Time to end the two party system?

[jwoodie]

I say yes. The two party system is proving to be a failure

The problem with a two party system is it's easier to win by destroying the other party than by constructing a positive agenda, so they both focus on that.

Interesting point about negative advertising and voting. Perhaps an "automatic runoff" system would improve things by having people vote for their 2nd and 3rd choices. Under this system, the candidate with the lowest vote total is dropped off and his votes apportioned to the others until one candidate has a majority of votes.

 

[zonly1]

535 delegates in form or another don't represent the people who pay...it must have been plan yet we talk about it. Major speed bump is the dollar as world reserve currency...no...America are control masses and the people in charge blame the other parther.,,,,,just like obama administration...who is lt quarles harris? Why the purging of military personel? Does it need to be repeated, Benghazi, sandy hurrican, irs scandal, etc .......to the scandal at Obama door steep.

so much intelegence on this board but are easliy play the part of pavlovs dog

THose pavlovs don't see what is happening when inserting obama care, btw, have many unknowns...but nacy sez we have to vote on it tosee what's in it...

conclusion: despite all love in the world, nothing is getting better, war on poverty going on 70 year, and the result is the US is no longer in first place b'c of debt overrun


NEXT MOVIE IN AMERICA: DEBT GO WiLD

 

[kaz]

I say yes. The two party system is proving to be a failure

The problem with a two party system is it's easier to win by destroying the other party than by constructing a positive agenda, so they both focus on that.

Interesting point about negative advertising and voting. Perhaps an "automatic runoff" system would improve things by having people vote for their 2nd and 3rd choices. Under this system, the candidate with the lowest vote total is dropped off and his votes apportioned to the others until one candidate has a majority of votes.

I like the thinking, but I think strict term limits would be more effective. I think Senate should be one six year term, house 3 two year terms and President one four year term.

 

[Pogo]

The problem with a two party system is it's easier to win by destroying the other party than by constructing a positive agenda, so they both focus on that.

Interesting point about negative advertising and voting. Perhaps an "automatic runoff" system would improve things by having people vote for their 2nd and 3rd choices. Under this system, the candidate with the lowest vote total is dropped off and his votes apportioned to the others until one candidate has a majority of votes.

I like the thinking, but I think strict term limits would be more effective. I think Senate should be one six year term, house 3 two year terms and President one four year term.

That would be a small step, but wouldn't address shorter-term corruption. Plus the drawback of term limits is that if your adversary knows you're forced to leave in the next year or whatever period, they can foot-drag to the point of dysfunction -- which is where we are now anyway.

I still say let's take the luster out of the job. It shouldn't be a goal in itself to get elected. If you get elected to Congress you should go live in a DC dorm without pay, have only your meals and bed provided by taxpayers, and be sequestered from contact with anybody except your constituents. Make it the service it's supposed to be rather than the celebity/lobbyism wank magnet that it is.

Not many would desire a lifetime of re-election then; they'd go in, get something done and get out to let someone else in.

We lose track of who's working for who. So do they. Maybe we should even get them to wear government-provided orange jumpsuits.

 

[Steven_R]

I'm at the point where I'd be okay with selecting members of Congress at random like we do with jury duty. God knows we can't get a worse bunch than we have right now.

 

[whitehall]

Your little revolution sputtered out when Bill Ayers maniacs blew themselves up making a bomb intended for Ft. Dix Soldiers. Anarchy ain't gonna happen and America will survive Obama.

 

[nicolondon]

Considering that America is FAR superior to countries that have a "parliamentary system"... I say no

It depends on what you're looking at. Economically the USA regardless of China is still number 1 and will be for many years providing your politicians don't trash the economy.

Politically I totally disagree, your politics are so divisive and the current shutdown shows just how bad things have become, please find me another major developed country that has had a government shutdown and has continual political dramas over absolutely everything !

The current GOP actions are not good for democracy and would set a bad precedent, it might sound like a great idea now for the TP but what happens if a GOP President is in office and the Democrats try and pull a similar stunt.

At this rate you'll just get parties picking laws they don't like and trying to change them not through the normal expected process of a democracy but with these current actions, I mean where does it all end?

 

[nicolondon]

The problem with a two party system is it's easier to win by destroying the other party than by constructing a positive agenda, so they both focus on that.

Interesting point about negative advertising and voting. Perhaps an "automatic runoff" system would improve things by having people vote for their 2nd and 3rd choices. Under this system, the candidate with the lowest vote total is dropped off and his votes apportioned to the others until one candidate has a majority of votes.

I like the thinking, but I think strict term limits would be more effective. I think Senate should be one six year term, house 3 two year terms and President one four year term.

Actually I think the problem is really that the term is too short for the House, they're too busy worrying about being elected that they will hardly stray from the party line. If you had four years they would probably be a bit more flexible. I certainly agree however with the problems of just two parties, if you had a third party you'd find both other parties would need to take into account those voters concerns.

