Our two-party system - good or bad?

[MonstaThrilla]

I think bipartisanship will be the downfall of this country. If this was any other country, the Democratic party would be split into about 5 different parties. Since I'm not a Republican, nor do I lean right, I won't comment on what that party would look like because I don't know.

But a multiparty system seems to be a much better form of democracy. Isn't one of our country's founding principles the goal for a more perfect union? I fail to see what's perfect about only 2 parties that dominate the landscape. The two parties are usually so much at odds that too many bills are stalled or never even considered. Do you think a multiparty system would be better? I would assume a multiparty Congress would better represent the will of the people, more accurately. We could have regional parties as well as national ones. No one person can truly represent all the ideals of his party when there are only two of them to choose from.

Then the question becomes how can we end this two-party system? I would say publicly financed campaigns are the answer. Of course, we can't have 135 people running for governor.... ..... but maybe 5 or 6 people representing different parties would be a possibility. But we still have the problem of partisanship, so maybe the total abolishment of parties is what's necessary.

I'm also not sure if the Founding Fathers intended our country to be a two-party system.

Thoughts?

 

[bradruth]

It's a bad thing, but it's the product of our single-member district elections. In order to have a multi-party system, a proportional representation election system (or a mixed SMD/PR system) would have to be put in place. I should work that into my ideology...which can be read here...http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1173204 .

 

[Dragnov]

For AMERICA (note this key word) it is most definitely good and just about every major political scientist would agree. Next thing we need is "Blacks are always discriminated against party" and "What about the Asian guy party" and "Woe is the White Man Party," etc etc. (Oh wait, we already have these as interest groups... well at least they aren't a political parties yet)

And how would bipartisanship be the downfall of the country? Multiparty countries are even more deadlocked. With so many different parties and ideologies how do you expect anything to get done?

Now lets look at multiparty countries.

Russia. Uhh, enough said.
France. The Communist Party reaching the final round. (Yes, THE communist party.) Thats not good.
Britain. Not really a multiparty system. More like 2 1/2 party.

If anything, the USA has too many divisions/democracy.

Our population is full of uneducated people who don't follow politics, yet somehow know whats the best policy to take? Hell no. When more than half of the people can't even point to where Iraq is on a map, I don't want them voting. With our politicians having to cater to so many people trying to get elected, we get a bunch of clueless greedy idiots in office with little substance and all show. We have Bush as President. Arnold as governor. And Dean as the leading Democrat. *shudder*

Don't get me wrong, I voted for several of these guys, but thats just because they were better than the alternatives, and thats not saying much.

Heres a perfect example of too much democracy at work. You think people would willingly want to increase their share of the taxes? Blame the rich! No, their not stupid, they vote Republican so that they can make more money. You think other people are any more altruistic if they were in that situation? I don't. It's not like the middle class looks to help the poor, or care about the situation in other countries anymore than the upper class do.

Going multiparty and having too much democracy will be the downfall of our country. The populist way has good intentions but in all reality works horribly. We then have stupid stuff like recalling a recently elected governor and trying to impeach a president for cheating on his wife, etc etc.

 

[sandorski]

A No Party system would work best under the US establishment, as many of the Founders wanted. Parties work best under the British Parliamentary system, because that system doesn't elect the Prime Minister separately, so the voter votes for the Party based upon who they would prefer to become Prime Minister(the Party with the most elected Members of Parliament selects their Leader as PM).

The problem, as I see it, is that the US system was setup as: President, Senate, House for a specific purpose, that is to prevent a Monolithic Government, the much vaunted "Checks and Balances". Each of these 3 are voted on by the Voter, if the Voter chooses based on Party and selects the same Party for all 3 positions(as the US has now), how can the Checks and Balances work? In short, the Party system FUBARs the Governmental process by neglecting the duty of their position when it goes against the Partys' best interest.

