NationStates Jolt Archive

Some of you USA-ers (and some other people from other countries) say that the USA is the land of the free. But you can't even have three or four or more political parties who all have their presidential candidate.
Also all of the secretaries are from the same party.

In the Netherlands for example you've got more the ten parties who matter and they all have a candidate for a prime minister.


Or am I wrong, and just a stupid nitwit?
If so then show me.

We can, and do, have other parties it's just that the Dems and Reps are big enough to dominate the others either by hijacking those parties main concearns for their own or, depending on the state, passing regulation to make to hamper their getting on the ballot, however other parties aren't expressly disalowed or anything like that.

If you're implying that it's illegal to run for office outside the Democratic and Republican parties, then you're misinformed. Granted that the two-party system here has fossilized to a great extent, and that other parties have a very difficult time raising money and having their candidates taken seriously, but it can be done. The Republican Party itself was actually a "third party" in the mid-19th century. As for all the secretaries being from one party, well, it seems to work reasonably well for us. Our system of government is not the same as yours.

If you're implying that it's illegal to run for office outside the Democratic and Republican parties, then you're misinformed. Granted that the two-party system here has fossilized to a great extent, and that other parties have a very difficult time raising money and having their candidates taken seriously, but it can be done. The Republican Party itself was actually a "third party" in the mid-19th century. As for all the secretaries being from one party, well, it seems to work reasonably well for us. Our system of government is not the same as yours.
I was assuming that by secretaries they were reffering to the cabinet, that was what you got to right?

We're free to start more parties if we want. The problem is, most people are content with having two parties and don't vote for others because they perceive them as having no chance of winning. It's a product of convenience more than anything else.

And all of the Secretaries of the Cabinet are the same party because they're appointed by the President; I would rather allow the President to have the freedom to pick his own advisors and deal with the positive or negative consequences than to force him to choose ones from each party who might not be as good as the ones he would have chosen.

I was assuming that by secretaries they were reffering to the cabinet, that was what you got to right?

That's what I understood, yes. There is a pretty large permanent bureaucracy in the US government, but we don't have the same system of under-secretaries and such that the Brits and, apparently, the Dutch have.

And I have to say that putting up with the campaigning of just two candidates in the US presidential elections is bad enough. My head would explode with there were ten of the fools out there bombarding me equally. :eek:

And anyway, are all of the ten parties in the Netherlands of equal size and representation? I suspect not.

Some of you USA-ers (and some other people from other countries) say that the USA is the land of the free. But you can't even have three or four or more political parties who all have their presidential candidate.
Also all of the secretaries are from the same party.

In the Netherlands for example you've got more the ten parties who matter and they all have a candidate for a prime minister.


Or am I wrong, and just a stupid nitwit?
If so then show me.

certainly less democratic than my country(Canada) but that's the fault of Americans themselves for nearly having a one party state.

They have elected a Socialist for the first time so technically they are now a 3 party state which is an improvement.

So, wait, you guys are saying that different countries have different political systems, views, and methods operating those systems and putting those views into action?
NO WAI. I DONT HABEEB IT.
etc.

And I have to say that putting up with the campaigning of just two candidates in the US presidential elections is bad enough. My head would explode with there were ten of the fools out there bombarding me equally. :eek:



But, if there were 10 of them, maybe one or two might be halfway decent. As it stands now, the 2 worst candidates are able to crush the other 8.

NO WAI. I DONT HABEEB IT.


TWINKIE HOUSE!!!

And I have to say that putting up with the campaigning of just two candidates in the US presidential elections is bad enough. My head would explode with there were ten of the fools out there bombarding me equally. :eek:

And anyway, are all of the ten parties in the Netherlands of equal size and representation? I suspect not.

here in Belgium (wich is quite similar to the Netherlands) we don't have a president, so i don't quite understand the usefullness of one. it seems quite stupid to give that much power to 1 person.

and during the elections (for the parliament or local) it doesn't really bother anyone. there are some posters in the streets and some discussions on TV, but if you do your best you can avoid them. so what kind of bombardment do you have to endure?

Some of you USA-ers (and some other people from other countries) say that the USA is the land of the free. But you can't even have three or four or more political parties who all have their presidential candidate.
Also all of the secretaries are from the same party.

In the Netherlands for example you've got more the ten parties who matter and they all have a candidate for a prime minister.


