionism, conscription. And it's important to remember that libertarian icons like Jefferson were also advocates of "big government" projects like public education and a government postal service.

Modern conservatives and liberals are no less legitimate descendants of the Founding Fathers than libertarians are.

Originally Posted by kc311v2 

That's my opinion. And I don't know when the word "Liberal" turned into a demeaning term, but from now on when someone calls me that, I'm going to take that as a compliment.

In most of the world, liberalism has retained it's original meaning. For some cultural reason, Americans are particularly prone to corruption of political terminology.

EDIT: regarding the goals of libertarians, I think a libertarian caucus in the Republican party is more effective than the Libertarian party. The Libertarian party is ineffective to due infighting among anarcho-capitalists, Objectivists, peace-mongers, Christian libertarians, and other tiny but loud groups.