Two party system

[AtlantaWalter]

Does anyone think that the two party system will ever relinquish its' hold on America?
I know there is the Green Party and the Libertarian Party but does anyone think there will ever be a third party that will ever give the Democrats and Republicans a serious run for their money?

 

[kcmcdonald]

The country is pretty much in the center of both parties. It is a small population of die hard followers on either end of the political spectrum. These people however controll a great majority of political clout. They do not however represent the major voting block. The middle or centerist voters are the largest source of voters. These people can identify with both parties and with both paltforms. However these people are uniformed voters. The only politics they hear about are teh 2 sec sound bites on the news. So they bye into the big problem simple soulution thing. These people these centrists are the reason why we can only have a two party system. a thrid party only plays a spoiler role. If the thrid aprty canadite is left the repo's benifite. If the thrid party is right the dem's benifite. If you want to know why we have only two parties blame the middle. Not the extrems.

 

[Bry]

I think to be free of the two party system, we sould have to change the electoral process. In the US, the election is decided by majority, and the winner takes all. Hence the considerable reaction against someone like Nader who threatens to render irrelevant a significant number of votes. Anyone who likes the positions of Nader will have to think more than twice about giving him their vote, as he has no chance whatsoever of winning and therefore no practical utility. Some will be satisfied by sending the message to the Democrats (again) that they no longer represent the positions of the left.

In most democratic systems, the election is not decided by the majority, but rather by proportion. The party which wins an absolute majority still gains absolute control of the government, while if no party wins absolute majority, a pact must be formed by two or more parties, and power must be shared. This system, obviously, has its benefits and its weaknesses.

 

[Annie]

Third parties may in time, long or short, become one of the two dominant parties, Nader alluded to such on Meet the Press, regarding the Republican Party prior to the Civil War. It happened several times during the early years of the government.

The idea that the 'hard core' of either party is uninformed is not correct. The problem is that those that are active in politics also have ideologies that brought them where they are, thus they find more validity in reports that affirm their point of view, i.e., Democrats tend to like the New Republic and MoveOn.org; while Republicans tend more to the WSJ and The National Review.

However, within each party there are those to the ends with the Republicans having problems with the Pat Buchanan and the Libertarians. The Democrats with the Michael Moore and Southern Christian Democrats. The extremes of either party are those that could break off and spin a new party.

 

[William Joyce]

One obstacle for the formation of third and fourth parties is our first-past-the-post electoral system, not had in Europe, which has everything from socialist parties to pro-white parties.

There is NO difference between the Demorats and RepubliKHANs. Both serve Israel and Mexico instead of the U.S., and always will. They are both run by skullandbone Yalies who have abandoned America.

 

[Annie]

You could make an argument for the GOP supporting both Mexico and Israel, or at least the administration. However, trust me the argument will not extend to DNC. Conservatives for the most part disagree with the administration regarding this in part, which will be discussed in following. However, recognize the differences, they are real.

 

[wonderwench]

First, we need to get rid of government subsidy of campaigns. In order to receive federal matching funds, a candidate must have received 5% of the votes in an election. All this does is maintain the two-party stranglehold.

The only way campaign financing reform will work is to forbid corporate, union and PAC donations - and only to allow individual contributions.

 

[Scourge]

what other parties are there? Is there a communist party? there must be an Islamic one... even an objectivist one?

Canada had three main parties (2 really) until a fourth came into the picture (Reform party) and they became the 'third' party, and then the opposition! So it could happen in the US, if the social conditions are right, and the advertising bucks show up...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by William Joyce
One obstacle for the formation of third and fourth parties is our first-past-the-post electoral system, not had in Europe, which has everything from socialist parties to pro-white parties.

There is NO difference between the Demorats and RepubliKHANs. Both serve Israel and Mexico instead of the U.S., and always will. They are both run by skullandbone Yalies who have abandoned America.

So how are you voting, William? Maybe we are serving an israeli overlord, at least Bush will do it well.

 

[William Joyce]

Dunno. I live in New York, haven't seen how I write in someone. I voted for Bush in '00, feel pretty dumb about that. I've voted for Republicans since I could vote, but in the years since turning 18, I've become, ahem, a bit more patriotic, shall we say.

How about writing in Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado, the only man to oppose immigration?

 

[wonderwench]

The system is now entirely rigged to keep the two major parties in power. Federal matching funds for the Presidential campaigns has ensured this. A candidate must receive 5% of the vote to receive matching funds. Non-two party candidates have an incredibly tough time doing this - unless they are wealthy/celebrity candidates, ie, Ross Perot.

