From across the pond, a good question

[BDBoop]

US elections: Why does the world's greatest democracy offer just two choices? - Telegraph

The gauntlet was thrown down in duelling online videos last week. President Barack Obama's campaign compared presumptive Republican challenger Mitt Romney to a blood-sucking, job-destroying vampire while he headed Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Romney quickly parried with a brutally effective video telling the heart-wrenching stories of just three of the 23 million unemployed Americans in the Obama economy.

The 2012 election campaign season is still young; the battle will grow only more bruising. And voters will become increasingly turned off. But, in America, we get only two choices, and often are left voting for what we believe to be the lesser of two evils.

Friends in Europe and elsewhere often lament their own forms of government which foster countless parties and voices, and create much noise and chaos. Ironically, in America, which we like to argue is the greatest democracy in the world, we are limited to just two choices: a Republican or a Democrat.

And voters are tiring of it. Some 40 per cent of Americans today identify themselves as political Independents – a record. Just 29 per cent say they're Democrats, down seven points from 2008, while the proportion saying they're Republicans has fallen to 27 per cent, according to Gallup.

The middle, which rejects both parties, is growing but the question is, what to do about it?

BTSOOM.

 

[American Horse]

As has happened before, when the voices or sentiments of a large enough constituency is frustrated, then a new party will emerge. The other option, the parliamentary system doesn't work all that well, and it fosters many parties and coalitions. Problem with the parties in the US is the Media, which we rely on as a fourth estate. That monopoly is approaching its end, and when it is reached parties will be able to distinguish themselves from each other and the difference in choices will be profound and clear.

 

[BDBoop]

As has happened before, when the voices or sentiments of a large enough constituency is frustrated, then a new party will emerge. The other option, the parliamentary system doesn't work all that well, and it fosters many parties and coalitions. Problem with the parties in the US is the Media, which we rely on as a fourth estate. That monopoly is approaching its end, and when it is reached parties will be able to distinguish themselves from each other and the difference in choices will be profound and clear.

Thank you. So if I'm understanding you correctly, if enough people are disenchanted, they will vote third party?

How would the electoral college be affected?

 

[American Horse]

As has happened before, when the voices or sentiments of a large enough constituency is frustrated, then a new party will emerge. The other option, the parliamentary system doesn't work all that well, and it fosters many parties and coalitions. Problem with the parties in the US is the Media, which we rely on as a fourth estate. That monopoly is approaching its end, and when it is reached parties will be able to distinguish themselves from each other and the difference in choices will be profound and clear.

Thank you. So if I'm understanding you correctly, if enough people are disenchanted, they will vote third party?

How would the electoral college be affected?

An interesting question; for insight look at the election of 1860 HERE. The country was more split then than it is now with (Republican) Lincoln getting 180 , (Southern Democratic) John Breckinridge getting 72, (Constitutional Union/Whig) John Bell getting 39, and (Northern Democratic) Stephen Douglas getting 12.

The combined vote for Douglas and Breckinridge was 84 against Lincoln's 180. Lincoln won 28 more electoral votes than the minimum required to win.

The EC has changed between then and now, so those changes would have to be taken into account.

As to your first question: yes. The slavery and abolition question had become more and more intrinsic to American politics from the time of the Missouri Compromise in 1820. The issue festered for 34 years before the Republican Party was created in response. As I said, though, the Fourth Estate distorts public sentiment, more than it did back then when there wasn’t really an overarching MSM. Then the information media was more parochial and disparate by region.

 

[BDBoop]

As has happened before, when the voices or sentiments of a large enough constituency is frustrated, then a new party will emerge. The other option, the parliamentary system doesn't work all that well, and it fosters many parties and coalitions. Problem with the parties in the US is the Media, which we rely on as a fourth estate. That monopoly is approaching its end, and when it is reached parties will be able to distinguish themselves from each other and the difference in choices will be profound and clear.

Thank you. So if I'm understanding you correctly, if enough people are disenchanted, they will vote third party?

How would the electoral college be affected?

An interesting question; for insight look at the election of 1860 HERE. The country was more split then than it is now with (Republican) Lincoln getting 180 , (Southern Democratic) John Breckinridge getting 72, (Constitutional Union/Whig) John Bell getting 39, and (Northern Democratic) Stephen Douglas getting 12.

