why do we have a 2 party system in the US?

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
You really want to see something scary, ie, history repeating itself.
Look at the rise and fall of the Roman empire and compare it to the last 20 years of the USA.

They are eerily similar in a lot of ways.
Our form of government didn't work for them either.
It seems our and their form of government has a builtin life span.

:roll:

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
We may never have a formidable third party as long as the winner-takes-all election process is in place - especially when lacking runoff elections. 1992 was close, but 2000 slammed the door on all third parties.

this

 

[imported_K3N]

This video sums it all quite nicely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTahZE4q90U

The two party system is a fraud meant to give the commoners a false sense of reality that they control politics, and help prevent a revolution from taking place.

 

[dlx22]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: dlx22
imagine if we had 10 parties each with a presidential candidate...and the president elect wins with say 11% of the popular vote...i can only imagine how crazy things would get. lol

That's where runoff elections are used.

and then we'd have 9 facebook groups saying so in so is not my president. lol

 

[BoberFett]

65% independent? In this forum? That's funny.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Modelworks
You really want to see something scary, ie, history repeating itself.
Look at the rise and fall of the Roman empire and compare it to the last 20 years of the USA.

They are eerily similar in a lot of ways.
Our form of government didn't work for them either.
It seems our and their form of government has a builtin life span.

what kind of a system did the romans have?

The branches of the Roman republican government included a senate, assembly (House of Representatives), and consul (President). The executive branch had two consuls instead of a single executive. Consuls where elected simultaneously for one year, and were each given veto power over each other to avoid an accumulation of power.

That eventually failed and they ended up with an Emperor.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0690c.asp

Government in ancient Rome grew to mammoth size for some of the same reasons ours has. The philosopher George Santayana may have had that in mind when he said, "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it." Consider the following:

Long before Christ, a Roman politician named Clodius was elected to public office on a platform of "free wheat for the masses." When Julius Caesar came to power, he found 320,000 persons in Rome ? a city of 1 million ? on government grain relief.

Emperor Nero once declared, "Let us tax and tax again. Let us see to it that no one owns anything!" He may also have been the architect of the first urban-renewal program. He burnt a large portion of Rome to make way for a number of construction projects.

A few years later, another emperor dabbled in farm policy. To reduce production and raise the price of wine, he ordered the destruction of half of the vineyards in Rome's provinces.

The ancient government assumed the responsibility of providing the people with publicly funded entertainment and arts programs. One historian estimates the modem equivalent of $100 million a year was poured out in circuses and gladiator duels alone.

Welfare statists loved it in A.D. 274 when Emperor Aurelian made the right to relief hereditary and boosted welfare benefits considerably.

Businesses were pulverized under a burden of public hostility and excessive taxation and regulation. The masses demanded their handouts and the most productive in Roman society were made to cough up. Some of them, thinking they were buying time, actually supported those politicians and funded those institutions which were dedicated to their very destruction. What was left of their businesses was eventually confiscated and nationalized.

City administrations within the empire spent themselves silly and, beginning with the emperor Hadrian, were bailed out through a kind of "federal revenue sharing," with lots of strings attached. (After all, he who pays the piper sooner or later calls the tune.)

Spending to satisfy special interests and a soaring debt prompted the government to debauch the national currency. It imposed wage and price controls, seized the people's gold holdings, took the silver out of the coinage and manufactured junk money like there was no tomorrow. And for Rome, there wasn't.

The great empire expired in A.D. 476. It fell like a ripe plum to foreign enemies. When the barbarians walked into the city, many Romans actually welcomed them in the belief that anything was better than the tyranny of their own tax collectors and regulators.

Good book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Are-We-R...-America/dp/0618742220

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: piasabird
All parties should be made illegal. It is just organized racketeering.

Which will only result in 'unoffcial' parties that still win elections. The better answer is to 'fix the system', i.e., ranked voting instead of only one choice, and public financing.

 

[chrisho]

the better question is, why do we permit the two parties we have actively preventing any other party from having a chance?

 

[dlx22]

Originally posted by: chrisho
the better question is, why do we permit the two parties we have actively preventing any other party from having a chance?

the two parties really aren't preventing other parties from having a chance. A rationally acting parting seeking to promote its interests will unite with a larger party to win. say we have parties A, B, and C....Say the only thing A and B have in common is that they hate party C, A and B join together to make sure party C loses.

 

[imported_K3N]

Originally posted by: dlx22

Originally posted by: chrisho
the better question is, why do we permit the two parties we have actively preventing any other party from having a chance?

the two parties really aren't preventing other parties from having a chance. A rationally acting parting seeking to promote its interests will unite with a larger party to win. say we have parties A, B, and C....Say the only think A and B have in common is that they hate party C, A and B join together to make sure party C loses.

yup that's it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTahZE4q90U

 

[Xavier434]

Three words: Checks and Balances

 

[nageov3t]

strength in numbers. like-minded people working in the same institution are going to band together because 10 people working for a small set of goals are more likely to achieve results than 10 people pushing for 10 different things.

think of political parties as high school cliques.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: loki8481
think of political parties as high school cliques.

yes, both are equally childish and stupid.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Our system is horrendous. Democracy would be best served by no parties, but I admit that's utopian and inefficient in the size of nation we have now. The best compromise is multiple parties founded on theoretical differences rather than merely 'picking and choosing' platforms. I've already gone over this multiple times on here, search for it if you want.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: dlx22

Originally posted by: chrisho
the better question is, why do we permit the two parties we have actively preventing any other party from having a chance?

the two parties really aren't preventing other parties from having a chance. A rationally acting parting seeking to promote its interests will unite with a larger party to win. say we have parties A, B, and C....Say the only thing A and B have in common is that they hate party C, A and B join together to make sure party C loses.