Add in the vote buying via bennies and pork thrown to government employees, entitlement recipients, unions and special interests - the two parties have developed a permanent voting block which excludes those of us who pay the bills.

 

[megsand247]

The American government will remain under the two party system as long as we are a majoritarian government instead of a consensus government. Because our elections are determined by the 'first past the post', the candidate who recieves the most votes wins. The other parties and those who voted for them are left without a say.
Parties like the Green and Libertarian won't be able to have a big impact on the government because they aren't either of the major two parties. Unless the United States adopts a consensus government, we will be governed by the Democratic and Republican parties.
Consensus governments are different from majoritarian governments (such as the US) because multiple parties are represented. Parties are represented proportionally to how many votes each party recieved. Because all parties are represented, consensus governments are in a way, more democratic than the government America runs by.
Pretty ironic that we pride ourselves on being a democratic government when there are governmental types even more democratic than us.
Other than changing the way we determine how our citizens are represented, the only other way that a Green or Libertarian party will gain momentum and power is if the Democratic or Republican parties collapse.

 

[5stringJeff]

First, I will say that I'm not one of those people who thinks that the two-party system is superior and must be maintained. People who argue that are usually a) idiots, or b) party hacks.
Here's the problem: every third party startup wants to field a candidate for every position in America, from President to dog catcher. Supposedly, this will raise awareness of their party and make them look like a viable alternative. Unfortunately, this will never work, because money is wasted in campaigns that these parties can never win.
I think the Libertarians are doing it right. They have targeted New Hampshire as their "Free State Project." So a whole bunch of them are moving to NH over the next four years (I think) so that they will have a sizable population there. They are then going to build a grassroots party movement and start gaining local offices. If their plan works right, NH residents will get to see the results of Libertarian-dominated government, like what they see, and vote in more Libertarians. Eventually, they will be a major party in NH, and that is supposed to spark a Libertarian fire nationwide.
This plan, IMO, has a better chance than an unknown party running a Presidential candidate with no chance of winning, just to get their name on the ballot.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Scourge
what other parties are there? Is there a communist party? there must be an Islamic one... even an objectivist one?

Canada had three main parties (2 really) until a fourth came into the picture (Reform party) and they became the 'third' party, and then the opposition! So it could happen in the US, if the social conditions are right, and the advertising bucks show up...

Let's see...
The Libertarians are probably the biggest third party in the US. They believe in both economic and social liberties. They are pro-choice, but also for the flat tax (or no income tax).
The Green Party is for the no-free-trade, socialist environmentalists in the US.
The American Heritgae Party wants to create a Christianized government.
The World Workers Party is a socialist/communist Party.
The Communist Party USA does exist.
The Reform Party (of Perot/Buchanan/Ventura fame) is pretty much dead now, but they were somewhat of a centrist party, if I remember correctly.
There are dozens of other political parties out there, but these are the biggest/most organized of the Third Parties.

 

[Avatar4321]

Im rather tired of hearing about all this we need more parties in the system. No we dont. We have a strong two party system for a reason. To limit the power of the special intersts. While Special interests are good, if they become too powerful they can be a threat to freedom.

This is one reasons i think the Democrats need to wake up and get their act together. If they keep following their path, we will have one strong party and alot of weak parties. And despite me being a Conservative Republican, we need oppositition to prevent corruption and promote freedom (by creating gridlock that keeps government out of peoples lives)

 

[DKSuddeth]

Im rather tired of hearing about all this we need more parties in the system. No we dont. We have a strong two party system for a reason. To limit the power of the special intersts. While Special interests are good, if they become too powerful they can be a threat to freedom.

and you don't think thats happening now?

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes, but only because people continue to weaken the parties and create campaign finance reforms that protect corrupt politicians and strengthen the special interests they claim to be against.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

and you don't think thats happening now?

In some ways I agree. But I don't think it's as bad as it could be since there are so many different special interests that represent causes that are from all over the spectrum.

 

[remarkso]

It seems to me that the main flaw in the two party system is the fact that we are place somewhere on a line that runs from left to right (or vice versa in case your offended). These days there are so many issues that voting is more dimensional than a single, solitary line on which you're placed. It's more of a graph containing both social and economic issues....and arguably a three dimensional graph that goes even deeper into the your placement on the political scale. Our issues are far more complex than they were 228, 150, or even 75 years ago.

So what's the answer??

I don't know what the answer is. If I did I'd be screaming it from the mountain tops. However, it seems to me that if people are getting as tired as I am with all the same old political BS that gets thrown back and forth between the elephants and donkeys during elections, the time may be around the corner where we see a three or even a four major party that starts to focus on issues other than who should be voted prom king.