Or am I wrong, and just a stupid nitwit?
If so then show me.

List of American political parties

Alaskan Independence Party (1984 - present)
Aloha Aina Party
America First Party (2002 - present)
American Independent Party (1968 - present)
American Heritage Party (2000 - present)
American Nazi Party
American Patriot Party (2003 - present)
American Party (1969 - present)
American Reform Party (1997 - present)
Charter Party of Cincinnati, Ohio (1924 - present)
Christian Freedom Party (2004 - present)
Communist League (US) (2004 - present)
Communist Party USA (1919 - present)
Concord Party
Connecticut for Lieberman Party (2006 - present)
Conservative Party of New York (1962 - present)
Covenant Party (Northern Mariana Islands)
Free People's Movement (2002 - present)
Independence Party of Minnesota (1992 - present)
Independence Party of New York (1991 - present)
Independent American Party (1998 - present)
Independent Citizens Movement (US Virgin Islands)
Jefferson Republican Party
Labor Party (1995 - present)
Liberal Party of Minnesota
Liberal Party of New York (1944 - present)
Liberty Union Party (Vermont) (1970 - present)
Marijuana Party (2002 - present)
Marijuana Reform Party (New York) (1997 - present)
Moderate Party (2005 - present)
Mountain Party (West Virginia) (2000 - present)
National Socialist Movement (1974 - present)
New Party (1992 - 1998)
New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico (1967 - present)
New Union Party (1974 - present)
New York State Right to Life Party (1970 - present)
Peace and Freedom Party (1967 - present)
Personal Choice Party (1997 - present)
Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico (1938 - present)
Populist Party of Maryland (Nader 2004 - affiliated, unrelated to earlier so-named parties)
Populist Party of America (2002 - present)
Prohibition Party (1867 - present)
Puerto Rican Independence Party (1946 - present)
Reform Party of the United States of America (1995 - present)
Republican Moderate Party of Alaska (1986 - present)
Socialist Action (1983 - present)
Socialist Alternative (1986 - present)
Socialist Equality Party (1953 - present)
Socialist Labor Party (1876 - present)
Socialist Party USA (1972 - present)
Socialist Workers Party (1938 - present)
Southern Party (1999 - present)
Southern Independence Party
United Party (Idaho) (2005 - present)
United Citizens Party (1969 - present)
Vermont Progressive Party (1999 - present)
Workers World Party (1959 - present)
Working Families Party (1998 - present)
Workers Party, USA
World Socialist Party of the United States (1916 - present)

Any of them can run a presidential candidate, but good luck getting him into the debates. The debates are basically run by the two parties in collusion with the "liberal" corporate media.

List of American political parties



Any of them can run a presidential candidate, but good luck getting him into the debates. The debates are basically run by the two parties in collusion with the "liberal" corporate media.

same here, if your party can get elected you have a chance to get in on a TV debate otherwise they are shut out, we have 4 parties elected and a third(The Greens) who are not far off from gaining a seat.

here in Belgium (wich is quite similar to the Netherlands) we don't have a president, so i don't quite understand the usefullness of one. it seems quite stupid to give that much power to 1 person.

and during the elections (for the parliament or local) it doesn't really bother anyone. there are some posters in the streets and some discussions on TV, but if you do your best you can avoid them. so what kind of bombardment do you have to endure?

in many parliamentary systems (great britain for example) the prime minister wields considerably more power than the president.

in many parliamentary systems (great britain for example) the prime minister wields considerably more power than the president.

i don't really know how much power the PM has here, but we have a 'king' to replace a president. but he has no power, more of a ceremonial function.

and do you mean the president of the USA of the president of that country (because i don't think GB has a president)

edit: i checked and the main functions of the Belgian PM are: leader of the executive branche of the government, lead the council of ministers (sp???), represent the government and remain in contact with NGO's.

as you can see he doesn't have a lot of power.

in many parliamentary systems (great britain for example) the prime minister wields considerably more power than the president.

the PM can be dumped from power overnight if his own party wishes it or if there is a minority government if the opposition wishes it. A PM rules by consensus a President has no need to.

TWINKIE HOUSE!!!

blarg im ded

Millionaire Ross Perot who ran as an independent in 1992 and got
about 19 percent of the vote, no electoral college votes, granted he spent most of his own money, but it shows there is room for major
third party candidates.

