Demo-craven

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Jackass, Nov 9, 2003.

  1. X.P. Alidocious
    Online

    X.P. Alidocious Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I guarantee they'll build character! Besides! They're short and
    well worth a read! It's not as if I'm asking you to read War and
    Peace! But if you prefer I'll dig through and pick out the
    ones that deal with parties :p The weekend is here, so I'll have
    the time.

    No, I didn't mean to classify you as a radical. I haven't debated
    with you long enough to know. I was just summing up Madison's
    basic theory.

    Having a small number of parties is useful for a number of things.
    Organization is one of them. You want to have some opposition,
    of course, so that there are checks and balances, but you don't
    want your government to become so slow that nothing gets done.

    When there are too many parties involved in government, that
    is one of the dangers. The other main danger I mentioned to you
    before, the candidates who end up making concessions to
    radicals. This undermines the system of checks and balances.
    Parties who realize they can't get anything done by arguing end
    up agreeing to things they otherwise would not have, even if
    those things hurt their people. Such is the case with Macedonian
    politics.

    Another danger is chaos. It is possible to have so many parties
    involved that no one really knows what's going on. This again
    undermines the process again. You can't check things you can't
    see.


    So I really do think that having two main parties is the most
    efficient way to do things. That said, anyone CAN run. They don't
    need the nomination from the two major parties. They can make
    up their own and throw their hats in the ring.

    We have more parties than two. They're just not as
    popular. The independent party, the Jefferson party,
    the Southern party, The Green Party, etc, etc. We don't
    bar others from running.

    The one thing that really does put third party candidates
    at a disadvantage, besides social response, is the set up
    of congress. Third parties have less power in congress
    than members of the two major parties because they
    don't have the backing of a majority or minority leader.

    For the most part, though, it's a matter of social preference.

    One last thing: You're welcome to Dean and Nader!
    Keep them in Spain for us ;)
     
  2. Bry
    Offline

    Bry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    489
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +3
    I have read a significant portion of the Federalist Papers, and I have alway found that the Federalist Papers show (in as much as the Federalist Papers represent the thinking of some of the founding fathers, and not just an interesting example of late 18th century propaganda) that our current system is an aberation. I do not recall the suggestion from the Federalist Papers that we should have a two party system, nor have I been able to find any reference to such an idea using the searches that are available on the internet. (Though of course i would be happy to be enlightened, I wouldn't ask you to waste your weekend attempting to do it.) It may be said that to the extent that Hamilton, Madison and Jay seemed to believe that the Constitution would not allow itself to be dominated by the interests of a few without regard for the masses, my argument would be that they have been proved wrong, and that an innovation is required to rectify the situation.

    And to my central argument that a system of two dominant political parties leaves us susceptible to the influence of Corporate interests, you have said nothing. Diversifying the representation would seem to counter the problem to some extent, though I also think that corporate interests should not be allowed to make any donations to parties or campaigns. For example, here in Spain, (a system with two dominant parties, and a third minor party, or swing party, with which the other two parties are sometimes obliged to make agreements in order to form government) there is no issue of political donations. Both parties are given a certain amount of coverage, and funding to run advertisements. As I am sure you are aware, in spite of your optimistic view that the people are free to vote for whomever they want, the quantity of money spent on any given campaign has a dramatic effect on the outcome of the election. One can only assume that the politicians see themselves as indebted for their election to those groups which donated the greatest quantities. That, for me, is tantamount to anulling the concept of one person one vote which is so essential to any democratic institution.

    As for your arguments in favor of two parties, I find your supports vague.

    I don't know what you mean by "some opposition". What is desirable is as much opposition as the demographics of the country require. I have seen no evidence that a smaller number of parties results in greater speed of legislation. (In fact one of the arguments against our system is that it is ineffectual, and results in deadlock.) I would ask you that if you're going to make obscure references to one or two of the myriad political systems in the world, that you say something about their actual situation rather than leaving it veiled in obscurity. What exactly is the situation in Macedonia? What has been agreed too that is detrimental to the population and to the benefit of radical elements? And how exactly does it present an obstacle to my argument?

    Again, don't expect me to balk at the drop of a word like "chaos". In order to support your argument, you would have to show why, in your opinion, a two party system is transparent (I would argue that there are too many things we can't "check" in our current system, but that a multiplying of parties would not make the system less transparent than it already is.)

    Thanks for pointing this out. I believe it's an argument for my position that power in our system is too localized, and therefore too susceptible to special interest / corporate influence.
     
  3. jon_forward
    Offline

    jon_forward Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,436
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    nashville.tn
    Ratings:
    +5
    It to bad there isnt some way to do away with ALL the partys of political BS and have the folks THAT WE THE PEOPLE voted in do the bidding of the majority of the above. those poor souls[most in office now] getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar or getting hummers on the peoples time:finger: SEE YA!!!! Our government was meant to work FOR THE PEOPLE not against. and FOR THE PEOPLE MEANS FOR THE FOLKS THAT LIVE IN THE GOOD OLE U.S.A. not some camel litter box 10 time zones away. Charity starts at home. just thinking bout our foreign policys of the last 40 years:mad: I am going to go and take my meds now................:D
     

Share This Page