NationStates Jolt Archive

Ever since the 2004 elections, people have complained that there are never any good presidential candidates, seemed to have brushed by the past 200 years they started getting bothered by the two party system asking why we cant be like such party animals such as Canada with 4 whole party's! Woo-Hoo! But is that really the right way to go? If Canada had the same type of results that we had in the 2004 election than their Prime Minister would have been elected with a popular vote of 26% and the last thing we need is a president that reflects even less of our public opinion, let alone more division, for what is worse than argueing with that much of the population? I think our system is fine just the way it is. And not to mention its you own god damn fault for voting for Kerry in the primarys. People we have freedom of choice in this great country of ours. One election. One presidential election out of 215 years of elections that we are responsible for in the first place. That is why we are so mad. So dont turn your backs on the system, improve it.

I would welcome for than two parties, you have only two options- not much of a selection.

I would welcome for than two parties, you have only two options- not much of a selection.

Well yes and no, on Nov. 2nd you have two choices, but in the primaries you can vote for any number of people. Like I mentioned up there. But having more than two parties certainly offers more selection on the final voting day. Still I prefer the two party system.

Well yes and no, on Nov. 2nd you have two choices, but in the primaries you can vote for any number of people. Like I mentioned up there. But having more than two parties certainly offers more selection on the final voting day. Still I prefer the two party system.
The primaries are just slightly different flavors of the same thing.

Having tons of small parties allows radical groups to develop. Having two main parties means that policies are automatically kept moderate so they appeal to the maximum number of people.

I think we should stick with two parties, but restrict the amount of money each party can contribute to individual campaigns. That would give the politicians themselves LESS responsibility to special interests and party politics and MORE independence in their votes and opinions. Eventually it would end the polarization of society that we see today.

Ever since the 2004 elections, people have complained that there are never any good presidential candidates, seemed to have brushed by the past 200 years they started getting bothered by the two party system asking why we cant be like such party animals such as Canada with 4 whole party's! Woo-Hoo! But is that really the right way to go? If Canada had the same type of results that we had in the 2004 election than their Prime Minister would have been elected with a popular vote of 26% and the last thing we need is a president that reflects even less of our public opinion, let alone more division, for what is worse than argueing with that much of the population? I think our system is fine just the way it is. And not to mention its you own god damn fault for voting for Kerry in the primarys. People we have freedom of choice in this great country of ours. One election. One presidential election out of 215 years of elections that we are responsible for in the first place. That is why we are so mad. So dont turn your backs on the system, improve it.

it's not what i'd want, there must be a one party system. preferably communist or fascist. but i'd welcome dictatorships so long as the dictator has good(non-christian, or most religions) morals.

Having tons of small parties allows radical groups to develop. Having two main parties means that policies are automatically kept moderate so they appeal to the maximum number of people.

I think we should stick with two parties, but restrict the amount of money each party can contribute to individual campaigns. That would give the politicians themselves LESS responsibility to special interests and party politics and MORE independence in their votes and opinions. Eventually it would end the polarization of society that we see today.


Would have to agree with this statement. The first part it very accurate. The second part is a major problem in politics here. If you can reduce the money influence. Then maybe better laws will be passed.

it's not what i'd want, there must be a one party system. preferably communist or fascist. but i'd welcome dictatorships so long as the dictator has good(non-christian, or most religions) morals.
A benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government.

There is just one tiiiny problem with your statement. Benevolent dictatorships ALWAYS become oppressive dictatorships. 100% of the time. Either the benevolent dictator goes bad, or his successor isn't so benevolent.

Perhaps a little thinking might be in order? maybe?

Well if you're so worried about multiple parties 1234554321, just switch to a preferential vote then. That's an election in which the people rank the candidates based on how much they prefer them, and each ranking is worth a number of points; the candidate w/the highest overall number of pts wins the election. That way we have somebody who the whole country is happy with to one degree or another.

there must be a one party system. preferably communist or fascist
Oh yes, really intelligent :rolleyes:

A benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government.

There is just one tiiiny problem with your statement. Benevolent dictatorships ALWAYS become oppressive dictatorships. 100% of the time. Either the benevolent dictator goes bad, or his successor isn't so benevolent.

Perhaps a little thinking might be in order? maybe?

i know what you mean, just like with ghenghis khan and then how his grandsone kublia khan ruined it. except that he wasn't exactly a dictator.

Ever since the 2004 elections, people have complained that there are never any good presidential candidates, seemed to have brushed by the past 200 years they started getting bothered by the two party system

do you even remember the year 2000? or 1996? or 1992?