Why only 2 parties nowdays?

[Steeplerot]

I want to puke at the idea of Kerry or Bush. They are the same. And anyone who thinks of jumping on a third party gets a bunch of crap even though a LOT of people have no trust in what crappy offering they are giving us.
Is this democracy?
It seems like a 1 party state masquarading as a 2 party state.
With a bunch of partisan politics backbiting each other to keep people watching TV and arguing over who is the lesser evil.
It just seems every election more Nader votes but not enough to actually make that change in America we so need.
A vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush or Kerry. Anyone telling you that crap is a fool.
A vote for what you believe is right is just that.
If you are following the crowd you are the responisble one for getting these corprate puppets in power.
Grow some cajones and don't follow the flock and vote for what you feel is right. Please.
End this cycle. Partys have been changed before. (Don't see to omany Whig candiates latley)
Please show some individuality and do what is right before it is too late in this country.
The status quo in this country is getting us nowhere. Be a true American and think outside of the box. Before the box owns you.
Don't settle for second best get whats yours back.

 

[oreagan]

If the idea of voting for either candidate makes you vomit, see a doctor.
A two-party system has its faults, but it has advantages as well. In countries like France and Germany with many smaller parties, the parties must for coalitions to enact any meaningful policy. However, since a group can have 40% of the popular vote behind it but still need two smaller 5% groups in order to get anything done, those smaller groups, despite their relative unimportance and lack of popular mandate, get to dictate terms to the larger group. Otherwise, they vote against them and the coalition breaks up. It's like PACs in America, but in many ways it's worse. It's why that extremist nazi-like fellow got relatively close to being the Prime Minister of France a few years ago.

 

[ElFenix]

president is a winner take all position, you can't have a plurality of the electoral votes and win, and there is no run off.

an easy way to have multiple parties is to have proportional representation, but then each politician is 100% beholden to the party bosses that appointed them to their seat.

 

[Steeplerot]

Every election seems like another scam. Good thing the founding fathers aren't around they'd be pissed (If they weren't jailed for being "terrorists")

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: oreaganIt's why that extremist nazi-like fellow got relatively close to being the Prime Minister of France a few years ago.

Also because there is a sizable and rapidly growing anti-foreign/immigrant movement in Europe.

 

[Steeplerot]

No crap I have a few friends trying to move to europe (Music scene and political reasons) and they are not very accepting of US citzens must be bad for anyone from the mideast.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: steeplerot
Every election seems like another scam. Good thing the founding fathers aren't around they'd be pissed (If they weren't jailed for being "terrorists")

How were the 1992, 1996, 1980, and 1984 elections scams?

 

[zephyrprime]

I can't be helped. In our winner takes all election system, third party startups are just about impossible to grow into big parties. Other systems like parliamentary systems support multiple parties better but are less direct democracies. And even the founding fathers (after washington) had only 2 parties. The 2 parties seem similiar because either party can only win by appealing to the middle. Any party that was strongly one way or the other would lose bigger than a midget in the NBA.

 

[oreagan]

The Populists of the later 1800s were actually a pretty viable third party in American history, drawing enough support that the major parties had to adjust their platforms to steal some of its thunder. The third party in America is still a check keeping the two parties in touch with the people at large, it's just not going to be willing any Presidential elections in the near future. Since the Nader incident, you can be darn sure the Democrats are going to be a bit more attentive to environmental issues. Basically, my vote is that things are functioning just fine right now. They can always improve, but I take it as a fairly good sign that the parties are similar. Which is better - a country respectfully (on the whole) disagreeing over the details of governance but agreeing on the basic goals of the Union, or one bitterly divided into polar opposites and having equally powerful parties on either side?

 

[Dissipate]

It's a scam all right. I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate this year. Third parties can exercise power by being "spoilers". Convince only a fraction of the sheeple to vote for a third party candidate and you will cause one of the candidates to lose. This is what Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have done. If just a few percent of voters vote for the Libertarian candidate Bush will lose.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: oreagan
If the idea of voting for either candidate makes you vomit, see a doctor.
A two-party system has its faults, but it has advantages as well. In countries like France and Germany with many smaller parties, the parties must for coalitions to enact any meaningful policy. However, since a group can have 40% of the popular vote behind it but still need two smaller 5% groups in order to get anything done, those smaller groups, despite their relative unimportance and lack of popular mandate, get to dictate terms to the larger group. Otherwise, they vote against them and the coalition breaks up. It's like PACs in America, but in many ways it's worse. It's why that extremist nazi-like fellow got relatively close to being the Prime Minister of France a few years ago.

France and Germany are essentially 2 party systems, although third parties stilll have a little bit of a presence(moreso for Germany). Most of their third parties have died down to the point of not mattering all that much.

Also, it was the French presidential election, but it wasn't because of a multi-party system, it was because of the 2 ballot system France uses. In France there are 2 different elections for president. The first election is kind of like a primary where there can be more than 2 candidates running. The second is the highest 2 from the first election so that the president cannot be elected without a majority.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
It's a scam all right. I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate this year. Third parties can exercise power by being "spoilers". Convince only a fraction of the sheeple to vote for a third party candidate and you will cause one of the candidates to lose. This is what Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have done. If just a few percent of voters vote for the Libertarian candidate Bush will lose.

Ralph did nothing. Bush got more Democrat votes than Nader got total.

 

[Steeplerot]

You can't "spoil" something that is already so rotten. Kerry OR Bush votes seem to be a vote for the status quo. Either way its the same crap. the streets are full of mentally disabled people who werekicked out of institutions from clinton a so called democrat who cut all kinds of funding liek crazy. and soldiers dying now for oil with a republican and those vets will be on the streets too it seems along with their buddies from nam. While cutting taxes. What is the diffrence? Republican/Democrat it's still all a smoke screen for more $ and to keep us buying more stuff from the real people in charge. People in suits with more money them they could ever need and a lust for more.
news at 11
"We are being farmed."

 

[XZeroII]

I agree with most of what you said, but I don't think Nader is the answer. Any party that focuses on a single issue (green party = environmentalists) is not good. Frankly, I can't really think of anyone that encompasses all of my views.