Abolish the American Two Party System!

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by avi8r, Nov 10, 2006.

  1. #1
    The two party system has many more disadvantages than advantages. They are:

    • Two party politics is devisive, creating polar opposites and leaving no room for middle ground.
    • It leaves many American's feeling disenfranchised--their viewpoints no longer matter
    • Mainstream media ignores other viable candidates who are independants or running for office representing a smaller, less known party.
    • Voters have lost a significant amount of control over who runs our country because candidates are selected by party officials--and they determine this by who is most "electable" rather than who would do the best job once in office (in other words, they are setting up a smoke screen for the voting public).


    And the one advantage of the two party system:

    • Ignorant American's who don't want to study the issues or find out about the quality of the candidates (or lack thereof) don't have to think before voting--they can just do a straight ticket ballot.
     
    avi8r, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  2. mistermix

    mistermix Active Member

    Messages:
    2,326
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #2
    Suggest a few alternatives and then we can discuss :)
     
    mistermix, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  3. avi8r

    avi8r Peon

    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    16
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    Well the alternative is for the mainstream media to cover independent candidates more extensively. A Dem or GOP candidate sneezes and it makes the nightly news. An independent has to buy the media coverage (like Ross Perot) or engage in some sort of scandal in order to get coverage.

    The next alternative is to give the independent candidates more of an open forum for debate with the other candidates (particularly with the Dem and GOP candidates). To exclude the whacko candidates require a minimum number of signatures on a petition to qualify for the debate. This will force the grass roots process that needs to be more a part of politics.

    My political leanings are more towards the Constitution Party or on some issues the Libertarian Party, but if there were a candidate who were a true independent who defended the issues that I feel could and would help this country, I would support him/her regardless of party affiliation.

    As I've become more politically active (I'm a registered Republican--not because I totally support their politcal platform, but because it gives me more of a voice in the state I happen to live in), I have been apalled by how candidates are chosen by my party. This last election as we were selecting our delegates many people admitted they liked one candidate better, but felt compelled to support another candidate simply because they had a better chance (in their opinion) of beating the Democratic challenger.

    And then there's the "don't waste your vote" argument that gets tossed around as justification for not voting for an independent candidate (even though they may be more morally, mentally, emotionally, intellectually, etc. etc. qualified than the selected GOP or Dem candidate), simply because to do so is wasting your vote. Well this kind of logic causes the sheep to run for cover and vote for a percieved winner rather than voting their conscience. If enough people voted their conscience, then there would be less two party control and more quality candidates interested in truly representing their constituants. There would be more statesmen in office rather than politicians.
     
    avi8r, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  4. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    We'd have to do a lot more - revamping the electoral system, structurally, down to the local level. For a multi-party system to truly work, we'd have to move to proportional representation voting districts, down to the local level, that don't sweep up entire votes by majorities or pluralities, rather, representation across parties based on proportional shares of votes. States' electoral college votes could not be by state, where whatever party in the state garners the majority of votes garners all the electoral votes, but nationally, where the prevailing candidate wins based on a majority of total electoral votes cast on a national basis (this would be a presidential system), or, going parliamentary, by parliamentary mandate (Prime Minister) of the ruling party or coalition leader.
     
    northpointaiki, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  5. mistermix

    mistermix Active Member

    Messages:
    2,326
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #5
    There are adefinatly some changes that could be made to make the whole process of electing people alot more pleasent and fair.

    I think the most important issue is the way the mass media is used to influence voters.

    The negative and manipulative tactics used by political strategists during a campaign does not do any good for the political process. Most news companies play along with the games played by each of the parties instead of making them accountable for using dirty tricks.

    The negative campaign ads are a problem too. I find them pretty disgusting and I'm glad they are illegal here in the UK. Political parties are not allowed to use TV ads to gain votes, each major party is given a limited amount of TV ad time. I feel this system is fair.

    It is also illegal for any TV channel or TV show to favour one party over another, this is fairer too and makes sure campaigns are won on political issues rather than by media manipulation.
     
    mistermix, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  6. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #6
    I'm not sure I'm in favor of proportional representation, but then again I once was.
     
    Rick_Michael, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  7. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7
    I haven't thought about it too deeply - I think there are pluses and minuses to coalition governments. I just wanted to point out it isn't all about exposure - the electoral structure itself will impact heavily on the potential for success of a multiparty system.
     
    northpointaiki, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  8. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8


    • Yeah, I have no one to vote for most of the time. There's such an angst against third parties go into debates. Last election the two third party candiates got arrested, because they wanted to show that they should be in the debate....but no one would let them in, due to the incredibly high standards they put in the way.
     
    Rick_Michael, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  9. mistermix

    mistermix Active Member

    Messages:
    2,326
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #9
    Having just 2 parties to choose from does seem a bit restrictive.

    Opening up to more parties can't really do any harm. Americas a big and diverse place I'm sure a new party with a new direction would do great.
     
    mistermix, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  10. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10
    I favor the end of the 17th amendment. If the repeal was actively replaced with a throrough system in which states picked a more respectable bipartisan candiate....rather than an outright partisan candiate, our laws would be a lot better...they'd respect the states more...and judicial candiates wouldn't be nearly on the verge of bias.

