Two Party System

[antagon]

Lots of folks I've spoken to have criticized our two-party system, and I've even read a few posts concerning that here.

Does anyone support this layout anymore?

 

[Wiseacre]

I've heard it said that more than 2 parties isn't exactly a panacea either.

 

[Darkwind]

I think that there should be no parties....Zero, zilch, nada...you want to run for office? Do it on your own dime and with your own beliefs.

There is no need for a national party.

 

[antagon]

I'm not on board with folks coming up with their own little ideas. I affirm the organized, caucus-driven approach to building a political platform.

 

[tererun]

it would be nice in theory to have more choices and ideas. Of course, if you look at it for the elections and congress you find it would not work.

in elections you need 50 percent of the votes, or 50 percent of the electoral votes. With just three parties you have trouble getting that with a split, or you kill two of the parties right off the bat.

Then we have congress. We cannot get a lot passed because of party line voting instead of voting for ideas that would be good. That is with just two parties. Imagine 3 or four parties who never agree and consider compromise a horrible thing. One party comes up with an idea, and the other three oppose them because they did not come up with the idea.

This is the way it will work because political power is held by the number of people you have backing it. In order to get power you have to group. In order to keep power you have to be loyal to the group. It keeps on leading down the same road. Even if you split the groups up they would form alliances to get things passed, and eventually you would have two groups again.

You can try to blame republicans or democrats for this, but really it is the nature of humans and how they deal with power.

 

[Saigon]

it would be nice in theory to have more choices and ideas. Of course, if you look at it for the elections and congress you find it would not work.

in elections you need 50 percent of the votes, or 50 percent of the electoral votes. With just three parties you have trouble getting that with a split, or you kill two of the parties right off the bat.

.

Nice in theory?

You do realise that every other developed country in the world has multi-party democracy in practice right?

Why do parties need 50% of the vote....I have no idea what you mean by that.

Look, if there 8 - 10 major parties, then you hve 8 - 10 clearly different agendas to choose between. In the US there would be a Greens Party, a Tea Party party, the Dems would split into one Centre Party and one social Democract Party, there might be a Christian Party, a Socialist Party...that is REAL choice.

I don't see a downside for it.

 

[Meister]

Lots of folks I've spoken to have criticized our two-party system, and I've even read a few posts concerning that here.

Does anyone support this layout anymore?

We do have a two party system, no doubt about that. But, if we are going to expand to more than two major parties, it needs to at least be 4 parties. Three party system will just syphon off liberals or syphon off conservatives, leaving the existing major party to reap the benefits of splintering the other party into two.

 

[Saigon]

But, if we are going to expand to more than two major parties, it needs to at least be 4 parties. Three party system will just syphon off liberals or syphon off conservatives, leaving the existing major party to reap the benefits of splintering the other party into two.

Yes, that's true.

The UK is, in effect, stuck with 3 parties and it just ends up being a 2-against-1 election every time.

Most countries in Europe probably have around 8 parties actually in parliament, and that is probably about right.

 

[Charles_Main]

Lots of folks I've spoken to have criticized our two-party system, and I've even read a few posts concerning that here.

Does anyone support this layout anymore?

The Party Insiders of Both Parties support it, and sustain it. For all their fighting with Each other, they work together Very well when it comes to making sure nobody else is even allowed a chance to play in the game.

 

[Charles_Main]

i
in elections you need 50 percent of the votes, or 50 percent of the electoral votes. With just three parties you have trouble getting that with a split, or you kill two of the parties right off the bat.

Ok I try and Be nice but you just Demonstrated some ignorance about our system.

1. In an election you do not need 50% of the Vote. Bill Clinton for example won with less than 50%, It's called a plurality, when more than 2 Candidates are Running, the one who gets the Highest % wins.


Now in Congress I don't see where it would be a Problem. It would be like a Parliamentary Model in Europe where if the Party in Power wants to get things done, they have to Form a Collision with one or more of the other parties members in Congress to get it done.

 

[Unkotare]

There are lots of political parties in the US already. Most of them just don't get many votes.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think that there should be no parties....Zero, zilch, nada...you want to run for office? Do it on your own dime and with your own beliefs.

There is no need for a national party.

This. The party system does nothing but stifle progress. The current system in congress is a good example of this. People vote according to party, NOT for or against the merits of each bill in itself. If people were running on actual beliefs and issues, I believe that many of the problems we are facing today would not be an issue. Hell, most of the time politicians don’t do a damn thing they say. Without the party covering for them, this simply would not work. It would also go a long way to decentralizing the power and cooperate interests. It is easier to control the government direction when there is only one entity (the party) that you have to bribe rather than 536 individual politicians.

 

[Shelzin]

Lots of folks I've spoken to have criticized our two-party system, and I've even read a few posts concerning that here.

Does anyone support this layout anymore?

I don't support that the system supports a two party system. If it came down to two parties... I'm ok with that. But this system we have encourages only two parties. And the two parties want to keep it that way.

 

[Saigon]

I think that there should be no parties....Zero, zilch, nada...you want to run for office? Do it on your own dime and with your own beliefs.