 

[jwoodie]

I agree that House terms are too short. Expanding them to four years (with half elected every two years) would lessen the need for nonstop fundraising.

 

[kaz]

if you had a third party you'd find both other parties would need to take into account those voters concerns.

The problem we have is that socialists are now half the country forming a unified block. When one ideology is half the country, having third parties doesn't work because the one just dominates. The rest of us are trying to squeeze into the Republican party to provide a large enough opposition, but we fundamentally disagree on too many issues. Basically there are three groups. The fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives and the liberals who don't want to be Democrats for whatever reason.

For a third party to work, any two of them have to be larger than the third and we don't have that unless the Democratic party splits up. And they are so monolithic they couldn't disagree on what wall paper to put in the dining room.

 

[jwoodie]

Ironically, the Democratic Party could most easily be split up if Republicans and Independents reregistered as Democrats, thus reversing the liberal majority which controls that party.

 

[Sactowndog]

if you had a third party you'd find both other parties would need to take into account those voters concerns.

The problem we have is that socialists are now half the country forming a unified block. When one ideology is half the country, having third parties doesn't work because the one just dominates. The rest of us are trying to squeeze into the Republican party to provide a large enough opposition, but we fundamentally disagree on too many issues. Basically there are three groups. The fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives and the liberals who don't want to be Democrats for whatever reason.

For a third party to work, any two of them have to be larger than the third and we don't have that unless the Democratic party splits up. And they are so monolithic they couldn't disagree on what wall paper to put in the dining room.

If we had a Parliamentary system I would guess we would have 4-5 distinct viable parties. We would have Social Conservative Party, a Libertarian Party, a far left Green Party (that truly would be socialist), and a Democratic Party. People would know longer tolerate the ideological differences that exist within the parties today.

 

[kaz]

if you had a third party you'd find both other parties would need to take into account those voters concerns.

The problem we have is that socialists are now half the country forming a unified block. When one ideology is half the country, having third parties doesn't work because the one just dominates. The rest of us are trying to squeeze into the Republican party to provide a large enough opposition, but we fundamentally disagree on too many issues. Basically there are three groups. The fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives and the liberals who don't want to be Democrats for whatever reason.

For a third party to work, any two of them have to be larger than the third and we don't have that unless the Democratic party splits up. And they are so monolithic they couldn't disagree on what wall paper to put in the dining room.

If we had a Parliamentary system I would guess we would have 4-5 distinct viable parties. We would have Social Conservative Party, a Libertarian Party, a far left Green Party (that truly would be socialist), and a Democratic Party. People would know longer tolerate the ideological differences that exist within the parties today.

What would the "green" and "Democratic" parties actually disagree on? Because they are both now in the Democratic party disagreeing on nothing.

 

[Sactowndog]

The problem we have is that socialists are now half the country forming a unified block. When one ideology is half the country, having third parties doesn't work because the one just dominates. The rest of us are trying to squeeze into the Republican party to provide a large enough opposition, but we fundamentally disagree on too many issues. Basically there are three groups. The fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives and the liberals who don't want to be Democrats for whatever reason.

For a third party to work, any two of them have to be larger than the third and we don't have that unless the Democratic party splits up. And they are so monolithic they couldn't disagree on what wall paper to put in the dining room.

If we had a Parliamentary system I would guess we would have 4-5 distinct viable parties. We would have Social Conservative Party, a Libertarian Party, a far left Green Party (that truly would be socialist), and a Democratic Party. People would know longer tolerate the ideological differences that exist within the parties today.

What would the "green" and "Democratic" parties actually disagree on? Because they are both now in the Democratic party disagreeing on nothing.

Despite what Republican's think most democrats are not truely socialists. But some of them are. For example, the current healthcare plan is not a scocialist plan with the participation of private insurers in exchanges. The far left would clearly be for a single provider system to take all profit motivation out of health care.

 

[kaz]

If we had a Parliamentary system I would guess we would have 4-5 distinct viable parties. We would have Social Conservative Party, a Libertarian Party, a far left Green Party (that truly would be socialist), and a Democratic Party. People would know longer tolerate the ideological differences that exist within the parties today.

What would the "green" and "Democratic" parties actually disagree on? Because they are both now in the Democratic party disagreeing on nothing.

Despite what Republican's think most democrats are not truely socialists. But some of them are. For example, the current healthcare plan is not a scocialist plan with the participation of private insurers in exchanges. The far left would clearly be for a single provider system to take all profit motivation out of health care.

For that to be an example, the Democrats would have had to have had the option of going to single payer and turned it down. They didn't, they took as much as they could get, which is a government controlled health care system. Democrats maximizing what they can get being short of socialism isn't an example of anyone disagreeing. The point is they don't actually disagree on anything, and you haven't given any material example of that.