    To me, that would be the best structural change, but the population doesn't find this a huge interest; and congress finds a deep investment in the status-quo.
     
    Rick_Michael, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  11. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #11
    I never liked the 2 party system. It pulls everyone under one of 2 roofs.

    On the dem side its everyone from the far left to slightly right of center.

    On the repub side its everyone from far right to slightly left of center.

    The Europeans have many parties. I read one editorialist claim that this election validated the middle of the electorate. The middle and independants went with the dems. The same editorialist suggested that american politics fights for the middle ground on a football field. All the action is between the 45 yard lines. By contrast the Europeans fight over the whole field with lots of parties.

    I suppose there are problems with all systems.
     
    earlpearl, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  12. sagar

    sagar Guest

    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #12
    Please let it be a 2 party system....we have what mess can be created if there are too many parties :D
     
    sagar, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  13. latehorn

    latehorn Guest

    Messages:
    4,676
    Likes Received:
    238
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #13
    Depends on which country you are thinking of. Not everyone have more than two roofs.

    Britain has only 2 roofs in their parliament(tories, labours) like US and Belarus have practically no allowed opposition at all.
     
    latehorn, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  14. avi8r

    avi8r Peon

    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    16
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    Exactly right, which is where it should begin--locally at the grass roots level. This is how a truly representitive government should work.
     
    avi8r, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  15. avi8r

    avi8r Peon

    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    16
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    Well the original answer to that was addressed by the founders of our nation. The Senate represented the interests of the wealthy, and the House represented the little guy (or at least used to). So us little guys had a local guy representing us in the House based on population. The larger the populatoin, the more representatives were elected from each state. So the proportional is balanced by the non-proportional (the Senate) and vice versa.
     
    avi8r, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  16. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #16
    Explain to me how you see the Senate being for the wealthy? Current context? Past context?

    Generally, I don't view it that way pre-17th amendment. Afterwards, I think it's more likely the way you perceive it. The founders intended to keep the Senators gauged towards the state...while methods varied on how to become a senator (from state to state), wealth had a smaller role.

    In my perception, the state legislature is very close to the people, and if one doesn't like the exact positions the state legislature took on any policy, they could more easily change it...therefore effecting laws determining how to chose Senators or state legislators chosing Senators. Pre-17th amendment made it more likely that the Senator would be bi-partisan in my view, and a better representative of the people, then today. Not exactly for a particular constituent, but more or less a blend of the canvas.
     
    Rick_Michael, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  17. rb3m

    rb3m Peon

    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    11
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #17
    The US system does not preclude multiple parties (if anything George Washington was against the system of parties) but the two biggest ones have made electoral rules in such a way that it's incredibly difficult for third parties to have any sort of power at the federal level.
     
    rb3m, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  18. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #18
    Numerous parties ran before the 12th amendment. The 12th amendment more or less made it a two party system ie it soldified the need for higher majority among the populace. Because of that, no state really decided to effectively manipulate how they gave out electoral votes....because if they gave it out to a third party, they could potentially not have enough for clear majority...and off to the house we go. That's why the two parties have been virtually entrenched in pushing out all third parties.

    It's a 'either your on my side or their side' thing. Plus it generally makes sense if your not ruling the house. If they gave it out in a different manner, it would be likely there wouldn't be a clear majority via the 12th amendment,...therefore it would go to the house, and Reagan, nor Bush would ever be president. Atleast that's conceivable.


    Yes, he was; but he was also very much a leader, and not much of an intellectual. He played a role in making the Constitution, but he himself didn't really author much of it.


    Yes, so they're equally shunned on the local level. But to some degree there are third party candiates out there.
     
    Rick_Michael, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  19. KalvinB

    KalvinB Peon

    Messages:
    2,787
    Likes Received:
    78
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #19
    I've yet to see a third party candidate that was impressive. You assume they don't get elected because the man is keeping them down.

    The real problem is that they don't appeal to the average voter. If they had some clear imporant ideas that they could energize the voters about, they'd get elected.

    There are currently 2 independents in the Senate. They do get elected. The ones that appeal to a mass audience get elected just like everyone else.
     
    KalvinB, Nov 11, 2006 IP
  20. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #20
    No, not entirely. I almost never come to a conclusion that involves one problem. The "L"ibertarians for example, would become a fairly reputable party if: 1)The made their immigration policy more conservative or atleast classical (which was actually conservative). 2) They were just a notch down from conservatives on defense ie not isolationists but not too aggressive 3)Their economic policies were a bit tempered.

    The Constitution Party seems to be gearing-up to replace Republicans for the 'conservative' label.

    Here's an important question:who usually wins, the person with the best ideas or the most money to campaign? 9/10 times it's the money. Here's my thoughts why they're not voted for: 1)The average voter doesn't know they exist 2)The voter votes strictly on party lines 3) They don't want to wast their votes, in face of such alternatives 4)They're not giving any recognition to debate, often. 5)They're values are a bit too extreme

    Those being the main reason. But I believe it comes down to knowing they exist mostly, and what they stand for. All the rest do count, but not as much.

    Lieberman is really an old style democrat (in ways), and there still are old style democrats in existence. His party just left him.
     
    Rick_Michael, Nov 11, 2006 IP