Get rid of 2 party system ???

[American Horse]

A three party system will always coelesce into a two party system in an executive/bi-cameral (as distinct from a parliamentary) political arrangement .
Without political parties a political system will devolve into chaos; political parties are the glue that holds disparate elements and coalitions together under an overarching philosophy.

 

[whitehall]

It's free Country as they used to say and there are several political parties out here. When people say "get rid of" they are usually floating the idea of government control of the political process. Tit 4 tat means compromise and discussion. Who would want to do away with discussion or compromise except maybe totalitarian regimes?

 

[American Horse]

It's free Country as they used to say and there are several political parties out here. When people say "get rid of" they are usually floating the idea of government control of the political process. Tit 4 tat means compromise and discussion. Who would want to do away with discussion or compromise except maybe totalitarian regimes?

To those who call for "no political parties;" Gaddafi’s Libya has no political parties. None are allowed. Now, their first cause, post the dictator will be to form political parties. Political parties, which coalesce down to just two, are the primary organizational components of democratic republics.

 

[geauxtohell]

As long as were a country with 2 reining parties, were never going to get anywhere. It will continue to be Tit 4 Tat. We need something more like a 5 party system, to mix it up a little, so that we can move forward.

Members of both parties will just continue to toe the party line, you know it, and I know it.

"A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND"

A five party system would be better for the USA because of all the diverse people and cultures. Either we are, or were not, the melting pot of the world.

Our "winner take all" system of elections promises a two party system. Even if you eliminated the GOP and DNC, two new parties would crop up. To get rid of the two party system, you would have to fundamentally change the way this country works.

If you wanted five parties, we would have to switch to a parliamentary system of government.

Good luck with that.

 

[Anachronism]

I would be all in favor of banning all political parties, political action committies, and any sort of group like that. I believe they create much more harm than good in our society.

 

[Annie]

why not a "no Party" system....back to our roots where whoever came in first became president and whoever came in second became vice president, regardless of party affiliation, if any?

That didn't work the first time around, once past GW.

 

[American Horse]

As long as were a country with 2 reining parties, were never going to get anywhere. It will continue to be Tit 4 Tat. We need something more like a 5 party system, to mix it up a little, so that we can move forward.

Members of both parties will just continue to toe the party line, you know it, and I know it.

"A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND"

A five party system would be better for the USA because of all the diverse people and cultures. Either we are, or were not, the melting pot of the world.

I find it an odd coincidence that the Dems and the repubs are aligned and polarized by the colors they wear, exactly as the crips and bloods are.

That should be instructional.

During the Medieval period “political” parties were non functional but they returned with the Renaissance.

As late in history as the time of The Renaissance political parties used colors as a quick way of identifying themselves. In the Age of Petrarch and Boccaccio, philosopher/historian Will Durant says (1304-75) in the “ - year 1302 in which the aristocratic party of the Neri (Blacks), having seized the government of Florence by force , exiled Dante (Alighieri), and other middle class Bianchi (Whites), the triumphant oligarchy indicted a White lawyer, Ser. Petracco on the charge of having falsified a legal document....- ”

The first quasi political organizations were the fanatical groups of citizens in the Roman Circus Maximus

“ - Factions were identified by their colors: Blue or Green, Red or White. [Emperor] Domitian added gold and purple but they, like the emperor, were never popular and short-lived. Colors first are recorded in the 70s BC, during the Republic, when Pliny the Elder relates that, at the funeral of a charioteer for the Reds, a distraught supporter threw himself on the pyre in despair, a sacrifice that was dismissed by the Whites as no more than the act of someone overcome by the fumes of burning incense.- ”

 

[geauxtohell]

I would be all in favor of banning all political parties, political action committies, and any sort of group like that. I believe they create much more harm than good in our society.

You can't ban people's right to assemble and the SCOTUS has ruled that campaign donations are free speech.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As long as were a country with 2 reining parties, were never going to get anywhere. It will continue to be Tit 4 Tat. We need something more like a 5 party system, to mix it up a little, so that we can move forward.

Members of both parties will just continue to toe the party line, you know it, and I know it.

"A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND"

A five party system would be better for the USA because of all the diverse people and cultures. Either we are, or were not, the melting pot of the world.

You know that the 2-party system was not 'created' by any sort of legislative genesis, that it evolved over time, right?

How do you s'pose we get rid of the 2-party and create an (x)-party system?

 

[geauxtohell]

As long as were a country with 2 reining parties, were never going to get anywhere. It will continue to be Tit 4 Tat. We need something more like a 5 party system, to mix it up a little, so that we can move forward.