 

[Sactowndog]

What would the "green" and "Democratic" parties actually disagree on? Because they are both now in the Democratic party disagreeing on nothing.

Despite what Republican's think most democrats are not truely socialists. But some of them are. For example, the current healthcare plan is not a scocialist plan with the participation of private insurers in exchanges. The far left would clearly be for a single provider system to take all profit motivation out of health care.

For that to be an example, the Democrats would have had to have had the option of going to single payer and turned it down. They didn't, they took as much as they could get, which is a government controlled health care system. Democrats maximizing what they can get being short of socialismu isn't an example of anyone disagreeing. The point is they don't actually disagree on anything, and you haven't given any material example of that.

Many democrats strongly advocated single payer which isn't exactly socialism either. The VA model is more socialism. Just because the bill passed was a compromise doesn't mean all democrats think it was the optimal choice and that the left is monolithic.

 

[jasonnfree]

if you had a third party you'd find both other parties would need to take into account those voters concerns.

The problem we have is that socialists are now half the country forming a unified block. When one ideology is half the country, having third parties doesn't work because the one just dominates. The rest of us are trying to squeeze into the Republican party to provide a large enough opposition, but we fundamentally disagree on too many issues. Basically there are three groups. The fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives and the liberals who don't want to be Democrats for whatever reason.

For a third party to work, any two of them have to be larger than the third and we don't have that unless the Democratic party splits up. And they are so monolithic they couldn't disagree on what wall paper to put in the dining room.

Who are these socialists you're talking about? Name some names. Obama? No way. We haven't even had a real liberal in the white house, much less a socialist, since LBJ. The two party system could work if we had only taxpayer funded elections and actually jailed politicians that take bribes, which most do to fund their elections.

 

[kaz]

Despite what Republican's think most democrats are not truely socialists. But some of them are. For example, the current healthcare plan is not a scocialist plan with the participation of private insurers in exchanges. The far left would clearly be for a single provider system to take all profit motivation out of health care.

For that to be an example, the Democrats would have had to have had the option of going to single payer and turned it down. They didn't, they took as much as they could get, which is a government controlled health care system. Democrats maximizing what they can get being short of socialismu isn't an example of anyone disagreeing. The point is they don't actually disagree on anything, and you haven't given any material example of that.

Many democrats strongly advocated single payer which isn't exactly socialism either.

Single payer, with government being the single payer, isn't socialism...

The VA model is more socialism. Just because the bill passed was a compromise doesn't mean all democrats think it was the optimal choice and that the left is monolithic.

So you can't think of anything the "green" and "Democratic" party actually disagree on, just that what they did isn't proof they all agree. That is the best argument you could make for me.

 

[kaz]

if you had a third party you'd find both other parties would need to take into account those voters concerns.

The problem we have is that socialists are now half the country forming a unified block. When one ideology is half the country, having third parties doesn't work because the one just dominates. The rest of us are trying to squeeze into the Republican party to provide a large enough opposition, but we fundamentally disagree on too many issues. Basically there are three groups. The fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives and the liberals who don't want to be Democrats for whatever reason.

For a third party to work, any two of them have to be larger than the third and we don't have that unless the Democratic party splits up. And they are so monolithic they couldn't disagree on what wall paper to put in the dining room.

Who are these socialists you're talking about? Name some names. Obama? No way.

Name one thing Obama as done, by choice, which is not socialism. A case where he could have gotten his way on a socialist position, and actually said "no."

 

[Sactowndog]

if you had a third party you'd find both other parties would need to take into account those voters concerns.

The problem we have is that socialists are now half the country forming a unified block. When one ideology is half the country, having third parties doesn't work because the one just dominates. The rest of us are trying to squeeze into the Republican party to provide a large enough opposition, but we fundamentally disagree on too many issues. Basically there are three groups. The fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives and the liberals who don't want to be Democrats for whatever reason.

For a third party to work, any two of them have to be larger than the third and we don't have that unless the Democratic party splits up. And they are so monolithic they couldn't disagree on what wall paper to put in the dining room.

Who are these socialists you're talking about? Name some names. Obama? No way. We haven't even had a real liberal in the white house, much less a socialist, since LBJ. The two party system could work if we had only taxpayer funded elections and actually jailed politicians that take bribes, which most do to fund their elections.

Kaz thinks everyone not in his far right world is a socialist. Even going so far as to label a plan which was created by the Heritage Foundation as socialism. He is incapable of realizing the Affordable Care Act is a far from socialism as possible.

The Irony of Obamacare: Republicans Thought of It First | Wall St. Cheat Sheet

No self respecting socialist would ever agree on the affordable care act which is why most of them oppose it.