If the Electoral College system had been abolished Al Gore would have been president, Yuck, but it would help third party candidates.

While I like some of the economic ideas of the Libertarian Party like no taxes, I am surprised they have not done better.

Source on short notice, Wikipedia Ross Perot :

in September he qualified for all 50 state ballots. On October 1, he announced his intention to start running again. He explained his earlier withdrawal by claiming that Republican operatives had attempted to disrupt his daughter's wedding, and he wanted to spare her from embarrassment. He campaigned in 16 states and spent an estimated $65.4 million of his own money. Perot employed the innovative strategy of purchasing half-hour blocks of time on major networks for infomercial-type campaign ads.

Perot's running mate was retired Vice Admiral James Stockdale, a well-respected former Vietnam prisoner of war.

At one point in June, Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton). Just prior to the debates, Perot received 7-9% support in nationwide polls. It is likely that the debates played a significant role in his ultimate receipt of 19% of the popular vote. Although his answers during the debates were often general, Perot's wit, folkisms, and straight talking were so impressive that even many Democrats and Republicans conceded that Perot won at least the first debate.

Source, President Elect :
William Jefferson Clinton
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
Party: DEMOCRATIC
Home State: PR: AR; VP: TN
Electoral Votes: 370
Pop. Vote: 44,909,326 (43.0%)

George Herbert Walker Bush
James Danforth Quayle
Party: REPUBLICAN
Home State: PR: TX; VP: IN
Electoral Votes: 168
Pop. Vote: 39,103,882 (37.4%)

Henry Ross Perot
James Bond Stockdale
Party: INDEPENDENT
Home State: PR: TX; VP: IL
Electoral Votes: 0
Pop. Vote: 19,741,657 (18.9%)


Other Candidates
Party: Libertarian, Populist, New Alliance, etc.
Pop. Vote: 670,149 (0.6%)

the PM can be dumped from power overnight if his own party wishes it or if there is a minority government if the opposition wishes it. A PM rules by consensus a President has no need to.

Of course, on the inverse, the President cannot accomplish anything without the consent of the House and the Senate.

Millionaire Ross Perot who ran as an independent in 1992 and got
about 19 percent of the vote, no electoral college votes, granted he spent most of his own money, but it shows there is room for major
third party candidates.

If the Electoral College system had been abolished Al Gore would have been president, Yuck, but it would help third party candidates.

While I like some of the economic ideas of the Libertarian Party like no taxes, I am surprised they have not done better.

Source on short notice, Wikipedia Ross Perot :

in September he qualified for all 50 state ballots. On October 1, he announced his intention to start running again. He explained his earlier withdrawal by claiming that Republican operatives had attempted to disrupt his daughter's wedding, and he wanted to spare her from embarrassment. He campaigned in 16 states and spent an estimated $65.4 million of his own money. Perot employed the innovative strategy of purchasing half-hour blocks of time on major networks for infomercial-type campaign ads.

Perot's running mate was retired Vice Admiral James Stockdale, a well-respected former Vietnam prisoner of war.

At one point in June, Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton). Just prior to the debates, Perot received 7-9% support in nationwide polls. It is likely that the debates played a significant role in his ultimate receipt of 19% of the popular vote. Although his answers during the debates were often general, Perot's wit, folkisms, and straight talking were so impressive that even many Democrats and Republicans conceded that Perot won at least the first debate.

Source, President Elect :
William Jefferson Clinton
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
Party: DEMOCRATIC
Home State: PR: AR; VP: TN
Electoral Votes: 370
Pop. Vote: 44,909,326 (43.0%)

George Herbert Walker Bush
James Danforth Quayle
Party: REPUBLICAN
Home State: PR: TX; VP: IN
Electoral Votes: 168
Pop. Vote: 39,103,882 (37.4%)

Henry Ross Perot
James Bond Stockdale
Party: INDEPENDENT
Home State: PR: TX; VP: IL
Electoral Votes: 0
Pop. Vote: 19,741,657 (18.9%)


Other Candidates
Party: Libertarian, Populist, New Alliance, etc.
Pop. Vote: 670,149 (0.6%)

I voted for Perot. That guy's got balls.

He maintained a friendship with the U.S. Department of Defense, and from 1969 to 1972 worked to get American POWs out of Southeast Asia. In 1979 Perot participated in a private mission to Iran to rescue two hostages who were employees of EDS.http://www.answers.com/topic/ross-perot

Some of you USA-ers (and some other people from other countries) say that the USA is the land of the free. But you can't even have three or four or more political parties who all have their presidential candidate.
Also all of the secretaries are from the same party.

