• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Perhaps it is time to revisit our two party system

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,646
1,877
126
In watching the recent media frenzy surrounding the whole caucus and primary process, it is obvious that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a clear front runner...yet the top three competitive candidates from each party all make for viable Presidential hopefuls.

On the Democrat side, Hillary, Obama and Edwards each bring something to the table...and each appeals to different factions within their party...while all Democrats, an Obama supporter could arguably have a much different vision for the future of America than a Clinton or Edwards supporter.

Similarly, for the Republicans, McCain, Romney and Huckabee all appeal to different factions within their party. McCain won the independent vote in NH, Romney appealed to Reagan conservatives in Michigan, and Huckabee has the support of the religious right.

A more interesting dynamic is that some voters are shifting party lines, gravitating towards candidates and ideas...I know of a few hardcore Democrats who find certain Republican candidates more appealing than those from their party...I also know of a few hardcore Republicans drawn to candidates on the Democrat side of the field.

What we are witnessing is a splintering of ideologies in both parties...on the Republican side, a split between social and economic conservatives...on the Democrat side, a split between urban liberals, Clinton supporters and southern Democrats.

Ultimately, the resonating message across this entire Election Year is change.

Maybe more than two of these candidates deserve a bid for the Presidency.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Instant runoff voting. It would eliminate the possibility that voting for someone who couldn't win was wasting your vote.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,066
3,591
126
Your take on Republican candidates is not of my taste.

In looking for any true conservative it comes down to Thompson, Huckabee, and Ron Paul.

No one else running for President even tries to make me believe they want smaller government besides those 3. Everyone else from both parties is on the same pro big-government coin, and that has been my biggest complaint of all with Bush. We don?t need more of the same like that.

It is a disgrace to even consider McCain, Romney, or Giuliani conservatives. The same way it is a disgrace that Bush ran and won as one.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Huckabee? smaller government? :laugh:

I think McCain's a lot more conservative than the media gives him credit for... but then again, I think being conservative is more than just going to church and calling for tax cuts in the face of all logic and reason.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,646
1,877
126
Your take on Republican candidates is not of my taste.
Well I think that is the point of this thread...perception of candidates versus what they truly bring to the table.

When voting for a candidate, are we voting for a political party or are we voting for a leader.

It seems to me that as of late, we are voting for political parties, with both the Democrats and Republicans sending their most "electable" candidate to the general election...but electability does not always equate to leadership.

Why do we continue to allow the elite of both political parties to limit our choice of President to two candidates?

I would love to see a round table debate between Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Huckabee, Romney, McCain...maybe even throw Guilliani and Bloomberg into the mix...and see once and for all which CANDIDATE has what it takes to LEAD this country.

Perhaps it is just my frustration with the whole nomination process...with select states suddenly becoming decisive battle grounds, and shenanigans that have no relevance to the issues facing this nation taking center stage.

What happened to debate about our economy, Iraq, America's role in the world...DOESN'T MATTER...instead, the nomination process is about whether the feminists will overpower minority voters for the Democrats...about which Republican can attract independents AND the religious right.

I am awaiting for the media to start asking the candidates where they stand on the Britney Spears crisis...sheesh.

Ugh.
 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,909
2
76
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975


Maybe more than two of these candidates deserve a bid for the Presidency.
or maybe they all suck and its hard to distinguish the less crappier candidate of them all....
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
I think the biggest problem is the voting public. People don't research the candidates, other than watching them on the boob tube. They don't respect honesty and integrity. And more importantly, people are not educated on the real issues, especially economic and foreign policies.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,136
3,834
126
All my life and long before it's been time to revisit the two party system and that will continue long after I am gone.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Ron Paul and Fred Thompson are the only REAL conservatives running.

The idea that one would even consider placing a Huckabee on the list is frankly sickening. If it weren't for his religious social views, he'd be sitting right beside Clinton and Obama.

And perhaps it is time to revisit. I'm frankly disgusted with the crop that both parties threw up this cycle, as I only see 3 of all the candidates (total on both sides) as "viable" ...
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,943
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
All my life and long before it's been time to revisit the two party system and that will continue long after I am gone.
Mostly because moving towards a multi-party system would require a major overhaul of our election system and in voter mentalities and might not even change too much for the voter.