The combined vote for Douglas and Breckinridge was 84 against Lincoln's 180. Lincoln won 28 more electoral votes than the minimum required to win.

The EC has changed between then and now, so those changes would have to be taken into account.

As to your first question: yes. The slavery and abolition question had become more and more intrinsic to American politics from the time of the Missouri Compromise in 1820. The issue festered for 34 years before the Republican Party was created in response. As I said, though, the Fourth Estate distorts public sentiment, more than it did back then when there wasn’t really an overarching MSM. Then the information media was more parochial and disparate by region.

I think the advent of social media and its role in sharing information has played a part (in addition to the MSM), as well as blogs, of course.

It is no longer a point of what politicians think we 'need to know', or the media, either.

 

[American Horse]

Thank you. So if I'm understanding you correctly, if enough people are disenchanted, they will vote third party?

How would the electoral college be affected?

An interesting question; for insight look at the election of 1860 HERE. The country was more split then than it is now with (Republican) Lincoln getting 180 , (Southern Democratic) John Breckinridge getting 72, (Constitutional Union/Whig) John Bell getting 39, and (Northern Democratic) Stephen Douglas getting 12.

The combined vote for Douglas and Breckinridge was 84 against Lincoln's 180. Lincoln won 28 more electoral votes than the minimum required to win.

The EC has changed between then and now, so those changes would have to be taken into account.

As to your first question: yes. The slavery and abolition question had become more and more intrinsic to American politics from the time of the Missouri Compromise in 1820. The issue festered for 34 years before the Republican Party was created in response. As I said, though, the Fourth Estate distorts public sentiment, more than it did back then when there wasn’t really an overarching MSM. Then the information media was more parochial and disparate by region.

I think the advent of social media and its role in sharing information has played a part (in addition to the MSM), as well as blogs, of course.

It is no longer * a point of what politicians think we 'need to know', or the media, either.

*Insert "as much"

In my daily discourse I talk with more people who don't connect with social media or blogs. The information that reaches them is almost exclusively from mainstream sources, and is then shaped further by opinion from casual conversation with family, friends, and associates. I'm just saying that we over rate the effects of the "new media," whole segments of the public is unaffected by that.

 

[BDBoop]

So back up to "Is there any way whatsoever that we can break out of the two party system."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

US elections: Why does the world's greatest democracy offer just two choices?

Because the world’s greatest ‘democracy’ isn’t, it’s a Republic.

In theory and per the Framers’ original intent, who occupied the WH was of little importance. The Nation was to be guided by Congress with the CE acting as a final check on pending legislation. In addition, since all three branches of government are subject to the rule of law, the people have recourse through the courts to address any government excess, including that by the president.

Sadly this is no longer the case, with the aberration of the Imperial Presidency and the politicization of the judiciary.

Today we’re stuck with a broken system, not as a result of a ‘flawed design,’ but as a consequence of the fear and ignorance of the American people.

 

[Harry Dresden]

US elections: Why does the world's greatest democracy offer just two choices?

Because the world’s greatest ‘democracy’ isn’t, it’s a Republic.

In theory and per the Framers’ original intent, who occupied the WH was of little importance. The Nation was to be guided by Congress with the CE acting as a final check on pending legislation. In addition, since all three branches of government are subject to the rule of law, the people have recourse through the courts to address any government excess, including that by the president.

Sadly this is no longer the case, with the aberration of the Imperial Presidency and the politicization of the judiciary.

Today we’re stuck with a broken system, not as a result of a ‘flawed design,’ but as a consequence of the fear and ignorance of the American people.

vote for someone besides the usual suspects.....problem solved....

 

[BDBoop]

US elections: Why does the world's greatest democracy offer just two choices?

Because the world’s greatest ‘democracy’ isn’t, it’s a Republic.

In theory and per the Framers’ original intent, who occupied the WH was of little importance. The Nation was to be guided by Congress with the CE acting as a final check on pending legislation. In addition, since all three branches of government are subject to the rule of law, the people have recourse through the courts to address any government excess, including that by the president.

Sadly this is no longer the case, with the aberration of the Imperial Presidency and the politicization of the judiciary.

Today we’re stuck with a broken system, not as a result of a ‘flawed design,’ but as a consequence of the fear and ignorance of the American people.

vote for someone besides the usual suspects.....problem solved....