Fortunetly, the All Three situation doesn't happen too often, but I think most of us would agree that if it wasn't happening now the Political landscape in Washington would be quite a bit different right now, especially concerning investigations into various recent events.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Grimlock,

You seem to have a very pessimistic view about Americans and humans in general. Do you see no solution for this? I would think a radically revamped educational system would make some progress, even though its effects wouldn't be seen for a generation after its implemented.

Or are we just so stupid as a whole that we're not able to govern ourselves anymore than we currently do?

 

[AEB]

if there was a multiparty system perhaps represenatives wouldnt feel obligated to vote either republican or democrat. So they can vote as to what their people want rather than what the party wants. But i do agree with the uneducated part. I think there should be readily avaliable pusblished reports on how each canidate in your area has voted on past issues. That way at least we can know weather or not they are representing us

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
For AMERICA (note this key word) it is most definitely good and just about every major political scientist would agree. Next thing we need is "Blacks are always discriminated against party" and "What about the Asian guy party" and "Woe is the White Man Party," etc etc. (Oh wait, we already have these as interest groups... well at least they aren't a political parties yet)

And how would bipartisanship be the downfall of the country? Multiparty countries are even more deadlocked. With so many different parties and ideologies how do you expect anything to get done?

Now lets look at multiparty countries.

Russia. Uhh, enough said.
France. The Communist Party reaching the final round. (Yes, THE communist party.) Thats not good.
Britain. Not really a multiparty system. More like 2 1/2 party.

If anything, the USA has too many divisions/democracy.

Our population is full of uneducated people who don't follow politics, yet somehow know whats the best policy to take? Hell no. When more than half of the people can't even point to where Iraq is on a map, I don't want them voting. With our politicians having to cater to so many people trying to get elected, we get a bunch of clueless greedy idiots in office with little substance and all show. We have Bush as President. Arnold as governor. And Dean as the leading Democrat. *shudder*

Don't get me wrong, I voted for several of these guys, but thats just because they were better than the alternatives, and thats not saying much.

Heres a perfect example of too much democracy at work. You think people would willingly want to increase their share of the taxes? Blame the rich! No, their not stupid, they vote Republican so that they can make more money. You think other people are any more altruistic if they were in that situation? I don't. It's not like the middle class looks to help the poor, or care about the situation in other countries anymore than the upper class do.

Going multiparty and having too much democracy will be the downfall of our country. The populist way has good intentions but in all reality works horribly. We then have stupid stuff like recalling a recently elected governor and trying to impeach a president for cheating on his wife, etc etc.

I see you are a real democrat. You are PRO democracy but only with the parties that fit YOUR views. You better go live in North-Korea

 

[Czar]

I would say that its bad because then actions taken by the government fluctuate frome one extreme to another every 4 or 8 years, there is no middle ground.

 

[Dragnov]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Grimlock,

You seem to have a very pessimistic view about Americans and humans in general. Do you see no solution for this? I would think a radically revamped educational system would make some progress, even though its effects wouldn't be seen for a generation after its implemented.

Or are we just so stupid as a whole that we're not able to govern ourselves anymore than we currently do?

Yeah, I'll admit I have a cynical view of humans. Well not necessarily cynical, but rather we are simply rational people looking out for our own best interets. It's not simply that we're selfish.., but hey, we all want a good life. We'll help others when we can.

You say radically revamp the education system could make some progress... okay, I can agree with that. But now, how are you going to do that? You would first need to make changes politically in other to make changes to the education system. Simply said, these changes will never take place in our system of government. That would require us to increase fees for schools (you think people are going to vote for someone saying they're going to do that?), totally changing curriculum (not with all our BS PC people out there), more parity amongst schools (rich people going to the same school as poor people? I don't think so.), etc. etc. How many times we had presidents, governors, senators, etc. promising improving our school system drastically? What have we got so far? The No Child Left Behind act? =P

The more democratic a country wants to be the more educated the masses need to be. Yet in order to educate the masses and bring about parity, the less democratic a country needs to be. This is the dilemna. Notice that communist/dictatorship countries have the highest education rate?

