NationStates Jolt Archive

I know that many of you Americans are unhappy with the endless two-party Dems v Reps system. Surely you deserve a system that represents you!

This thread is for discussion of the merits (if any), and disadvantages of the two-party system. You should also discuss how to change the system.

I also have a question. Why did America develop this two-party system? Are the electoral laws flawed so as to give rise to it?

The two party system eventually forces you to use the "lesser of two evils" tactic. Third-party votes are more or less "wasted." That's not true democracy. That's a shoddy version of it.

Simply put, a two-party system is bad. The Democrats and Republicans have polarized the country, and people feel forced to choose sides. That's why we have a two party system---Democrats and Republicans keep thrid parties at bay. They won't let them into debates (which are controlled by the Comission on Presidential Debates) but mostly because too many people think voting for a third party is a waste. They would rather vote for someone whos not the "other guy" then someone who they really agree with.

you can defeat the 2-party system by getting rid of the Electoral College and the winner-takes-all system.

The two party system really, really sucks. Here's to breaking up both the Democratic and Republican monopolies! *clink* Cheers.

How will it be done? The Democrats and Republicans won't be interested. The only way i can think of is a mass media movement.

The problem is authority. The solution is anarchy.

I dont believe that the two party sytem is bad. It presents a diversity of viewpoints. Also, the last three presidential elections were decided by a third party candidate.

Well, if we could just kill off all the politicians... Hold on, there's some guys in black suits at the door.

The problem is authority. The solution is anarchy.

I really hope that was sarcasm........

The only way I can think of is if some really big issue came along and didn't go away, something that neither ideoloogy can effectively formulate. Everything that's come along so far has been conveniently broken into the Republican solution and the Democrat solution, but if that didn't work ... well, when someone else eventually discovers a solution that doesn't fit easily into either platform, a new party would arise to champion it. Problem is, that still only makes 3 parties. And anyway if we had a thousand little parties it would be a game of sleeping with the enemy, all the little parties banding into groups to try and have a chance at bulding something powerful enough to win an election. No system can work. My philosophy: we are screwed.

you can defeat the 2-party system by getting rid of the Electoral College and the winner-takes-all system.

tell presidents eisenhower, nixon, ford, reagan, bush, and clinton all of whom had congresses opposed to their policies....

Right now the two-party system is screwing us over - we have a bunch of great ppl who I would consider to be Independents, but they are being held up by that joke Nader

"no system can work"

really........I think ours has for 217 years no?

I don't like the two-party system, but I think that it is better than getting rid of the electoral college. If I remember correctly, didn't Hitler manage to get elected because there were so many parties that even a tiny percentage could win? Rule by minority isn't any better than rule by majority.

I know that many of you Americans are unhappy with the endless two-party Dems v Reps system. Surely you deserve a system that represents you!

This thread is for discussion of the merits (if any), and disadvantages of the two-party system. You should also discuss how to change the system.

I also have a question. Why did America develop this two-party system? Are the electoral laws flawed so as to give rise to it?
Not really. In a presidential election, the federal government provides matching funds to any party which had 5% of the popular vote in the last election. The Republicans usually opt out of it. Anyhow, so far, no one has won.
And I do see some merits, btw. Think of the two as giant coalition parties, and most of the members of these coalitions have little in common. However, a.) they are idealogically close enough to work together, and b.) if left on their own, we'd get nothing done in this country.
For example, the Republicans have the Christian right, neoconservatives, free marketers, liberatarians, and farmers (the America first wing is pretty much dead). They all have a common thread. Even the Christian right tends to be fiercely capitalistic.
The Democrats are composed of union members, urban socialists, the black churchgoers, Hollywood actors, the rural poor, and just those who love getting free handouts. Again, they all have a common thread, tending to be left on all issues (although some branches are farther right on social issues than others). We need eachother to survive.
Personally, I'd love to leave the Republicans, and join a party that follows my ideaology to the letter (I'm neoconservative on foreign policy issues, liberatarian on most everything else). But I don't know if it would survive. At least in the two party system, they prop each one up, and while one idea may never dominate the party, it has a big influence for a time. So I wish it'd be different, but I'm content the way it is.
You know though, it's funny that we're the only country in the world with just two major parties. There are those with one party that are dictatorships, like Mexico was before 2000. Then there are those that have lots of parties, which is nearly every other democracy in the world. However, we're probably the only nation on the planet that has just two (three if you count the independents, but they aren't a party).