What are you smoking?

The DNC took very active measures to prevent Ralph Nader from getting on the ballets in numerous states both 2004 & 2008.

Just one quick link, many others out there
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/in...tic_National_Committee

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Muse
Because in America the idea of me against you is deeply ingrained. It's a nation of a multitude of minorities. Even if you are a white Brit, you feel it's you against them. Yes, it's crazy and we are all in this together, but it's been hammered into us ever since our parents taught us how to think of ourselves as separate egos. So, it's me against you or us against them. The latter is more comforting because at least you feel like you have a big group of people on your side.

I was thinking something along these lines too.
Like it's just another distraction, or something to keep us from being bored.
A lot of the shitty "reality shows" on FOX seem to be like this - people yelling at each other over mindless bullshit, and it's called "entertainment."

Originally posted by: Modelworks
You really want to see something scary, ie, history repeating itself.
Look at the rise and fall of the Roman empire and compare it to the last 20 years of the USA.

They are eerily similar in a lot of ways.
Our form of government didn't work for them either.
It seems our and their form of government has a builtin life span.

Any government has a limited lifespan. After a few hundred years, or less, governments just tend to fall apart. If a government remains static as the people it is governing change, the government will fail. Governments, like economies, or animals in an ecosystem, need to adapt to changing conditions, or they will perish.
Unfortunately, those in power don't like change, because change entails risk, namely the risk of losing power or wealth. Thus change comes slowly, if at all.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: mooseracing
One thing that might be nice is moving larger decisions to the voters instead of these dumbasses that get voted in. Not sure how much of a difference it would make, but damn this bailout shit makes me hate every one that voted for it.

Right... I'd rather trust the important decisions to be made by people who's main source of news is The Enquirer, and the night before the vote were out boozing it up 'til 4am...

maybe that is a product of not being able to make decisions for ourselves?

if people were forced to be involved our else the country fails then i think people would start to respond

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: loki8481
think of political parties as high school cliques.

yes, both are equally childish and stupid.

cliques are like one of the most basic foundations of human society.

short of writing laws forbidding people of similar interests from talking with each other, you're not going to get rid of political parties.

 

[vhx]

We do have more than 2 parties. Just only 2 main parties get press coverage and money from lobbyists and corporations to fund their compaigns, since they cost a ton these days.

 

[Colt45]

>2 parties with a chance of winning ftw.

 

[dlx22]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: dlx22

Originally posted by: chrisho
the better question is, why do we permit the two parties we have actively preventing any other party from having a chance?

the two parties really aren't preventing other parties from having a chance. A rationally acting parting seeking to promote its interests will unite with a larger party to win. say we have parties A, B, and C....Say the only thing A and B have in common is that they hate party C, A and B join together to make sure party C loses.

What are you smoking?

The DNC took very active measures to prevent Ralph Nader from getting on the ballets in numerous states both 2004 & 2008.

Just one quick link, many others out there
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/in...tic_National_Committee

all I was stating was that there is a natural polarization of parties due to the winner take all nature of our political system. Sure a party like Nader's may be pop up from time to time but they are as responsible as anyone else for the crappy state of their party. And next time if there are tons of links out there don't cite wikipedia. lol.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: loki8481
strength in numbers. like-minded people working in the same institution are going to band together because 10 people working for a small set of goals are more likely to achieve results than 10 people pushing for 10 different things.

think of political parties as high school cliques.

i'm not against banding together on similar interests, but i have a problem with people that vote against their personal principals to conform with the party they're affiliated with, and that's what party systems ultimately promotes.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dlx22
imagine if we had 10 parties each with a presidential candidate...and the president elect wins with say 11% of the popular vote...i can only imagine how crazy things would get. lol

Apparently you never heard of run off elections.

 

[dlx22]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: dlx22
imagine if we had 10 parties each with a presidential candidate...and the president elect wins with say 11% of the popular vote...i can only imagine how crazy things would get. lol

Apparently you never heard of run off elections.

heard of yes, but what does it have to do with why we have a 2 party system?

I understand why some people like the idea of run off elections but in ranking candidates it assumes that people are not rational decision makers. say you have candidates A and B, A with 46% of the vote and B with 44%, and enter candidate C who get 10%. Under the current system A wins. now using a run off system we find of supporters of candidate C 9% preferred B as their second choice and 1% prefer A. Under the runoff system B wins with 53% to A's 47%. Why can't people simply vote for B the first time around? Why would a rational person throw their support into C if they know C will lose and it could cause B to lose?

Basically what I'm saying is that I feel run off voting allows people to essentially vote twice. Candidate B may better reflect the people's will in my scenario above but 10% of the population got to vote for candidate C without consequence.

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: mooseracing
One thing that might be nice is moving larger decisions to the voters instead of these dumbasses that get voted in. Not sure how much of a difference it would make, but damn this bailout shit makes me hate every one that voted for it.

Right... I'd rather trust the important decisions to be made by people who's main source of news is The Enquirer, and the night before the vote were out boozing it up 'til 4am...

You're trusting they vote for the correct canidate and that he will support your needs right now.

I can tell you right now 98% of the elected officials I could do without, but apparently it's the popular vote for those that are lazy, want free hand outs, and belive what the voices tell them.

I would bet the actual thinking population is shrinking in this country.