I see you are a real democrat. You are PRO democracy but only with the parties that fit YOUR views. You better go live in North-Korea

I'm sorry commie. I would think suggesting to me to move because I do not agree w/ you shows a lot on your thinking.

I think the failures of communism is evident throughout history, and for it to be even be considered a joke. However, you have a lack of understanding and knowledge it seems, because the communist party reaching the final round was not due to massive support from people, but rather because of the multiparty system. The logical sane minded people splintered their votes unfortunately allowing such an obscure party to get so far. The French did not want communism (despite what you fundy American conservative would say)... but with the multiparty system, something like that may and almost happened. Scary, no?

And when did I claim I'm pro democracy? I'm arguing it should be less, not more.

 

[bigdog1218]

I don't think the problem is with the parties, its with the people voting. Too many people vote just because someone is a Republican or someone is a Democrat.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
I don't think the problem is with the parties, its with the people voting. Too many people vote just because someone is a Republican or someone is a Democrat.

It doesn't help that we allow it. I'm here studying in Indiana, and among other things I've seen in the local paper:

* Straight-ticket ballots(I'm from Oregon; I thought these were an old joke) :Q
* Ballots arranged by party, not by office(again, we arrange our ballots by office in Oregon; what good is a party arrangement other than for straight-ticket voting? I mean, how do you compare two people for an office if they're at different ends of the book/ballot?)
* Item #2 changed to arranged by office; county voting board sued and forced to put it back to party arrangement

The problem with a 2 party system is that the parties are too strong; this can be a good thing sometimes, but often it's leading to abuses(see above).

 

[PrinceofWands]

I'm generally geared towards open representation. With any classification system it eventually breaks down into cliques/voting the line stuff where the best interests of the population are not being served. It doesn't really matter if there are 2 or 22 parties, they'll still clump together and vote party instead of voting intelligence or common sense as it should be. I think if we don't completely abolish the party system we should stay pretty much as we are, unofficially two primary parties with others fighting for the scraps.

I vote almost 100% independent/3rd party, and more people are joining this trend. Eventually there will be a major shift in political make-up (even now we're less democrat v republican and more liberal v conservative) and I'm certain that the outcome will be the best form of government seen yet. It might take revolution to reach this point, but whatever it takes it will be worth it in the end.

 

[BoberFett]

I would prefer a party-free system, where no affiliation is allowed to be advertised by candidates. Only issues could be discussed.

And perhaps ballots should not have names on them. Everything should be a write in. That way you wouldn't have people making smiley face patterns on their votes when they don't know who else to vote for.

They're just my ideas.

 

[Wolfdog]

The two party system has pretty much killed this country to date. It isn't about who can do the better job, people vote straight ticket. Hey they are a republican, democrat they get my vote outright. Its is that kind of thing that has placed us where we are today. The job should go to the better qualified individual no matter what party they are affiliated with.

 

[roboninja]

It's simple, really. There should be no parties at all. People run on their own merits, at all levels.

 

[bradruth]

Just to give a counter-argument to my own statement above, the plus side to our particular two-party system is that both of the strong parties are near the center. Some countries have attempted to implement a similar system, but because their parties are more radical, it doesn't work. As far as two-party systems go, ours is one of the better ones.

 

[glugglug]

Where is the poll?

I say it's terrible. Both party lines are full of wacko extremists. Both sides pretend to be more middle of the road only around election time. Candidates whose ideas actually are more in-line with the population are funded by neither party and have no chance.

 

[heartsurgeon]

multi-party (more than two viable parties) political systems are in my opinion terrible.

if you think the electoral college is bad (you can become president without winning the popular vote), it is almost guaranteed that the president chosen from a multi-party
election will be OPPOSED by the majority of voters. In order to win enough votes in the electoral college to become president, multi-party coallitions will have to be forged, giving huge political power to "fringe" parties.

while it is possible that one party will be so popular, that its candidate will eclipse all others and win enough electoral college votes, i don't think so..
heck, you could make the argument that the last two presidents (Clinton and Bush Jr.) were each elected because a third party candidate (Ross Perot, Ralph Nader) allowed the
less popular candidate to win!

