Time to end America’s two-party system?

[BOP]

Bernd Debusmann | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com

Time to end America’s two-party system?

Confidence in the U.S. Congress is at a historic low, more than half of Americans think that the Republican and Democratic parties are doing such a bad job that a third party is needed, and the word “dysfunction” has been common currency in the drawn-out debate over the national debt.

Does this mean the bells are tolling for the Republican-Democratic duopoly which has dominated American political life for more than 150 years?

The answer is yes for a budding political force that aims to get the millions of voters who are disaffected by the present system to bypass the traditional selection of presidential candidates through primary elections.

Instead, the new organization, Americans Elect, says it wants voters “to decide the issues that matter, find candidates to match your views and nominate the President and Vice President directly.”

[ItalianScallion (Premo)]

And end the electoral votes and start term limits. I'd be happy to go to the polls 3 times every year just to vote on "the issues that matter". This way WE the people would make the decisions and no politician could have carte blanche ever again. Hear that Stenchy Hoyer? How bout you Minikulski?

[Mongo53]

What's stopping American's from creating a 3 party or 100 party system? Last time I checked there are at least 4 parties to choose from on just about every ballot I have voted on.

I understand the frustration, I'm frustrated myself.

Just keep in mind, Europe's multi-party systems haven't saved them from the Economic problems, and incremental socialism, Greece has a dozen or more parties.

You can find a lot of similarities with our current situation and the Wiemar Republic, we fraction into multiple parties, it will look even more like the Wiemar Republic. Hitler only got a third of the vote for President, yet he still took over by getting himself named chancellor because of the dynamics that come from a bunch of parties, none of them more than a minority.

Yea, its a rather extreme example, but I'm just saying to think twice. And please spare me the Godwin's Law, I haven't accused anyone of anything or being anything.

[SamSpade]

At least two main obstacles need to be overcome first, and I don't see them happening. The best you can probably hope for is that one of the two major parties changes significantly.

One is that elections are won with "first past the post" - the most votes wins. Since 50% plus 1 vote means a guaranteed win, the system will favor the smallest number of parties needed for it.

Some countries, you don't cast votes for individuals, you cast it for the party, and the party apportions its own representatives. In a system like that, you'd cast a vote for a party, and if the final breakdown of votes went 30% Party A, 30% Party B and 40% Party C, the elected body of representatives would also reflect that distribution. As it is now in the United States, "first past the post" means that if the House members are all elected to one party with a single vote determining the outcome of each race, you'd have complete dominance by one party while not representing any of the views of almost half the people.

That kind of system - one of many alternatives - has its drawbacks. In nations where it is used, coalition governments are formed - two or more of the parties join forces to overpower the rest - and they completely dominate the government body.


The other big drawback is more or less issue oriented. Each of the major parties have basically staked out territory on the issues that mostly matter to people and in some cases, have staked out territory on issues of small importance but have managed to convince people they are important anyway. Most issues have two sides - you're for it, or you're against it. Where does a third party compete in such an area? Some people, like my mom, have a single issue upon which their vote turns - in her case, abortion. How do you form a third party, when there are voters who don't care what your position is on other issues if you don't take sides on the ones they care about? The major problem with the two party system there is, there's pretty much a kind of philosophical agreement among most of the major social issues, and you can't have a successful third party if you split your support among them. If you don't, you're just going to look like a clone of the Republicans or Democrats, and there's no need to vote for you if this is the approach you take on social issues.

The ones I know which have made small inroads HAVE taken a single issue - and got elected in minor offices. The Greens have the environment. Since the Democrats' position on the environment largely mirror them, there's no compelling reason to vote for them unless the Democrat is either unappealing or the environmental issue of the day is at odds with the Democrats.

I don't see this changing. We pretty much deal with the two parties.

[royhobie]

Originally Posted by BOP

Bernd Debusmann | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com

Time to end America’s two-party system?

Confidence in the U.S. Congress is at a historic low, more than half of Americans think that the Republican and Democratic parties are doing such a bad job that a third party is needed, and the word “dysfunction” has been common currency in the drawn-out debate over the national debt.

Does this mean the bells are tolling for the Republican-Democratic duopoly which has dominated American political life for more than 150 years?