I think it is interesting that modern day america has lost its roots. our nation was originaly thought of as a group of states "these united states" not "the united states". each state was only part of an agreement called "the union". their was no "america" only "the united states of america". Each state elected its own president seperatly and then based on its representation in congress they would talley it up. The total of popular votes for the country was not even counted until 1824. thats why the electoral college is our system. doing away with it would not change the two party system at all it would merely remove an original ideology of the united states.

I had read a compelling argument for voting third party last election that spoke to the core of my belief system (the 'what if I don't' philosophy. It's the answer to the "If you don't, someone else will." The idea is that it won't be me, I won't contribute to the problem by convicting someone elses intentions in absentia. Horrible explination, but it's not really the point of what I was trying to say at this time...)
If all the people who self-selected thier votes away from a third/fourth party didn't self select and actually voted for the third/fourth party if they believed in the candidate and not on the implied statistic, then the parties would become viable. So, if I was to hold to my beliefs, I had to vote third party because that is what I believed in. Because of the electoral college and where I live, I may still.

I keep adding 'fourth' because only a third has no choice but to disrupt the tilt to one side. My friend gives a metaphor he got from somewhere about ice cream shops on a beach that more or less explains how the two parties inevetably moving back to back in the center (I'm sure it's common and not my metaphor, so I won't go into it). As a result, a third can only sit and draw off one side and as such handing it to the other. In order for it to really effect them both challenges have to come from both sides, it takes more than a Nader or a Perot, it takes a Nader and a Perot. And people willing to vote what they believe and not self select on self-fulfilling statistical prophecy.

Third parties can be very important, eventhough they will likely never win, they still take a few percentage points away from Republicans and Democrats. Obviously both parties want as many votes as possible, so eventually they will have to adopt some ideas from third parties to try to stay in the lead. Although the third parties won't go far, some of their ideologies may become important issues among Rebulicans and Democrats.

Third parties can be very important, eventhough they will likely never win, they still take a few percentage points away from Republicans and Democrats. Obviously both parties want as many votes as possible, so eventually they will have to adopt some ideas from third parties to try to stay in the lead. Although the third parties won't go far, some of their ideologies may become important issues among Rebulicans and Democrats.
They sometimes have a shot at winning. In 1992, Ross Perot had 19% of the vote.

How to defeat it...

White revolution, the only solution.

Tragedy will do it.

In Canada, we used to have a 2-party system. Then, with the great depression, came a bunch of smaller parties. Eventually, the weaker ones died out, but that laid the groundwork for what we have in Canada. One of the parties did survive, but under another name.

Tragedy will do it.

In Canada, we used to have a 2-party system. Then, with the great depression, came a bunch of smaller parties. Eventually, the weaker ones died out, but that laid the groundwork for what we have in Canada. One of the parties did survive, but under another name.
Funny, because the Great Depression killed most of the third parties in the US. The only one that significantly benefitted was the Communist Party, but they died out with the Cold War histeria. Besides, they were supported by the other Communist Party in Moscow.

all of this talk means nothing. america always has been a two party system and always will be a two party system.

Funny, because the Great Depression killed most of the third parties in the US. The only one that significantly benefitted was the Communist Party, but they died out with the Cold War histeria. Besides, they were supported by the other Communist Party in Moscow.

True, but a tragedy of another sort might do it. Maybe this "War on Terror" will give rise to more 3rd parties, those who don't like what either party is saying.

I'm not sure what it would take, but it would help if the major party candidates weren't too cowardly to debate third parties on national, prime time TV.

The two party system really, really sucks. Here's to breaking up both the Democratic and Republican monopolies! *clink* Cheers.

Thats basically what Ralph Nadar stands for, I wish he scould be president. That would be exciting. A different party, the last time we had a different party member was over 140 years ago. Im so bored with the two-party system. Its so boring. Now we protestors in New York City. Its crazy! Damn Republicans.

all of this talk means nothing. america always has been a two party system and always will be a two party system.

You dont know what you are talking about. When Lincoln was running there were 4 partys. they All had a lot of votes (not just a few percent)

I'm not sure what it would take, but it would help if the major party candidates weren't too cowardly to debate third parties on national, prime time TV.

I hear that.

How to defeat it...

White revolution, the only solution.

You say you want a revolutiiioooon, weeeeelll.

-Revolution, by John Lennon.