Ross Perot took about 10% of the votes away from Bush Sr., without which Clinton would never have won in 1992
Ralph Nader took away votes from Al Gore in 2000, without which Bush would not have won...

two parties are probably as good as it gets..they keep watch on each other, and if one party messes up, the electorate gets to vote them out and give the other side a chance to make things better.

 

[Dragnov]

I think you guys are highly mistaken in that the parties are too powerful and get straight ticket voting.

In fact, the US has one of the WEAKEST political parties. A lot of people vote for personality more than issues, and the rise of independents further shows the weakening parties. Democrats voting along Republican issues, and vice versa. This has been shown throughout history and I can point out lots of if you doubt this. The most recent example would be California (a highly liberal state) voting for a Republican as governor, replacing a Democrat (and not opting for another one.)

And our parties are fairly centered, despite what each other say about each other. No, Democrats are not socialists.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
No, Democrats are not socialists.

Gee, I wonder which side you lean to.

 

[drewshin]

yes the line between democrats and republicans is definitely getting blurrier. i think we definitely need a third party in there to mix things up. the green party is too liberal, but i like some of their ideas. most libertarians are just a little nutty, but i also like some of their ideas.

i try hard not to look at party lines, but try to instead choose a candidate that seems the most sincere, willing to make the changes needed to make this country better, and willing to compromise and work with people to get crap done. that's why my two favorite candidates are dean and mccain, even though they may be on opposite sides of the spectrum on some issues, these are the two people that i respect the most.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

It's bad because:
a) each party is more concerend with taking an opposing view of the other party than adhering to the ideals the party is 'supposed' to represent
b) too many stupid people out there vote blindly along party lines

Both parties have become much too liberal (Don't fool yourself - Republicans want to spend your money, tax your property, and impose on your personal life as much as the Democrats do) and I only hope Libertarianism gains enough of a following to help bring back some of the conservatism this country was founded on.

And since the electoral college was brought up, here's my thought on that - it should be completely done away with. Elect presidents strictly on a majority of popular votes. If you have more than 2 candidates and one gets a majority then so be it, otherwise take the top two for a run-off.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

oops.

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
multi-party (more than two viable parties) political systems are in my opinion terrible.

if you think the electoral college is bad (you can become president without winning the popular vote), it is almost guaranteed that the president chosen from a multi-party
election will be OPPOSED by the majority of voters. In order to win enough votes in the electoral college to become president, multi-party coallitions will have to be forged, giving huge political power to "fringe" parties.

while it is possible that one party will be so popular, that its candidate will eclipse all others and win enough electoral college votes, i don't think so..
heck, you could make the argument that the last two presidents (Clinton and Bush Jr.) were each elected because a third party candidate (Ross Perot, Ralph Nader) allowed the
less popular candidate to win!

Ross Perot took about 10% of the votes away from Bush Sr., without which Clinton would never have won in 1992
Ralph Nader took away votes from Al Gore in 2000, without which Bush would not have won...

two parties are probably as good as it gets..they keep watch on each other, and if one party messes up, the electorate gets to vote them out and give the other side a chance to make things better.

you could have a system with multiple parties. but then just have a runoff election afterwards with the two top finishers to get rid of the majority opposed to the winning party problem.

 

[Dragnov]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
No, Democrats are not socialists.

Gee, I wonder which side you lean to.

The smart side?

you could have a system with multiple parties. but then just have a runoff election afterwards with the two top finishers to get rid of the majority opposed to the winning party problem.

The top two finishers of the first "election" wouldn't necessairly mean they would be the two most supported if they had no other choice. Rather a much more likely possibility is that the voters splintered their votes. As I stated before, they have this runoff election you propose in France and the two choices were Chirac's conservative party and the Communist Party. Neither necessarily meaning they were supported by the majority of the people if there were no alternatives.