To start this off I want to let everyone know that I am a registered republican I think its important that people know where my bias' (if any) are coming from.
That being said,
The bipartisan system doesnt work much like an argument between mortal enemies doesnt work. Lets say there are two people that absolutley hate e/o yet are forced to be civil. If they get into an argument it will go nowhere fast, one side is right in their mind and the other is painfully stupid and wrong, noone will be able to convince the other the opposite. Thats why we need an unbiased third party with no "dog in the race", the media. The medias' job is to report the facts so that Jane Doe and Steve Brown can get the information they need to make informed decisions about who they like best. Thats not the case today, almost all the news broadcasters on air right now are overwhelmingly liberal, and thats a fact, the only one who is republican is fox (or faux, you decide) news and they tend to make that blatantly obvious. Its not their fault though, if everyone else looks like a donkey, it would be exceedingly simple to pick out the one elephant standing in the room. The fact that we only have two national parties means that its easier for news agencies to choose a bias to either side, naturally most chose democrat since government handouts appeal to people, therefore the people that make the government look good look good themselves. Its not just teh bipartison system that I dislike, if it were up to me I would chose to have no parties at all, all parties do is enable lazy uninformed voters to quickly and efficiently make stupid choices. A perfect example is Mr. Romney, hes a republican, yet he is really what I would consider to be a RINO, or a republican in name only. Hes a moderate AT BEST, if he could chose a stance and stick to it for more than one speech that would be abundantly clear. So, to the uninformed and lazy voter, if they consider themself a republican (if they even know what the differences are) they would vote for romney, thinking hes a republican too. If we didnt have parties it would force people to either:
A. Make informed decisions without party bias about what the candidates truly believe in by making them have to go out of their way to research. Everyone should do this anyway, this isnt who will be running the drive through at McDy's, this is the president of the USA.
B. Continue to make uninformed decisions about candidates based on what they hear from other people/media or the physical appearance of the hopefuls themselves. Much like the minority vote for obama, I have no proof, but im willing to bet a huge percentage of minorities vote for obama because hes (half) black and gives them free stuff.
As you can see, all getting rid of parties would do is help those who want to make informed and unbiased choices, yet not hinder those who already make decisions based on emotion and not the character of the candidate. If we had at least three parties it would be much better than it is now, now you can run an entire campaign on hoping shit will get better and making your opponent look bad (obama) and it actually works. if there were three or more parties, you would have to make a campaign about what you offer that the others dont, if you tried to run a negative campaign you would either make one party look really bad, and make the other look much better, hurting you, or spend double the money (at least) to make both parties look bad.
A three party system isnt ideal either, because as we saw with this election, the two big parties worked together to make sure a real American (ron paul) didnt get into office. They both made great efforts to make Dr. Paul look like the village idiot and it worked, so there is always the chance that something like this will happen even if all three parties are national parties. Thats why I believe that parties should be done away with altogether to make everything completely open and stop the superpacs and huge donations to the parties that unbalance the scales with much more ads and campaign signs and the such. If we had public airwaves with time slots dedicated for campaign ads or somthing like that it would force an even playing field and make it so that even the little guy had a shot at winning.
Also, the electoral college sucks too
If you read the whole thing thanks, please let me know your thoughts and why you do or dont like the two party system. Also, if you have any ideas to make it better or any points that are in favor of it post em. I think this should be a real discussion, so lets keep emotion and bias out of this as much as possible.
That being said,
The bipartisan system doesnt work much like an argument between mortal enemies doesnt work. Lets say there are two people that absolutley hate e/o yet are forced to be civil. If they get into an argument it will go nowhere fast, one side is right in their mind and the other is painfully stupid and wrong, noone will be able to convince the other the opposite. Thats why we need an unbiased third party with no "dog in the race", the media. The medias' job is to report the facts so that Jane Doe and Steve Brown can get the information they need to make informed decisions about who they like best. Thats not the case today, almost all the news broadcasters on air right now are overwhelmingly liberal, and thats a fact, the only one who is republican is fox (or faux, you decide) news and they tend to make that blatantly obvious. Its not their fault though, if everyone else looks like a donkey, it would be exceedingly simple to pick out the one elephant standing in the room. The fact that we only have two national parties means that its easier for news agencies to choose a bias to either side, naturally most chose democrat since government handouts appeal to people, therefore the people that make the government look good look good themselves. Its not just teh bipartison system that I dislike, if it were up to me I would chose to have no parties at all, all parties do is enable lazy uninformed voters to quickly and efficiently make stupid choices. A perfect example is Mr. Romney, hes a republican, yet he is really what I would consider to be a RINO, or a republican in name only. Hes a moderate AT BEST, if he could chose a stance and stick to it for more than one speech that would be abundantly clear. So, to the uninformed and lazy voter, if they consider themself a republican (if they even know what the differences are) they would vote for romney, thinking hes a republican too. If we didnt have parties it would force people to either:
A. Make informed decisions without party bias about what the candidates truly believe in by making them have to go out of their way to research. Everyone should do this anyway, this isnt who will be running the drive through at McDy's, this is the president of the USA.
B. Continue to make uninformed decisions about candidates based on what they hear from other people/media or the physical appearance of the hopefuls themselves. Much like the minority vote for obama, I have no proof, but im willing to bet a huge percentage of minorities vote for obama because hes (half) black and gives them free stuff.
As you can see, all getting rid of parties would do is help those who want to make informed and unbiased choices, yet not hinder those who already make decisions based on emotion and not the character of the candidate. If we had at least three parties it would be much better than it is now, now you can run an entire campaign on hoping shit will get better and making your opponent look bad (obama) and it actually works. if there were three or more parties, you would have to make a campaign about what you offer that the others dont, if you tried to run a negative campaign you would either make one party look really bad, and make the other look much better, hurting you, or spend double the money (at least) to make both parties look bad.
A three party system isnt ideal either, because as we saw with this election, the two big parties worked together to make sure a real American (ron paul) didnt get into office. They both made great efforts to make Dr. Paul look like the village idiot and it worked, so there is always the chance that something like this will happen even if all three parties are national parties. Thats why I believe that parties should be done away with altogether to make everything completely open and stop the superpacs and huge donations to the parties that unbalance the scales with much more ads and campaign signs and the such. If we had public airwaves with time slots dedicated for campaign ads or somthing like that it would force an even playing field and make it so that even the little guy had a shot at winning.
Also, the electoral college sucks too
If you read the whole thing thanks, please let me know your thoughts and why you do or dont like the two party system. Also, if you have any ideas to make it better or any points that are in favor of it post em. I think this should be a real discussion, so lets keep emotion and bias out of this as much as possible.