I don't think that 1) that's enough, or 2) it would work because unless everybody votes for the same 'somebody else', a main party person will still win.

 

[g5000]

Why do we have two parties? Because the zillion other "third parties" are bigger propellerheads than the two main parties.

No mystery there.

We have a choice of Shit, Shit, More Shit, Bigger Shit, Crazy Shit, and Batshit, but no Serious Shit.

 

[BDBoop]

Why do we have two parties? Because the zillion other "third parties" are bigger propellerheads than the two main parties.

No mystery there.

We have a choice of Shit, Shit, More Shit, Bigger Shit, Crazy Shit, and Batshit, but no Serious Shit.

So no way out. Broken government forevermore.

 

[whitehall]

You work within your chosen party to get the best candidate you can get. The Tea Party puts pressure on republicans to represent Constitutional core values and the communist party puts pressure on democrats. Third and 4th parties on down the line are up on the ballot all the time. Maybe you don't vote often enough to notice.

 

[hortysir]

US elections: Why does the world's greatest democracy offer just two choices? - Telegraph

The gauntlet was thrown down in duelling online videos last week. President Barack Obama's campaign compared presumptive Republican challenger Mitt Romney to a blood-sucking, job-destroying vampire while he headed Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Romney quickly parried with a brutally effective video telling the heart-wrenching stories of just three of the 23 million unemployed Americans in the Obama economy.

The 2012 election campaign season is still young; the battle will grow only more bruising. And voters will become increasingly turned off. But, in America, we get only two choices, and often are left voting for what we believe to be the lesser of two evils.

Friends in Europe and elsewhere often lament their own forms of government which foster countless parties and voices, and create much noise and chaos. Ironically, in America, which we like to argue is the greatest democracy in the world, we are limited to just two choices: a Republican or a Democrat.

And voters are tiring of it. Some 40 per cent of Americans today identify themselves as political Independents – a record. Just 29 per cent say they're Democrats, down seven points from 2008, while the proportion saying they're Republicans has fallen to 27 per cent, according to Gallup.

The middle, which rejects both parties, is growing but the question is, what to do about it?

BTSOOM.

While repub and dem may be our 'main' 2, we have others.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Because the world’s greatest ‘democracy’ isn’t, it’s a Republic.

In theory and per the Framers’ original intent, who occupied the WH was of little importance. The Nation was to be guided by Congress with the CE acting as a final check on pending legislation. In addition, since all three branches of government are subject to the rule of law, the people have recourse through the courts to address any government excess, including that by the president.

Sadly this is no longer the case, with the aberration of the Imperial Presidency and the politicization of the judiciary.

Today we’re stuck with a broken system, not as a result of a ‘flawed design,’ but as a consequence of the fear and ignorance of the American people.

vote for someone besides the usual suspects.....problem solved....

I don't think that 1) that's enough, or 2) it would work because unless everybody votes for the same 'somebody else', a main party person will still win.

the only way to change things is to either get rid of these people or make them wake up and start being leaders instead of plunderers.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why do we have two parties? Because the zillion other "third parties" are bigger propellerheads than the two main parties.

No mystery there.

We have a choice of Shit, Shit, More Shit, Bigger Shit, Crazy Shit, and Batshit, but no Serious Shit.

in other words....we are shit out of luck.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

You work within your chosen party to get the best candidate you can get. The Tea Party puts pressure on republicans to represent Constitutional core values and the communist party puts pressure on democrats. Third and 4th parties on down the line are up on the ballot all the time. Maybe you don't vote often enough to notice.

as long as that person is a member of one of the two parties......not much will change....every now and then they will throw us a bone.....and then blame all the things they could not do on the other party......

 

[francoHFW]

Those indies are apathetic tools, and the republicans are ignorant assholes.We don't need another party, we need smarter voters and better media, that check stories and aren't afraid of loudmouth idiots. Bring back the fairness doctrine. Pub propaganda is a one sided disgrace, the corporate media are cowards.

 

[Douger]

We got over that but we're progresives . Its a freedom thing. Ye could never understand-----eth.
List of political parties in Costa Rica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[francoHFW]

I saw on Jeopardy C R did away with their army in 1947....interesting. Can my GF get pain killers there easily? Seriously LOL.