The answer is yes for a budding political force that aims to get the millions of voters who are disaffected by the present system to bypass the traditional selection of presidential candidates through primary elections.

Instead, the new organization, Americans Elect, says it wants voters “to decide the issues that matter, find candidates to match your views and nominate the President and Vice President directly.”

Our Forefathers wrote that we are NOT supposed to have a party system of government. They took the time to list the parties that did not work which they have tried during their time. They also wrote by why shouldn't have a party system. They said quote: "A party system of government will lead to corruption". Hmm, fancy that uh? So, is our current two party system in violation of what our Forefathers wrote? No. This is because of the several amendments our Congress did many years ago.

However, the worst part I see of a two party is that it leads to a sharp division of our citizens. In fact, normally close families are sharply divided by politics within their own families. So, folks outside of the same family are potentially far worse. Many people are sharply polarized by party lines. They are litterly brainwashed by crap that comes from their party. We all know that both of these parties are useless. None of the parties are any good. One is just as bad as the other. But yet, like a sheep lead to slaughter we go to the polls and vote for the same people over and over and over. At least that is what it "appears that we do". Or, have we voted these people out of office, and are simply told that the same guy keeps on winning? Hopefully our political system isn't that corrupt. But ask yourself, how do we know for sure? Especially with the so-called electronic balloting many States now love? The balloting in past elections has been questioned by both sides. So, what is the real truth? Does anyone really know? Interesting question for another time. Who makes the final decision during a close electon? The people with another vote? No. The courts. Are the judges in the Courts appointed along party line. Yes indeed. Federal judges, as well as our U.S. Supreme Court, which governs the law of our land. Would they rule along the party line of their belief? What do you think?

[Lurk]

Originally Posted by royhobie

Our Forefathers wrote that we are NOT supposed to have a party system of government.

Source please.

[RPMDAD]

I agree with the no party system, that way you do away with the problem with the primaries where you can only vote within your party. Vote for the best candidate of your choice and political partys be damned.

[JoeRider]

Originally Posted by ItalianScallion

And end the electoral votes and start term limits. I'd be happy to go to the polls 3 times every year just to vote on "the issues that matter". This way WE the people would make the decisions and no politician could have carte blanche ever again. Hear that Stenchy Hoyer? How bout you Minikulski?

Actually I am not for ending electoral votes unless only property owners are allow to vote. Also, those that have paid their taxes can only vote too.

[JoeRider]

Originally Posted by Lurk

Source please.

Don't have the specifics but check out Ron Chernow' s books on Washington and Hamilton. Washington was not too happy with the infighting between Hamilton and Jefferson. I think there is a federalist paper out there that expresses concerns about problems that might occur with the party system.

No matter how you look at it, the party system was born with this country. There have been several parties over time and all politics are local. If you want to make a change, do it locally.

As for majority vote for President, it just means that urban areas control who wins with even less influence of the rural states. Current system actually does create some balance even if we disagree with the outcome.

[Mongo53]

Originally Posted by JoeRider

As for majority vote for President, it just means that urban areas control who wins with even less influence of the rural states. Current system actually does create some balance even if we disagree with the outcome.

Exactly, the founding fathers in their wisdom set up the electoral college for several good reasons, some that are no longer applicable, but there are still good reasons that are just as applicable today.

Insular Democracy, the founding fathers knew a president could win the popular vote by pandering shamelessly to one single group, like the dense population centers of the cities, instead of all the people. The electoral college creates a situation where the president has to appeal to at least a portion of of the necessary side to get the necessary wining vote. He has to promise to represent more than one side of two American groups.

The founding fathers, did speak ill of parties, but did NOT take measures to eliminate them, and in fact many of them joined political parties after the constitution was written. They also codified measures against uninformed and irresponsible voting, measures we have scaled back over the years.

How do you stop parties, as soon as two politicians of like mind decide to work together to push their similar agendas, you've got a platform and a party. If no one votes for them, contributes to them or supports them, they go no where.

And isn't that the root of the problem, the parties have no more power than the people give them. The parties are as irresponsible as the irresponsible and uninformed people that are voting for them.