In a nation with two parties, both sides try to prove the other party is not fit to run the government, and both sides succeed

True, but a tragedy of another sort might do it. Maybe this "War on Terror" will give rise to more 3rd parties, those who don't like what either party is saying.
More likely, however, it'll reform the two. Before the Great Depression, both parties were pretty much mirror images of eachother. It didn't matter, however, because Washington was a distant place from most families. The Great Depression actually set them on the tracks they are today. The only time I can think of that a party in the US fell was the crisis around 1800. As you know, the two party system in the US always existed. Then, it was the Democrat-Republicans (guess which two parties came from that), and the Federalists. The sitting Federalist president, John Adams, passed the Alien and Sedition acts, both were unconstitutional (the Sedition act actually limited free speach). The Supreme Court didn't step in until later, but their was a public outcry that brought the Federalist party crashing downwards. The vacuum was soon replaced by the Whigs. It was the same ideaology, different name.
*Edit* I almost forgot the Civil War. That was the rise of the Republicans. The Whigs broke up around that time, and dispersed between the two parties.

Two-party system is one of the best imo. Consider for a second if America was a multi-party system, specifically having five parties. Each party puts a candidate up for election, each one having an actual chance to be elected, and come Nov. 2 the votes are in. One candidate recieves 1/3 of the votes, and the rest split up the remaining 2/3. This means that the President of the United States would be someone 2/3 of the country didn't want to be President. And it gets worst the more parties you add.

The two-party system, however, presents candidates that, though you might not agree with all of his issues, you share a common belief on. It forces the candidate to be moderate, which is much better then being a ___-wing wacko who most of the country hates.

The main advantage of democratic bipartisanship is that whoever wins, wins by majority. Having a government elected by more than 50% of the people will obviously be more stable than one elected by 10% of the people.

Of course, the Electoral College virtually eliminates this advantage in the USA's specific set-up. We're not a democracy, we're a representative republic -a system which lends itself particularly well to partisan-based elections. And also lends itself particularly well to lying politicians...

I don't find much of anything in democracy to be desirable, to tell the truth. I'm not an advocate of dictatorship, but I'd rather have a strong, determined, well-informed leader than mob rule. Especially in the case of multi-party elections -bipartisanship isn't that great, but it IS preferable to having a dozen parties, where just about any group can win, even if it represents only a fraction of the population(see first paragraph, above) -thus being ultimately antithetical to the idea of democracy in the first place.

What would it take to get rid of the bipartisan system? Well, any number of things could accomplish this. Contrary to what Undecidedterritory said, the USA has not always had a two-party system. My favorite President, in fact, was a third-party candidate. I don't really see the importance though, not as it applies to Presidential elections at least. Congress is by far more powerful -they govern the very way you're allowed to live. At this specific point in history, nothing short of a revolution would be able to drastically change the USA's political system.

They sometimes have a shot at winning. In 1992, Ross Perot had 19% of the vote.
Eugene Debbs (of the Socialist Party) had a million popular votes back in the 1920 election.

I talked about the abolishion of the two party system in another post last night.

Every european country already do this, so if someone else can explain it better, then go for it.

What happens is you don't vote for a person anymore, you vote for a party. Already, some Americans are going to say "that's stupid," but think about it... we may as well be since the party and the presidency run eachother. But, then what happens is that each party gets that percentage of Congress and the majority puts the Prime Minister in.

The problem with this happening in America is that we have to be able to sort out the old "Number of States vs. Population" thing.

As long as people are trained to believe that if they vote for a third party it is a wasted vote, there will be a two party system (the same situation exists in Britain and Australia). How to solve it? Break the circle - don't just consider two parties, consider the policies of ALL runners...if an independant reflects your views more closely than one of the big two, vote for them instead.

Of course, this is after the next election - everyone should vote Dems to get rid of Bush ;)

. . . The only time I can think of that a party in the US fell was the crisis around 1800. As you know, the two party system in the US always existed. Then, it was the Democrat-Republicans (guess which two parties came from that), and the Federalists. The sitting Federalist president, John Adams, passed the Alien and Sedition acts, both were unconstitutional (the Sedition act actually limited free speach). The Supreme Court didn't step in until later, but their was a public outcry that brought the Federalist party crashing downwards. The vacuum was soon replaced by the Whigs. It was the same ideaology, different name.
*Edit* I almost forgot the Civil War. That was the rise of the Republicans. The Whigs broke up around that time, and dispersed between the two parties.