In the Netherlands for example you've got more the ten parties who matter and they all have a candidate for a prime minister.


Or am I wrong, and just a stupid nitwit?
If so then show me.

Greens, peace and freedom, independent, libertarian, etc...

List of American political parties



Any of them can run a presidential candidate, but good luck getting him into the debates. The debates are basically run by the two parties in collusion with the "liberal" corporate media.

Looks to me like the media of the US, strong anti-communism, wants to establish a one-party system, like in communism.
How ironic, at least to me.

A few secretaries are Democrats I think...

A few secretaries are Democrats I think...

No. Secretaries have always been selected by the president.

Looks to me like the media of the US, strong anti-communism, wants to establish a one-party system, like in communism.
How ironic, at least to me.

Not really.

Don't forget PR doesn't work very well on the size and scale of both geography and population that make up America.

The Electoral College system is retarded, I grant you, but their system works for them (for the most part).

No. Secretaries have always been selected by the president.

They can still be lifelong staunch Democrats. I swear I read that he put in like 2 or 3 democrats...

EDIT: Well it currently has all Republicans...

3800th post!

The big thing is that most cabinet positions are pure political appointments. Heck, most of the secretaries have no idea how their department really runs. US departments are run more by the permanent bureaucracy than any appointed official.

No. Secretaries have always been selected by the president.

Presidents have been known to appoint members of the opposing party to Administration positions.

They can still be lifelong staunch Democrats. I swear I read that he put in like 2 or 3 democrats...

EDIT: Well it currently has all Republicans...

Why in the world would a president put someone from another party in such a position of power?

Why in the world would a president put someone from another party in such a position of power?

To show they're not about partisan hackery and actually pick the most qualified people for the job? Best thing for the country? That whole thing, you know.

To show they're not about partisan hackery and actually pick the most qualified people for the job? Best thing for the country? That whole thing, you know.

I loled. Qualification is far, far down the list when picking the cabinet. It's the spoils system. Blame Jackson.

I loled. Qualification is far, far down the list when picking the cabinet. It's the spoils system. Blame Jackson.

I didn't say the current President. I said it's been known to happen.

I didn't say the current President. I said it's been known to happen.

Very, very infrequently. Do you happen to have an example at hand?

Well still, the media only lets two candidates talk, so maybe in some years they'll only let one person talk.

And the tens of other candidates, can you actually vote for them at the voting places?

Uhhh..yeah. There's a huge variety of candidates you can vote for on election day.

Well still, the media only lets two candidates talk,
It's called 'ratings'.

When a third candidate gets enough popular support (see the likes of Ralph Nader for third candidates) they will get the air time. It's a circle. No support no air time. No air time no support.

so maybe in some years they'll only let one person talk.

Why? Would it make a difference to who people voted for? Can most people tell the difference between candidates these days anyway?

And the tens of other candidates, can you actually vote for them at the voting places?

I assume you can. I'm not American. but most democratic systems work like that.

Edit: Goddamn f**king TIME WARP!

Very, very infrequently. Do you happen to have an example at hand?

Gerald Ford's cabinet.

And Jimmy Carter's cabinet.

Norman Mineta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Mineta) was a Democrat nominated by Bush who held his position for 5 years until his resignation in 2006, I think. THERE! HA!

Why in the world would a president put someone from another party in such a position of power?

To bridge the partisan gap.

As an act of goodwill to the Congress

Because they recognise that the best person for the job may be from another party (Clinton's Secretary of Defenc(s)e (or something) was a Republican).

Those of us in the USA are probably subject to more laws than people in any other country.

Think about it. When politicians want to get re-elected what do they do? They create laws. We might not really even need them, but Cogress has to keep busy, right? So every year we have a bunch of new laws on the books.

And it's not just at the Federal level, either. I have to be aware of Federal, State and unicipality level laws, all enacted by politicians who want to look good.

More complexity, anyone? How about the fact that each day I start my day at home in Maryland, drive through Washington DC, and into Virginia where my job is. That's 2 states and a city wll of which have varying laws.

Yeah, America is free until you commit some petty crime, in which case you will never be forgiven, and be punished for the rest of your life.