Who Here Has Had Enough of the Two Party System?

[dblack]

We have a MANY PARTY SYSTEM. You just hate the results

So you think it's fine the way it is? You think Trump and Harris are the cream of the crop, and the Ds and Rs are doing a great job of nominating candidates?

 

[Rawley]

I'm dancing around anything, douchebag.

At least you're frank enough to admit it "douchebag"

I'm deliberately avoiding attempts to derail the thread. The question is, do you think we should change it? Or do you think Trump and Harris are great candidates and the two-party system is hunky dory?

Point is, we have no ******* idea what "system" you claim is broken and needs to be fixed. Nothing in our electoral system dictates two parties

 

[dblack]

At least you're frank enough to admit it "douchebag"

Point is, we have no ******* idea what "system" you claim is broken and needs to be fixed. Nothing in our electoral system dictates two parties

So, I'm going to interpret your chickenshit evasion as support for the status quo. Thankfully, most of us disagree - 16-4 at present - and think we can do better. I find that encouraging.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm not sure why you want to make excuses for yourself for continuing to vote for those who screw you over.

Your stupid claim now is that I am making excuses. Naturally, you’re wrong yet again.

Why are you running from the point? The problem is not the two party system. The problem is the problematic ethics of some of the politicians being elected. Can’t you concede that your claim has been refuted?

With or without a two party system, those folks with problematic ethics will still be the problem. Therefore, you clearly misidentified “the” problem.

People often point out how I don't actually know if someone I might support will actually be better. I say that is true but if so one can be sure I would never vote to re-elect them if not.

Bullshit. But even if true, that’s beside the point.

 

[Rawley]

So, I'm going to interpret your chickenshit evasion as support for the status quo. Thankfully, most of us disagree - 16-4 at present - and think we can do better. I find that encouraging.

Third time, "chickenshit," our electoral system is not a two party system. Not sure why you are pretending it is. Odds are on ignorance.

 

[dblack]

Third time, "chickenshit," our electoral system is not a two party system. Not sure why you are pretending it is. Odds are on ignorance.

 

[fncceo]

Not proposing any solutions here. Just trying to get a feel for where are.

Can you give me an example where a three, four, sixty-four, or 3.14 x 10^16 party system is inherently better?

Or perhaps you're leaning to a one-party system?

I myself lean towards a null party system.

 

[Billiejeens]

Third time, "chickenshit," our electoral system is not a two party system. Not sure why you are pretending it is. Odds are on ignorance.

It is in reality and functionally a two party system

Even in countries that think that they dont have that system, they still have to build coalitions to get anything accomplished.

 

[dblack]

Can you give me an example where a three, four, sixty-four, or 3.14 x 10^16 party system is inherently better?

Nope.

Or perhaps you're leaning to a one-party system?

Nope.

I myself lean towards a null party system.

So why didn't you answer the poll "yes"?

 

[BackAgain]

The goal isn't to pick one party and add them to the privileged party list. The point is to change the system so it no longer privileges the dominate parties. Would you support that?

Holy crap. You make a ton of unsupported ASSumptions.

You state your desired conclusion as your premise and are surprisingly then claiming that you somehow proved you claim.

You wish to “change the system.””why should we? Because you claim — but can’t support the notion — that the “problem” is the two party system doesn’t mean that the problem IS the two party system.

Your nonsense about some “privileged party list” (whatever you might mean by that) s gibberish.

 

[whitehall]

You can vote for the Green agenda or CUSA or a handful of other 3rd party agendas. Go ahead and do it if you lost faith in the democrat party and can't bring yourself to vote your conscience with the republican agenda. What you are hoping for is a 3rd party that rivals both republicans and democrats and that ain't gonna happen.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm not dancing around anything, douchebag. I'm deliberately avoiding attempts to derail the thread. The question is, do you think we should change it? Or do you think Trump and Harris are great candidates and the two-party system is hunky dory?

You have consistently failed to explain why WE should want to change the two party system. It’s your premise. Try supporting it.

 

[dblack]

Holy crap. You make a ton of unsupported ASSumptions.

You state your desired conclusion as your premise and are surprisingly then claiming that you somehow proved you claim.

You wish to “change the system.””why should we? Because you claim — but can’t support the notion — that the “problem” is the two party system doesn’t mean that the problem IS the two party system.

Your nonsense about some “privileged party list” (whatever you might mean by that) s gibberish.

Fine. You like the current system. Why didn't you answer the poll? Your "side" is currently losing 16-4. They need your support.

 

[Billiejeens]

Can you give me an example where a three, four, sixty-four, or 3.14 x 10^16 party system is inherently better?

Or perhaps you're leaning to a one-party system?

I myself lean towards a null party system.

It doesn't exist
Its impossible

 

[dblack]

What you are hoping for is a 3rd party that rivals both republicans and democrats and that ain't gonna happen.

Not under the current system. You're right.

 

[Rawley]

That's a rather "chickenshit" evasion. Other than rank ignorance, how do you explain your obliviousness in regard to the Green party, the Libertarian party, the Conservative party, the Liberal party, the Communist party, the Reform party .... just to name a few?

 

[dblack]

That's a rather "chickenshit" evasion.

What am I evading exactly? I can't really parse an intelligent point from posts. Keep trying, I guess.

 

[fncceo]

So why didn't you answer the poll "yes"?

I don't believe the two-party system is destroying the country because I don't believe the number of parties is the issue. If you insist on having parties at all, two is just as good a number as Pi or Avogadro's Constant.

When you have any number of parties the election turns from, "Am I voting for the guy or gal with the best ideas and the best track-record of success?" to "Which party represents me or promises me the most?"

Parties consolidate money and dilute the message. Without the backing of a party, each candidate would have to campaign solely on their own merits and raise their own money. Eliminating parties would eliminate most of what is wrong with American politics in general.

 

[Rawley]

It is in reality and functionally a two party system

Even in countries that think that they dont have that system, they still have to build coalitions to get anything accomplished.

History would disagree. There are at least two elections in my lifetime alone where a third party arguably determined who was elected President.

 

[dblack]

I don't believe the two-party system is destroying the country because I don't believe the number of parties is the issue. If you insist on having parties at all, two is just as good a number as Pi or Avogadro's Constant.

When you have any number of parties the election turns from, "Am I voting for the guy or gal with the best ideas and the best track-record of success?" to "Which party represents me or promises me the most?"

Parties consolidate money and dilute the message. Without the backing of a party, each candidate would have to campaign solely on their own merits and raise their own money. Eliminating parties would eliminate most of what is wrong with American politics in general.

Well said.