See? Both of those were crises. The war on terror could turn into that. People get sick of how GWB is running the war, and Kerry or whoever gets elected. (possibly 2004, maybe 2008) The Democrat bungles the job badly, but people don't trust the Republicans.

One of the third parties (possibly the Libertarians) comes in and slowly starts winning seats. The others follow. Most don't win seats and drop like flies. One or two survive. They may not have a Libertarian president (we in Canada have only ever had Conservative or Liberal Prime Ministers), but the other parties will have an influence.

Possible time--2012 or 2016.

Democracy is tyrany of the majority.
I'd credit the quote if i knew who it was. Jefferson maybe?

See? Both of those were crises. The war on terror could turn into that. People get sick of how GWB is running the war, and Kerry or whoever gets elected. (possibly 2004, maybe 2008) The Democrat bungles the job badly, but people don't trust the Republicans.
I don't mind the Republicans. Bush, I feel, is doing a great job. I'm not trying to incite a Bush sux/Bush rox debate, but I want to show you that there are a lot of people that do like Bush.
One of the third parties (possibly the Libertarians) comes in and slowly starts winning seats. The others follow. Most don't win seats and drop like flies. One or two survive. They may not have a Libertarian president (we in Canada have only ever had Conservative or Liberal Prime Ministers), but the other parties will have an influence.

Possible time--2012 or 2016.
It's unlikely. America was very polarized before Sept. 11, but somehow, it has gotten moreso today. There are quite a few college students today with a liberatarian lilt (myself included), but in the 1960s, there were a lot with a socialist lilt. That never turned into anything. At the very most, something will reform one or both of the parties, but I won't count on them splitting. In fact, I don't want them to split.
And btw, each of the examples I brought up were just the creation of a new party, but there were two before these crises, and two after. They can be called whatever name they want, but there'll probably always be two.

I don't mind the Republicans. Bush, I feel, is doing a great job. I'm not trying to incite a Bush sux/Bush rox debate, but I want to show you that there are a lot of people that do like Bush.
True, and there are a lot of people that like Kerry. But there will be an increasing number of people who don't like either.

It's unlikely. America was very polarized before Sept. 11, but somehow, it has gotten moreso today. There are quite a few college students today with a liberatarian lilt (myself included), but in the 1960s, there were a lot with a socialist lilt. That never turned into anything. At the very most, something will reform one or both of the parties, but I won't count on them splitting. In fact, I don't want them to split.
And btw, each of the examples I brought up were just the creation of a new party, but there were two before these crises, and two after. They can be called whatever name they want, but there'll probably always be two.[/QUOTE]

Possibly something will reform them, but it won't necessarily stop the formation of a new one. In Canada, the Liberals reformed, introducing welfare, etc., but that didn't stop the CCF (a socialist party that turned into today's NDP) from being founded.

The United States is not, nor have the founding fathers ever intended it to be, a democracy. It is a representative democracy, with the people voting their representatives to a republic-style governing body. This is why Congress has major control over the country; they're the ones who are supposed to make all policy. In this sense, our government works adequately. Note, however, that both the House and the Senate have officeholders that aren't in a party. Many independants and "third party" officials sit in Congress.

Everyone is so blindsided by all the glamour around the presidential races that they forget about this. The important thing is to make sure you trust your representatives, for they have more power than the president.

The reason two parties are only visible in the national elections (every election except ONE has come down to two major parties, and that one was G. Washington's election) are twofold: 1) people can't handle the amount of knowledge required to elect someone for an entire nation, and thus they look to someone to give them the essential details and vote for them. 2) This country prefers a binary choice. Coke vs. Pepsi. BK vs. McDonalds. Microsoft vs. Unix. On, and on. The people running elections, following the trend of the people, bring their elections down to a binary choice out of necessity: Republican vs. Democrat. This is the reason the two-party system dominates. This is the reason third parties have rarely shown well in a presidential election. This is why it has survived since the days of Whigs vs. Democratic Republicans. To change the system would require a fundamental change in the mindset of most of the nation. Some people have tried that; they're called communists.

The Democrats are composed of union members, urban socialists, the black churchgoers, Hollywood actors, the rural poor, and just those who love getting free handouts.

Don't forget that the Republican party also has those who love getting free handouts, BIG CORPORATIONS and the already rich. As for all churchgoers, that's a mighty bold statement, saying only black ones are Democrats.