There is no need for a national party.

Uganda tried this.

What they got were tribal leaders representing local issues, because they could no longer reach out to nationwide groups.

It sounds great - but in practice I suspect it is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Saigon]

Here is an overview of how multi-party democracy could look in the US:

This system is called MMP (Mixed Member Proportional).

Voters have 2 votes: 1 for the party/President they wish to form a government, and one for their local representative. Those 2 votes can be made for different parties.

In an election, the results for Wyoming are based on the party vote as follows:

Social Democrats 32%
Republicans 25%
Tea Party 15%
Greens 10%
Centrist Democracts 9%
Christians 9%
Socialists 4%

Wyoming sends 10 people to the House of Reps, which are based on those proportions:

Social Democrats 3
Republicans 2
Tea Party 2
Greens 1
Centrists 1
Christians 1

Wyoming selects 2 Senators, which are based on those proportions:

Social Democrats 1
Republicans 1

As no party can achieve an absolute majority, both the Senate and House of Reps will need to form working coalitions. The parties forming a majority working coalition then form the government, and their leader of the largest party in the two houses will be the President.

It could also be that the makeup of the Senate is balanced nationally, so that if the Greens poll 10% nationwide, they would also hold 10 of the 100 senate seats regardless of whether or not they 'won' any senate seats on a state-by-state basis.

This is complicated, but works in Germany, New Zealand and Israel much as it is presented here.

 

[theliq]

I've heard it said that more than 2 parties isn't exactly a panacea either.

We have it here Wisey,more than two parties and it can be very good or bad but it's at least a choice from total polarization.steve

The Greens have around 15% of the vote in Australia at the moment the rest divided between Labour(your Dems) and Liberal(your Rep'ns)

 

[FA_Q2]

Here is an overview of how multi-party democracy could look in the US:

This system is called MMP (Mixed Member Proportional).

Voters have 2 votes: 1 for the party/President they wish to form a government, and one for their local representative. Those 2 votes can be made for different parties.

In an election, the results for Wyoming are based on the party vote as follows:

Social Democrats 32%
Republicans 25%
Tea Party 15%
Greens 10%
Centrist Democracts 9%
Christians 9%
Socialists 4%

Wyoming sends 10 people to the House of Reps, which are based on those proportions:

Social Democrats 3
Republicans 2
Tea Party 2
Greens 1
Centrists 1
Christians 1

Wyoming selects 2 Senators, which are based on those proportions:

Social Democrats 1
Republicans 1

As no party can achieve an absolute majority, both the Senate and House of Reps will need to form working coalitions. The parties forming a majority working coalition then form the government, and their leader of the largest party in the two houses will be the President.

It could also be that the makeup of the Senate is balanced nationally, so that if the Greens poll 10% nationwide, they would also hold 10 of the 100 senate seats regardless of whether or not they 'won' any senate seats on a state-by-state basis.

This is complicated, but works in Germany, New Zealand and Israel much as it is presented here.

That is an entirely different form of representation though and would require an entire rework of our current system.

 

[Saigon]

That is an entirely different form of representation though and would require an entire rework of our current system.

It would be a very significant change, yes, but significant change is needed.

Other countries have changed their electoral system massively in recent years, and it needn't be too frightening.

In US terms, all of the current forms of legislature could be maintained, including the Electoral College - the only thing that really changes is the method by which states select ther Senators and Congressmen who represent them.

 

[IGetItAlready]

I think that there should be no parties....Zero, zilch, nada...you want to run for office? Do it on your own dime and with your own beliefs.

There is no need for a national party.

This. The party system does nothing but stifle progress. The current system in congress is a good example of this. People vote according to party, NOT for or against the merits of each bill in itself. If people were running on actual beliefs and issues, I believe that many of the problems we are facing today would not be an issue. Hell, most of the time politicians don’t do a damn thing they say. Without the party covering for them, this simply would not work. It would also go a long way to decentralizing the power and cooperate interests. It is easier to control the government direction when there is only one entity (the party) that you have to bribe rather than 536 individual politicians.

The nice thing about a two party system is that the opposition party to that in power for the most part tends to seek to constrain government thereby keeping the "ruling" party in check. At the same time, the "ruling" party, knowing it will one day be the opposition fears creating a ginormous federal beast that their opponents will someday have control of.

On the other hand, with so much power split between two parties it's quite easy for our elected officials to focus more on the desires of party leadership in hopes that the party machine will throw more resources to their own reelection campaigns. In effect answering up to party leadership as opposed to the people they were hired to represent, a condition that is only complicated by appointed czars and new bureaucracies and federal committees.

The current administration would seem to be an exception in that they either don't care how much power their opposition stands to "inherit" or they don't believe they'll ever lose power.

 

[editec]

Lots of folks I've spoken to have criticized our two-party system, and I've even read a few posts concerning that here.

Does anyone support this layout anymore?

I don't support it but the power of the two party system now DOES seem to come from the way power is dealt out in Congess.

If we want a system that has more parties, we really need to change the basic structure of government.