Members of both parties will just continue to toe the party line, you know it, and I know it.

"A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND"

A five party system would be better for the USA because of all the diverse people and cultures. Either we are, or were not, the melting pot of the world.

You know that the 2-party system was not 'created' by any sort of legislative genesis, that it evolved over time, right?

How do you s'pose we get rid of the 2-party and create an (x)-party system?

We would have to switch to a parliamentary/power-sharing form of government.

This is basic comparative politics 101.

 

[Annie]

As long as were a country with 2 reining parties, were never going to get anywhere. It will continue to be Tit 4 Tat. We need something more like a 5 party system, to mix it up a little, so that we can move forward.

Members of both parties will just continue to toe the party line, you know it, and I know it.

"A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND"

A five party system would be better for the USA because of all the diverse people and cultures. Either we are, or were not, the melting pot of the world.

You know that the 2-party system was not 'created' by any sort of legislative genesis, that it evolved over time, right?

How do you s'pose we get rid of the 2-party and create an (x)-party system?

We would have to switch to a parliamentary/power-sharing form of government.

This is basic comparative politics 101.

Silly. UK is parliamentary and you have labor and Tory. Are there many lessor parties? Yes. Here too, without parliamentary system, that is unwanted here.

If enough reasonable people decide they have candidates to compete with present parties, they will win. Look local.

 

[Anachronism]

You can't ban people's right to assemble and the SCOTUS has ruled that campaign donations are free speech.

Which is why this country will continue to crumble into the sea of history, soon to be nothing more than the Atlantis of this century.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As long as were a country with 2 reining parties, were never going to get anywhere. It will continue to be Tit 4 Tat. We need something more like a 5 party system, to mix it up a little, so that we can move forward.

Members of both parties will just continue to toe the party line, you know it, and I know it.

"A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND"

A five party system would be better for the USA because of all the diverse people and cultures. Either we are, or were not, the melting pot of the world.

You know that the 2-party system was not 'created' by any sort of legislative genesis, that it evolved over time, right?

How do you s'pose we get rid of the 2-party and create an (x)-party system?

We would have to switch to a parliamentary/power-sharing form of government.

Why would we "have" to do that?

And, of course, you know that would require massively amending, if not an outright repeal, of Article I and II of the constitution - right?

Further, if we did do that, how would it eliminate the 2-party and/or create a multi-party system?

 

[editec]

As long as were a country with 2 reining parties, were never going to get anywhere. It will continue to be Tit 4 Tat. We need something more like a 5 party system, to mix it up a little, so that we can move forward.

Members of both parties will just continue to toe the party line, you know it, and I know it.

"A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND"

A five party system would be better for the USA because of all the diverse people and cultures. Either we are, or were not, the melting pot of the world.

I find it an odd coincidence that the Dems and the repubs are aligned and polarized by the colors they wear, exactly as the crips and bloods are.

That should be instructional.

During the Medieval period “political” parties were non functional but they returned with the Renaissance.

As late in history as the time of The Renaissance political parties used colors as a quick way of identifying themselves. In the Age of Petrarch and Boccaccio, philosopher/historian Will Durant says (1304-75) in the “ - year 1302 in which the aristocratic party of the Neri (Blacks), having seized the government of Florence by force , exiled Dante (Alighieri), and other middle class Bianchi (Whites), the triumphant oligarchy indicted a White lawyer, Ser. Petracco on the charge of having falsified a legal document....- ”

The first quasi political organizations were the fanatical groups of citizens in the Roman Circus Maximus

“ - Factions were identified by their colors: Blue or Green, Red or White. [Emperor] Domitian added gold and purple but they, like the emperor, were never popular and short-lived. Colors first are recorded in the 70s BC, during the Republic, when Pliny the Elder relates that, at the funeral of a charioteer for the Reds, a distraught supporter threw himself on the pyre in despair, a sacrifice that was dismissed by the Whites as no more than the act of someone overcome by the fumes of burning incense.- ”

Truly one of the more fascinating and not well understand aspects of the Roman Empire.

I think that at the end, there was only Blue and Green supporters.

And these weren't merely political parties as we know it, either.

I truly wish somebody would write a book specifically about this subject because as much as I've read about Rome, this topic seldom gets more than a passing mention.

Hell folks, these two groups used to riot and thousands of people were killed.

There WAS politics in Rome even during the Imperial age.

But finding out about it in detail is pretty much impossible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can't ban people's right to assemble and the SCOTUS has ruled that campaign donations are free speech.

Which is why this country will continue to crumble into the sea of history, soon to be nothing more than the Atlantis of this century.