One of the biggest reasons a third party has not been viable is because the concept of party within the US is so diffuse. Despite people clamoring about party lines, none really exist. Guys like Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and John McCain run as republicans despite sharing little in common. Our system is geared towards electing an individual platform - not a party platform and because of that, party affiliation has become less and less relevant.

When someone does rock the boat (Ralph Nader and Ross Perot did so mildly in their elections), many of those ideas are absorbed and incorporated into the Democratic or Republican "party line."

Hence, we are stuck with two parties. To move towards a multi-party system the country would have to abandon the winner-take-all system we have, our parties would have to adopt more rigid stances, and our voters would have to stop thinking about individuals and think more along party lines. Needless to say, it would be a difficult endeavor and one that would rock the fundamental structure of American politics. Ultimately, though, we could still just wind up with two big parties and a bunch of irrelevant fringe parties.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,943
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
All my life and long before it's been time to revisit the two party system and that will continue long after I am gone.
Mostly because moving towards a multi-party system would require a major overhaul of our election system and in voter mentalities.

One of the biggest reasons a third party has not been viable is because the concept of party within the US is so diffuse. Despite people clamoring about party lines, none really exist. Guys like Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and John McCain run as republicans despite sharing little in common. Our system is geared towards electing an individual platform - not a party platform and because of that, party affiliation has become less and less relevant.

When someone does rock the boat (Ralph Nader and Ross Perot did so mildly in their elections), many of those ideas are absorbed and incorporated into the Democratic or Republican "party line."

Hence, we are stuck with two parties. To move towards a multi-party system the country would have to abandon the winner-take-all system we have, our parties would have to adopt more rigid stances, and our voters would have to stop thinking about individuals and think more along party lines. Needless to say, it would be a difficult endeavor and one that would rock the fundamental structure of American politics. Ultimately, though, we could still just wind up with two big parties and a bunch of irrelevant fringe parties.

 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,646
1,877
126
or maybe they all suck and its hard to distinguish the less crappier candidate of them all....
Yes, that would be the "half glass empty" perspective, although I think there are other dynamics at play as to why neither party can seem to rally behind one candidate.
 

DerekWilson

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2003
2,921
4
0
There are some countries that have a good spread of support for multi-party systems. But I don't think they go far enough.

Also, in my mind, the idea of a party system only makes it easy to raise money and pigeon hole candidates and voters.

What I'd like to see is a NO PARTY system ... one where every candidate is on his or her own, standing on his or her own beliefs, and doesn't have a huge organization to funnel money to them. Raising money would be an individual effort and require real understanding of people and their desires. Voters wouldn't have some vague list of ideals to cling to when voting and they would have to take a look at what people believed.

It sucks to be able to hit a box that says vote all democrat or vote all republican and walk away feeling good about yourself for participating when all you did is further tighten the neuse of the two party system around the neck of democracy.

btw, I agree with people talking about the classification of candidates.

Huckabee is a disturbing abomination who lends credence to anyone who ever called a republican a nazi.

I'd pick Paul, Thompson, and Gravel as the best candidates out there this year. All the others seem to be the same person with a different face.

 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,943
1
0
Originally posted by: DerekWilson
There are some countries that have a good spread of support for multi-party systems. But I don't think they go far enough.

Also, in my mind, the idea of a party system only makes it easy to raise money and pigeon hole candidates and voters.

What I'd like to see is a NO PARTY system ... one where every candidate is on his or her own, standing on his or her own beliefs, and doesn't have a huge organization to funnel money to them. Raising money would be an individual effort and require real understanding of people and their desires. Voters wouldn't have some vague list of ideals to cling to when voting and they would have to take a look at what people believed.

It sucks to be able to hit a box that says vote all democrat or vote all republican and walk away feeling good about yourself for participating when all you did is further tighten the neuse of the two party system around the neck of democracy.

btw, I agree with people talking about the classification of candidates.

Huckabee is a disturbing abomination who lends credence to anyone who ever called a republican a nazi.