Anyhow, I'm not sure the two major party system can easily be changed. However, I would like to see voting changed by instituting a rank-order system where, if there were three candidates, people would put down candidate X as choice 1, candidate Y as choice 2 and candidate Z as choice 3.
In this system you could have an outcome where 40% of voters put X as first, 40% put Y as first and 20% put Z as first. However, 80 % of the group that put Z as first might choose X over Z. Assuming those who voted for X as 1st choice evenly split Y and Z as choice 2, and the same for those who chose Y 1st you would still have X as the overwhelming winner, with a large group also choosing Z as choice 2. This would prevent "wacko" minor parties, assuming that more were added to this group from winning with 10% of a popular vote and force larger parties (ASSUME the Dems and Repubs are each guaranteed 35% of the voters as "a lock") to modify their to woo the voters that might choose them second.

This would have to apply at all levels and in congressional elections as well, to encourage independent candidtes. This might force more "cooperation" in the Senate and House.

how about a system where the people vote on issues, rather than vote for people, that way there are no more thieving polititians! it would clearly need a mixture of desisions by polititians and by the people, but as it is the people just vote every 4 to 5 years and end up hating the leader until they can get rid of him!

True, and there are a lot of people that like Kerry. But there will be an increasing number of people who don't like either.
I'll put a question mark by that question. Let's see what happens in the next four years.

Possibly something will reform them, but it won't necessarily stop the formation of a new one. In Canada, the Liberals reformed, introducing welfare, etc., but that didn't stop the CCF (a socialist party that turned into today's NDP) from being founded.
The most likely third party in America today is the Indepence party. Call them more centrist than the two parties ever hope to be. To be honest, I'm starting to think that this is a good thing for their future. Most voters tend to vote for candidates that appear centrist. Bush has departed from this tradition, though Kerry hasn't. Anyhow, their future prospects rest on this election. If Kerry wins, the "boogy to the center" stays. Since this new party is already centrist, it would be easy for them to gain votes. If Bush wins, however, it'll show that people actually like issues, the left-right gulf may widen, and the two party system stays for at least another generation.
But why am I sorta changing my position? They have a governor, the fmr. wrestler Jesse "the body" Ventura. I think they have a few mayors, too, and even a senator. However, he was voted in as a Republican, and switched parties in the middle of his term.

As long as people are trained to believe that if they vote for a third party it is a wasted vote, there will be a two party system (the same situation exists in Britain and Australia).
It is a wasted vote though. If the system has 3 parties, then there is going to be 1 party more conservative, 1 party more liberal, and 1 party in the middle of the two. Think of them on a number line. If you vote for the furthest left, and they don't have a chance, that was hurtying the one in the middle (which is closer to what you want than the other choice).
I'm a fair-weather Dem. And it sucks, but it is once again, the system that forces me there.

Don't forget that the Republican party also has those who love getting free handouts, BIG CORPORATIONS and the already rich. As for all churchgoers, that's a mighty bold statement, saying only black ones are Democrats.

Actually, a large section of the Republican party wants to do away with any subsidies. Tax cuts, yes, but no to subsidies. There's a difference in nature.
As for black churchgoers, I'm not saying that only churchgoers who are black are Democrats. Many Catholics that go to church tend to lean left (I'm a Catholic in a Democratic community, so I should know). However, nearly all churchgoers that are black are Democrats, with extremely few exceptions. In fact, I can't think of a single black Republican that currently holds office.

how about a system where the people vote on issues, rather than vote for people, that way there are no more thieving polititians!

Which is why I'd like to see the elimination of Congress, at least in its current representative format...

Without the two party system, we'd have Presidents with less than 20% of the popular votes elected.

You thought people were pissed when Gore won the pop vote and lost?

Thats basically what Ralph Nadar stands for, I wish he scould be president. That would be exciting. A different party, the last time we had a different party member was over 140 years ago. Im so bored with the two-party system. Its so boring. Now we protestors in New York City. Its crazy! Damn Republicans.

No, this isn't the Republicans' fault, okay? Ralph Nader stands for the belief that the two party system sucks, but he also stands for extremist environmentalist policies that will kill our economy and ruin everything, so I'll take Kerry over him any day.

In Europe, most countries have three main parties at least, and this tends to work in a way different to how it's categorised here, i.e. one party wins 40% of the vote and gets office. This is wrong.


In Germany and Austria there are numerous parties, generally streamed into one on the right, one on the left and the Greens. The right- and left-wing parties get a good percentage, then they woo the Greens to form a coalition that has more than 50% of the votes. The Greens never form a government, but they form a large enough portion of national votes to be recognised.

Also, the man who leads this coalition is the one who represents the country, not the national president, who's there for ceremonial and organisational purposes, and is expected to rise above party politics. The other house is made up of representatives of the Laender, which are basically like states.

This system also has a guard against extremist groups, obviously: Fascism is illegal, and Germany and Austria have 5% and 10% clauses respectively, meaning no party is given seats with less than that percentage of the vote.


Britain has three parties, the Labour party(Centre-left, according to Westminster legend), the Conservatives(Right) and the Liberal Democrats(Left, though it varies on some issues). The Head of state is the Queen and she just signs a document approving of half a dozen at a time and opens Parliament.
The Liberal Democrats have a good percentage of the seats, which are elected on a first-past-the-post basis, and a very high share of the popular vote. Labour still has a large enough majority in the house of Commons to have their leader elected as Prime Minister, though in the devolved Scottish Parliament there is a Lib Dem-Labour coalition. They are considered to be a viable choice in local elections, though they have a little way to go to become a viable opposition.


Those of you who have read Michael Moore's books, and probably have already been convinced of the need for multi-party systems, may remember a reference he made to the Israeli Knessit(sp). The government formed in this body is always a coalition, and the ruling group is always the biggest alliance. This means that all the little minority parties looking after specific interests which the ruling parties have no real position on can get their issues heard by being part of a coalition.


Basically, multi-party systems work, and having a partisan president is one of the biggest problems blocking it.

If I remember correctly, didn't Hitler manage to get elected because there were so many parties that even a tiny percentage could win?That's actually a misconception. Hitler didn't have a majority, that's why he burnt the Reichstag. (And under most FPPTP systems he's have won outright).

On a general note, one thing that third parties should do is stop concentrating on high-profile national elections and target local goverment elections instead. Apart from anything they're a lot cheaper to fight.

My party's certainly had some relative success in that area, simply by being the only party prepared to put in the hard graft on local issues.

you can defeat the 2-party system by getting rid of the Electoral College and the winner-takes-all system.

That would be a bad idea the founders created the Electoral College was created to prevent the "rule of the mob." Because sometimes what people want is not what they need.

all of this talk means nothing. america always has been a two party system and always will be a two party system.
Wow, you really are a "never change anything" conservative aren't you?

Why should libertarians have to rally under the Republican flag when they hate the war on drugs, support gay marriage rights, and are pro-abortion rights?

I know that many of you Americans are unhappy with the endless two-party Dems v Reps system. Surely you deserve a system that represents you!

This thread is for discussion of the merits (if any), and disadvantages of the two-party system. You should also discuss how to change the system.

I also have a question. Why did America develop this two-party system? Are the electoral laws flawed so as to give rise to it?
The two-party system is not the main issue. The biggest problem is we have a non-participatory system, which is essentially undemocratic. The masses are kept uninformed and out of politics (this happens in every country--the rulers are just really good at it here). If we had a true democracy, we could have one political party and lots of debate in it. Conversely, we could just as easily have four or five corporate parties, with negligible levels of disagreement.

That would be a bad idea the founders created the Electoral College was created to prevent the "rule of the mob." Because sometimes what people want is not what they need.
Depends. If people are organized and informed, it isn't the "rule of the mob", but obviously the present situation is not anywhere near that state of affairs. The present electoral college, however, is entirely ceremonial. All it does now is vaguely approximate direct election. Furthermore, I don't know which would be worse: "rule of the mob", or rule by whatever mass murderers are best at their jobs (what we have now).

Democracy is tyrany of the majority.
I'd credit the quote if i knew who it was. Jefferson maybe?
Yeah, like the ban on homosexual marriage in Missouri.

I applaude the ban of homo-sexual marriage in Missouri.

I'll applaud when the government realizes it doesn't need to be defining marriage either way.

My couple cents on this issue:

A lot of people said that multiple parties would allow for people with a minority of votes to get into office, but that's already the case with the Electoral College. There are quite a few Presidents in US history that won less than 50% of the popular vote yet still got elected.

However, I am not calling for the abolition of the College. Look at an election like this. If you think recounting in Florida in 2000 was a logistical nightmare, imagine what it would be to recount every vote in the country.

Plus, suppose we did elect solely by the popular vote. Where do you think all the Presidential candidates would campaign? The answer: New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles...I think you get the picture. One of the perks of the Electoral College is that it forces politicians to care about what people living in rural areas think.

I don't call for the abolition of the Electoral College, I call for a renovation. Electoral votes are decided by a state's total representation in the country, the number of congressmen (one representing each district) plus two for the senators. My idea is this: count the popular votes in each district. Whoever wins gets one vote. Then count the popular votes in the state. Whoever wins gets the two votes given to the state for having senators. By dividing up the Electoral votes like that, we avoid a situation like in the so-called "Battleground States" where one vote for either party will effectively eliminate every single vote for the other party in the state.

As for the two-party system, I don't particularly care for it. All the choices presented to me in this election are repugnant. I don't trust Bush, and Kerry's civil service record doesn't even, in my opinion, pass as mediocre. As for Nader, I think he's a total loon. There some stuff I agree with him on, but there are enough nuts in the government.

I don't know who I'll vote for, but until I decide I'll say this: Cthulhu for President. Why vote for the lesser evil?

The two-party system, however, presents candidates that, though you might not agree with all of his issues, you share a common belief on. It forces the candidate to be moderate, which is much better then being a ___-wing wacko who most of the country hates.

No, the two-party system encourages politicians to lie even more. They pretend to be moderate, get elected and start doing ____-wing wacko things while still trying to paint those things in a moderate light.

I’m all for having a tribal leadership system.

Without the two party system, we'd have Presidents with less than 20% of the popular votes elected.

You thought people were pissed when Gore won the pop vote and lost?
Well... "away with presidents!" would be the logical answer. I don't really know much about the American political system, but there's this Congress (correct me if I'm wrong) who actually make the decisions and the president has the power to veto those decisions and make rules without Congress. Why do you need a higher power? Most don't people believe in a (or mutiple, whatever your religion/education) God anymore...

And maybe to get rid of the two-party thing. Force the Democrats and the Republicans to unite. It may seem stupid, but think about it. People will definatelly vote for third/fourth/fifth and so on parties, because they like to have a choice. If it won't work, you can give up democracy and let The Party elect The Leader. But if it does, there will (probably) be many parties representing the many views of people who are now forced to vote republican/democrats because they don't want to "waste their vote".

Well... "away with presidents!" would be the logical answer. I don't really know much about the American political system, but there's this Congress (correct me if I'm wrong) who actually make the decisions and the president has the power to veto those decisions and make rules without Congress. Why do you need a higher power? Most don't people believe in a (or mutiple, whatever your religion/education) God anymore...

You misunderstand the American system of government. The president is not a "higher power" than Congress. He is the head of the executive branch (police, mayors, military) which enforces the laws, but does not make them. The only rules the President can make are one about how to enforce the laws. The President provides a valuable check on Congress by being able to veto a law, but with enough votes Congress can get the law passed over a veto, thus checking the President.

How definite are the law passed by congress? Does Congress say: "Throwing sigaret butts on the street is illegal" and then the president decides:"Violators will be hit with a stick 10 times" ? Or Congress:"Throwing sigbutts on the street is illegal. Violators will be hit with a stick 10 times" and President:"ok"?

The United States is not, nor have the founding fathers ever intended it to be, a democracy. It is a representative democracy, with the people voting their representatives to a republic-style governing body. This is why Congress has major control over the country; they're the ones who are supposed to make all policy. In this sense, our government works adequately. Note, however, that both the House and the Senate have officeholders that aren't in a party. Many independants and "third party" officials sit in Congress.

Everyone is so blindsided by all the glamour around the presidential races that they forget about this. The important thing is to make sure you trust your representatives, for they have more power than the president.

The reason two parties are only visible in the national elections (every election except ONE has come down to two major parties, and that one was G. Washington's election) are twofold: 1) people can't handle the amount of knowledge required to elect someone for an entire nation, and thus they look to someone to give them the essential details and vote for them. 2) This country prefers a binary choice. Coke vs. Pepsi. BK vs. McDonalds. Microsoft vs. Unix. On, and on. The people running elections, following the trend of the people, bring their elections down to a binary choice out of necessity: Republican vs. Democrat. This is the reason the two-party system dominates. This is the reason third parties have rarely shown well in a presidential election. This is why it has survived since the days of Whigs vs. Democratic Republicans. To change the system would require a fundamental change in the mindset of most of the nation. Some people have tried that; they're called communists.

Americans (USians) are a fundamentally different sort of people than "european based" or "tribal based" nations.

(Are we a derivation of europe? Of course. But we apparently took a turn somewhere that created a more "binary mindset". )

We love a one-to-one race of champions. This is because we have better things to do than have a gaggle of "electees", representing a plethora of minorities as if they each were the most important group in existence, have a street brawl in the town square (where BUSINESS is supposed to be happening) for such a relatively unimportant position in the first place.

"Boil it down to a single choice, please!" is the American way.

And aren't ALL choices, eventually, binary..?

"The PRESIDENCY is a relatively UNIMPORTANT position..!!?" I hear you scream.

Why yes,... yes it is. Or it should be. Once it actually becomes a "powerful position" the people of the US will figure out some clever way to make it unimportant again.

tell presidents eisenhower, nixon, ford, reagan, bush, and clinton all of whom had congresses opposed to their policies....

Correction
Tell presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all of whom had congresses opposed to their policies....


Now copy this one hundred times.

How definite are the law passed by congress? Does Congress say: "Throwing sigaret butts on the street is illegal" and then the president decides:"Violators will be hit with a stick 10 times" ? Or Congress:"Throwing sigbutts on the street is illegal. Violators will be hit with a stick 10 times" and President:"ok"?

Congress says "Throwing cigarette butts on the street is illegal." They may, if they feel it to be necessary, add a caveat that says "Minimum sentence will be getting hit with a stick 10 times."

President has the chance to veto, if a 3/4 majority in Congress doesn't agree with the law. If he agrees to it, the executive branch says, "OK, we are going to spend $XX pursuing people who throw butts on the streets." or they could say "We will only prosecute people who throw butts on the streets if they also don't buckle their seatbelts." or whatever. It is the *how* of enforcing that the executive branch covers.

Courts then say "You threw cigarrette butts on the streets, but it was your first time so you only get the minimum sentence." or they say "You do this all the time, so you're going to get hit with a stick 50 times and pay a fine." Or whatever as far as punishments.

Meanwhile, if Congress doesn't like the punishments the courts come up with or the way the executive branch handles things, they can try and pass laws that change that. If the executive branch doesn't like those laws, the President can attempt to veto them. And if the law itself (or the punishment legislated) is unconstitutional (which beating with a stick for throwing cigarette butts on the street would be in this country), the courts can strike them down.

Two-party system is one of the best imo. Consider for a second if America was a multi-party system, specifically having five parties. Each party puts a candidate up for election, each one having an actual chance to be elected, and come Nov. 2 the votes are in. One candidate recieves 1/3 of the votes, and the rest split up the remaining 2/3. This means that the President of the United States would be someone 2/3 of the country didn't want to be President. And it gets worst the more parties you add.



Lack of choices doesn't not change desirability of the choices. If you take your example above and eliminate 3 of the 5 candidates with the least support, the remaining candidates are not any more desirable.

Let's say in this coming presidential election one candidate wins 50.5 % to 49.5%, not an altogether unlikely scenario( Although I'm leaving Nader out of this ). Let's go on further to say that 37% of the voters for the winning candidate voted for that candidate not because they wanted the candidate, but because they didn't want the other candidate...they just didn't have an option to vote otherwise. In this situation a President gets elected that is undesirable to 2/3's of the country. Honestly the situation is probably more more drastic than this as we spiral downward from democracy to apathocracy( My own term for a populace that's overwhelming disenfranchised with the political system, and therefore chooses not to vote when the choice that exists is two evils. ).

What we must recognize is that regardless of how many candidates there are, it will often be the case that the winner is not the ideal candidate for even half the population. Once we are ready to accept this, we can implment a system such as Instant Runoff voting that that allows you to vote your conscience, and yet retain your ability to choose between the leading candidates. It both eliminates the so-called spoiler effect of minor-party candidates, and at the same time give minors party candidates a chance to get a foot-hold in the system. If its not too late, there might even be a reduction in voter apathy as a result. At any rate check out the IVR system at www.fairvote.org/irv

Let's be realistic though and realize that our current system of 2 parties will likely enact such an election system since it holds the possibility of empowering third parties. We're just going to have to figure out a way to contractually bind our candidates to vote for the issues they stand for, and then elect candidates that support this change.

Destroy all systems of governance. Set your chickens free.