Your recourse?
Get busy organizing/supporting a party that creates a viable alternative to the R and D.

 

[geauxtohell]

You know that the 2-party system was not 'created' by any sort of legislative genesis, that it evolved over time, right?

How do you s'pose we get rid of the 2-party and create an (x)-party system?

We would have to switch to a parliamentary/power-sharing form of government.

This is basic comparative politics 101.

Silly. UK is parliamentary and you have labor and Tory. Are there many lessor parties? Yes. Here too, without parliamentary system, that is unwanted here.

If enough reasonable people decide they have candidates to compete with present parties, they will win. Look local.

But the minority parties have more say as parliamentary systems are created for power sharing. This isn't anything novel or unique to my perspective/opinion, it's basic political science 101. As in, this is something I learned my freshman year of college. If you think about it hard enough, it's easy to see why a "winner takes all" system (as opposed to proportioning seats based on voter percentages) creates two major parties.

As I said before, if the libertarians become powerful enough, they will simply replace one of the two major parties, as has been the history of political parties in this country (see: "The Whigs").

Under our system, minority parties logically have more sway when there are less voters involved (i.e. locally). However, as we have been a federalist country since 1865, they don't get much further than that.

 

[geauxtohell]

You know that the 2-party system was not 'created' by any sort of legislative genesis, that it evolved over time, right?

How do you s'pose we get rid of the 2-party and create an (x)-party system?

We would have to switch to a parliamentary/power-sharing form of government.

Why would we "have" to do that?

And, of course, you know that would require massively amending, if not an outright repeal, of Article I and II of the constitution - right?

Further, if we did do that, how would it eliminate the 2-party and/or create a multi-party system?

Again, this notion isn't unique to me. It's basic political science. Think about it logically, "winner takes all" creates two dominant teams.

I am not advocating for changing our system, and it would certainly require changing the constitution. I am simply pointing out that a two party system is an inherent (and probably unintended) byproduct of our electoral process.

 

[geauxtohell]

You can't ban people's right to assemble and the SCOTUS has ruled that campaign donations are free speech.

Which is why this country will continue to crumble into the sea of history, soon to be nothing more than the Atlantis of this century.

Your recourse?
Get busy organizing/supporting a party that creates a viable alternative to the R and D.

Have fun with that. At best, you'll eliminate one letter and stick another one in there.

 

[Annie]

We would have to switch to a parliamentary/power-sharing form of government.

This is basic comparative politics 101.

Silly. UK is parliamentary and you have labor and Tory. Are there many lessor parties? Yes. Here too, without parliamentary system, that is unwanted here.

If enough reasonable people decide they have candidates to compete with present parties, they will win. Look local.

But the minority parties have more say as parliamentary systems are created for power sharing. This isn't anything novel or unique to my perspective/opinion, it's basic political science 101. As in, this is something I learned my freshman year of college. If you think about it hard enough, it's easy to see why a "winner takes all" system (as opposed to proportioning seats based on voter percentages) creates two major parties.

As I said before, if the libertarians become powerful enough, they will simply replace one of the two major parties, as has been the history of political parties in this country (see: "The Whigs").

Under our system, minority parties logically have more sway when there are less voters involved (i.e. locally). However, as we have been a federalist country since 1865, they don't get much further than that.

and yet, local parties and independents often hold office. The opening for a replacement party is there. I'd like to see the national voice become less significant, not more.

 

[geauxtohell]

Silly. UK is parliamentary and you have labor and Tory. Are there many lessor parties? Yes. Here too, without parliamentary system, that is unwanted here.

If enough reasonable people decide they have candidates to compete with present parties, they will win. Look local.

But the minority parties have more say as parliamentary systems are created for power sharing. This isn't anything novel or unique to my perspective/opinion, it's basic political science 101. As in, this is something I learned my freshman year of college. If you think about it hard enough, it's easy to see why a "winner takes all" system (as opposed to proportioning seats based on voter percentages) creates two major parties.

As I said before, if the libertarians become powerful enough, they will simply replace one of the two major parties, as has been the history of political parties in this country (see: "The Whigs").

Under our system, minority parties logically have more sway when there are less voters involved (i.e. locally). However, as we have been a federalist country since 1865, they don't get much further than that.

and yet, local parties and independents often hold office. The opening for a replacement party is there. I'd like to see the national voice become less significant, not more.

I think I already addressed that.

At any rate, the outcome of the civil war changed our nation to a more federalist system.

What incentive is there for the GOP to cut the Libertarians in on anything? Now what if the libertarians had 10% of the seats in the house and voted as a block?

That is the difference.