I'd pick Paul, Thompson, and Gravel as the best candidates out there this year. All the others seem to be the same person with a different face.
If you're curious, take a look at how Germany's governmental elections work. I think they are among the best in the world because they allow individuals to vote along party lines AND, if there is a particular individual that the voter really likes, they can cast their vote for them to be a representative.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: DerekWilson
There are some countries that have a good spread of support for multi-party systems. But I don't think they go far enough.

Also, in my mind, the idea of a party system only makes it easy to raise money and pigeon hole candidates and voters.

What I'd like to see is a NO PARTY system ... one where every candidate is on his or her own, standing on his or her own beliefs, and doesn't have a huge organization to funnel money to them. Raising money would be an individual effort and require real understanding of people and their desires. Voters wouldn't have some vague list of ideals to cling to when voting and they would have to take a look at what people believed.

It sucks to be able to hit a box that says vote all democrat or vote all republican and walk away feeling good about yourself for participating when all you did is further tighten the neuse of the two party system around the neck of democracy.

btw, I agree with people talking about the classification of candidates.

Huckabee is a disturbing abomination who lends credence to anyone who ever called a republican a nazi.

I'd pick Paul, Thompson, and Gravel as the best candidates out there this year. All the others seem to be the same person with a different face.
If you're curious, take a look at how Germany's governmental elections work. I think they are among the best in the world because they allow individuals to vote along party lines AND, if there is a particular individual that the voter really likes, they can cast their vote for them to be a representative.
That's proportional representation and only works in congress. When voting for an office that only one person and therefore one party can hold, it doesn't apply. You end with an "electability" contest which are usually based on haircuts and sound bites.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,414
0
0
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: DerekWilson
There are some countries that have a good spread of support for multi-party systems. But I don't think they go far enough.

Also, in my mind, the idea of a party system only makes it easy to raise money and pigeon hole candidates and voters.

What I'd like to see is a NO PARTY system ... one where every candidate is on his or her own, standing on his or her own beliefs, and doesn't have a huge organization to funnel money to them. Raising money would be an individual effort and require real understanding of people and their desires. Voters wouldn't have some vague list of ideals to cling to when voting and they would have to take a look at what people believed.

It sucks to be able to hit a box that says vote all democrat or vote all republican and walk away feeling good about yourself for participating when all you did is further tighten the neuse of the two party system around the neck of democracy.

btw, I agree with people talking about the classification of candidates.

Huckabee is a disturbing abomination who lends credence to anyone who ever called a republican a nazi.

I'd pick Paul, Thompson, and Gravel as the best candidates out there this year. All the others seem to be the same person with a different face.
If you're curious, take a look at how Germany's governmental elections work. I think they are among the best in the world because they allow individuals to vote along party lines AND, if there is a particular individual that the voter really likes, they can cast their vote for them to be a representative.
Yes, let's look at a government that uses intelligence agencies to infiltrate rival political parties in an attempt to BAN them.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
27,805
4,854
126
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: DerekWilson
There are some countries that have a good spread of support for multi-party systems. But I don't think they go far enough.

Also, in my mind, the idea of a party system only makes it easy to raise money and pigeon hole candidates and voters.

What I'd like to see is a NO PARTY system ... one where every candidate is on his or her own, standing on his or her own beliefs, and doesn't have a huge organization to funnel money to them. Raising money would be an individual effort and require real understanding of people and their desires. Voters wouldn't have some vague list of ideals to cling to when voting and they would have to take a look at what people believed.

It sucks to be able to hit a box that says vote all democrat or vote all republican and walk away feeling good about yourself for participating when all you did is further tighten the neuse of the two party system around the neck of democracy.

btw, I agree with people talking about the classification of candidates.

Huckabee is a disturbing abomination who lends credence to anyone who ever called a republican a nazi.

I'd pick Paul, Thompson, and Gravel as the best candidates out there this year. All the others seem to be the same person with a different face.
If you're curious, take a look at how Germany's governmental elections work. I think they are among the best in the world because they allow individuals to vote along party lines AND, if there is a particular individual that the voter really likes, they can cast their vote for them to be a representative.
Yes, let's look at a government that uses intelligence agencies to infiltrate rival political parties in an attempt to BAN them.
So I take it your happy with your system?

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY