NationStates Jolt Archive

Just curious. I'm a registered Libertarian here in the states (although I shy away from the mainstream of my party, i.e. the Ayn Rand fan club) and I still consider myself to be a patriot. My parents are both registered Republicans, and we have a few Democrats in the family (most out of the Dixiecrat breed, but some liberals) and I find several points of disagreement with both in terms of national leadership and private citizens who call themselves members of the party, chiefly because most of them are ignorant of their party's platform and see it as an issue of "I like Jesus" or "I like the gays." That being said, I'm not one of the unnecessarily radical people who believe that ALL of the two major party's leaders are deadly. I am friends with and admire many people who're registered under the two bigguns. I also think Bill Clinton was one of the most effective presidents of our times. Very underrated when you look at tables of the deficit, international conflict, and national debt especially, but that's a different story.

Wondering how you all feel about the two-party system in the US. Effective? Needs more diversity? Do you think third-party presidential candidates should be barred from the debate? Did you like Ross Perot? :P What about Bloomberg's potential presidency?

Any comment would be appreciated.

Ya need more diversity.

i think that in a winner take all system 2 parties are inevitable.

Diversity's fine and all, but you can have too much in politics. How many governments have the Italians had since 1945? About one every nine months?

Early on in US history there were more political parties, though usually only two of them managed to elect Presidents. The election 1860 had four or five candidates for that office, but then the country was in the process of starting that "trial separation" we ungrammatically refer to as the War Between the States.

I go back and forth on this one, maybe more diversity in Congress would be a good thing and bring a need for compromise rather than just rhetoric about it.

Elections are coming up here in Belgium, and there will be 11 different parties on the ballot. Even so, I'm having a hard time to find a party that suits me well enough.

Only two parties? The horror.

Maybe I should move to India. I hear there's over a thousand parties in the current elections.

i think that in a winner take all system 2 parties are inevitable.

Umm... Canada?

First past the post system + 3 major parites.

Sure only two actually have a chance at winning but if any two parties get together and pass a non-confidence motion the government falls and there is either an election or a coalition is formed ( only happend once).

Diversity's fine and all, but you can have too much in politics. How many governments have the Italians had since 1945? About one every nine months?

Early on in US history there were more political parties, though usually only two of them managed to elect Presidents. The election 1860 had four or five candidates for that office, but then the country was in the process of starting that "trial separation" we ungrammatically refer to as the War Between the States.

I go back and forth on this one, maybe more diversity in Congress would be a good thing and bring a need for compromise rather than just rhetoric about it.

Right you are. I just wonder if the two major parties really have interests of the majority at heart. Too much diversity is, of course, a factor. I guess I'm thinking in terms of modern European democracies, a la France.

"I think the puppet on the left shares my beliefs."

"I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs."

"Hey, both puppets are controlled by the same people..."

"SHUT UP AND SIT BACK, AMERICA. Here, watch American Gladiators and forget about how badly you're being fucked."

-- Bill Hicks

This country was bought and paid for a while back. Modern elections don't really matter.

"I think the puppet on the left shares my beliefs."

"I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs."

"Hey, both puppets are controlled by the same people..."

"SHUT UP AND SIT BACK, AMERICA. Here, watch American Gladiators and forget about how badly you're being fucked."

-- Bill Hicks

This country was bought and paid for a while back. Modern elections don't really matter.


:D

Carlin said similar things.

Umm... Canada?

First past the post system + 3 major parites.

Sure only two actually have a chance at winning but if any two parties get together and pass a non-confidence motion the government falls and there is either an election or a coalition is formed ( only happend once).
ok

but you do have to have the option of a vote of no confidence to get that result.

Right you are. I just wonder if the two major parties really have interests of the majority at heart. Too much diversity is, of course, a factor. I guess I'm thinking in terms of modern European democracies, a la France.
does that mean you prefer a multiparty system where no one has to pretend to have the interests of the majority at heart?

does that mean you prefer a multiparty system where no one has to pretend to have the interests of the majority at heart?

I'd say that's fairly subjective, but it probably beats being told what your interests are.

I'm just going to throw this out there... not enough people really understad dialectics. http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/whatheck.htm

You know what might be an interesting and different system that would be completely democratic and would give all parties a sporting chance? Instead of voting for a candidate, vote for one candidate and against one candidate. Then, when the votes are tallied, the difference between votes for and votes against is that candidates' net vote tally. The candidate with the highest net vote tally wins.

I know it's crazy, but sometimes crazy is good for you. :)

There's two parties?

What did I miss?

You know what might be an interesting and different system that would be completely democratic and would give all parties a sporting chance? Instead of voting for a candidate, vote for one candidate and against one candidate. Then, when the votes are tallied, the difference between votes for and votes against is that candidates' net vote tally. The candidate with the highest net vote tally wins.

I know it's crazy, but sometimes crazy is good for you. :)

I like it!

You know what might be an interesting and different system that would be completely democratic and would give all parties a sporting chance? Instead of voting for a candidate, vote for one candidate and against one candidate. Then, when the votes are tallied, the difference between votes for and votes against is that candidates' net vote tally. The candidate with the highest net vote tally wins.

I know it's crazy, but sometimes crazy is good for you. :)

If that were tried in Canada i'm pretty sure the green party would win :)

There's two parties?

What did I miss?

Only two parties in the presidency in the past 150 years. :)

You know what might be an interesting and different system that would be completely democratic and would give all parties a sporting chance? Instead of voting for a candidate, vote for one candidate and against one candidate. Then, when the votes are tallied, the difference between votes for and votes against is that candidates' net vote tally. The candidate with the highest net vote tally wins.


Alternatively, you could let everyone choose a top three, and when counting the votes give 3 points for every first place, 2 points for a second place etc.
In that case, people wouldn't, for instance, need to vote democratic just to prevent the republicans from winning. They could just put the dems on second place.

Just curious. I'm a registered Libertarian here in the states (although I shy away from the mainstream of my party, i.e. the Ayn Rand fan club) You would do well to familiarize yourself with the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand.

Wondering how you all feel about the two-party system in the US.It sucks.

At what?

[quote]Needs more diversity?Absolutely.

Do you think third-party presidential candidates should be barred from the debate? No.

Did you like Ross Perot? :P What about Bloomberg's potential presidency?They're both far too right-wing to be worth considering.

Umm... Canada?

First past the post system + 3 major parites.

Sure only two actually have a chance at winning but if any two parties get together and pass a non-confidence motion the government falls and there is either an election or a coalition is formed ( only happend once).

That's oversimplifying. Not counting the last five years, usually the governing party has enough seats in the House to govern without fear of a non-confidence motion.

It's a bit of a stretch to call the NDP a "major party", and I say this as a card-carrying New Democrat. We get our hits in now and then, but really we have little influence federally and the only provinces in which we're strong are ones where either the Liberals or the Conservatives have been basically eliminated as a party. FPTP favors two-party systems, full stop.

i think that in a winner take all system 2 parties are inevitable.

I think we should go back to a 'first-runner up is vice pres.' system like we used to have.

I think that would at least help to induce a more cooperative political setting, and there would always be political diversity at the top, and political diversity running the country is a good thing.

Right you are. I just wonder if the two major parties really have interests of the majority at heart. Too much diversity is, of course, a factor. I guess I'm thinking in terms of modern European democracies, a la France.


La France isn't really the country you should have used. Its distinct election style means that while there are at least theoretically many parties, it's always run as an essentially two party system.

In the first round of presidential elections, anyone who's fulfilled the requirements to run is on the ballet. If any one of those persons were to receive an absolute majority at that point then elections would be over (though this has NEVER in all actuallity occured).

Given this, a second round takes place amongst only the two highest candidates stand to election. Thus all the parties of the other candidates align themselves behind one or the other to attempt to amass a coalition large enough to elect one candidate or the other.

In practice, this means that France is ruled by two coalitions of parties, the right and the left. Each coalition technically contains numerous parties (for example, Charles de Gaulle's ruling Right majority contained 4 parties within it and the left opposition contained 4, with one odd fringe party out).

Essentially, as far as I understand it, is that since no one party has any hope of ruling by itself, they've formed the two coalitions that represent a unified common ground agenda of the member parties (IE the left has both the Socialists, Communists, etc in it so they can form a pretty stable and ambitious agenda without touching on their differences).

I'm not sure if that really has anything to do with the OP, but hey...


As for the OP:

1. You really should read Rand. It's really helpful to be able to show WHY Communism, Facism, Theocracy, etc are immoral.

2. Considering the most popular third party in the US is the libertarian party, it wouldn't be too bad to have some more diversity in, even if the nutjob environmentalist wacko party is only slightly behind it. We shouldn't be supporting diversity for its own sake though (affirmative action for political parties?)

I think we should go back to a 'first-runner up is vice pres.' system like we used to have.

I think that would at least help to induce a more cooperative political setting, and there would always be political diversity at the top,
*(suspects that there'd be more assassinations, too...)*

i have a new sell-out reformist but still quixotic political goal that i came up with the other day. convince some state somewhere to change its state senate into a proportional representation body, thus making it something different from just a slightly less representative version of the state house and into something that actually represents the state as a whole.

i think that in a winner take all system 2 parties are inevitable.

That, and in larger electoral environments the number of viable parties tends to shrink drastically. They take advantage of economies of scale, and the intrinsic barriers to entry for organizations in large demographic groupings.

Two parties are quite enough. The world is in the middle of the most extreme recession since 1929. Do you really think its a good idea to increase the burden on big business by forcing them to buy off the leaders of several extra parties? Will no one think of the capitalists?

In the UK we have a 2 party system, plus a 3rd party that the powers-that-be allow a few seats to keep dissenters in line.

This is a registry of all the political parties of Spain:

http://www.mir.es/DGPI/Partidos_Politicos_y_Financiacion/Registro_Partidos_Politicos/registro_partidos_politicos.html

The main ones are, though, the PP and the PSOE.

why not just have one great big party that everyone can be a part of? :)

why not just have one great big party that everyone can be a part of? :)

Meh, we tried it back in the day after Jefferson left office...it was too boring.

If you have two parties, then "I hate candidate X" pretty much forces you to vote for candidate Y.

If you have multiple parties, there's the chance it becomes Everybody vs Le Pen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2002).

Frankly, there's no one "pick this and it solves everything" solution.

Any comment would be appreciated.
The Democrats and Republicans may not be everybody's cup of tea, but do you really want the Libertarians or Constitution Party in power?

Meh, we tried it back in the day after Jefferson left office...it was too boring.
Yeah, but you guys felt a lot better about it.:tongue:

The Democrats and Republicans may not be everybody's cup of tea, but do you really want the Libertarians or Constitution Party in power?

No, but I imagine some people would like to see a centrist party...

The left and right wings are both needed for the bird to fly. Unfortunately, that bird is a vulture. We need more parties to keep the dems and Pubbies (relatively) honest. I support more parties.

why not just have one great big party that everyone can be a part of? :)

You mean like this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_Party_of_Korea)

The Libertarian Party was decent once, a long, long time ago. Since then, it's devolved into a GOP-lite.

Dont let their Identical DNA fool you, they differ on some key issues!

Dont let their Identical DNA fool you, they differ on some key issues!

Barely. Hell, they have people like Boortz (a bloodthirsty warmonger) and Bob Barr (social conservative, Drug Warrior, warmonger, etc.). The LP went from being a party of principle to a "mainstream," do-whatever-it-takes-to-get-elected party.

The Democrats and Republicans may not be everybody's cup of tea, but do you really want the Libertarians or Constitution Party in power?

No, but better them than the Dempublicans or the Republicrats. The LP and the Constitution Party - especially the latter - are really fucked up, but at least they're a lot less bloodthirsty than the first two. This is not to say that the LP or CP are desirable, only that they're an improvement over the first two - not that that's saying much.

Having the LP or the CP in power might mean a lot less dead foreigners.

Just curious. I'm a registered Libertarian here in the states (although I shy away from the mainstream of my party, i.e. the Ayn Rand fan club) and I still consider myself to be a patriot. My parents are both registered Republicans, and we have a few Democrats in the family (most out of the Dixiecrat breed, but some liberals) and I find several points of disagreement with both in terms of national leadership and private citizens who call themselves members of the party, chiefly because most of them are ignorant of their party's platform and see it as an issue of "I like Jesus" or "I like the gays." That being said, I'm not one of the unnecessarily radical people who believe that ALL of the two major party's leaders are deadly. I am friends with and admire many people who're registered under the two bigguns. I also think Bill Clinton was one of the most effective presidents of our times. Very underrated when you look at tables of the deficit, international conflict, and national debt especially, but that's a different story.

Wondering how you all feel about the two-party system in the US. Effective? Needs more diversity? Do you think third-party presidential candidates should be barred from the debate? Did you like Ross Perot? :P What about Bloomberg's potential presidency?

Any comment would be appreciated.

I personally think that the debates (yeesh that's alotta dentals:p) should be opened up to a greater number of parties such as the Greens, Libertarians, Reform/Independent, Constitution, et al. We would need to reformat our presidential election system to achieve noticeable results, according to some, but theoretically, according to some in the LRC (a branch of your political party), it could be done if people were not only willing to put in the effort but that the LP and friends would know what work they should tackle to achieve success.

One person, who I mentioned in past posts, Carl Milstead, said that the typical LP strategy is to try to achieve 5% of the national vote in presidential elections so that the party can get federal funding, and think that all that one needs to do is teach people about the LP's philosophy and they will have instant converts.

Dr. Milstead, the former web master for the LRC, if I recall, said that what he has learned is that the public must see you as a viable choice. In order to be seen as viable, the LP, and other third parties, must win somewhere, that as long as they continue the path they are on, the LP will never win.

So how does one win? Well the party must be able to read the political climate and moderate/triangulate their views so they could stand a good chance. Also, instead of focusing on getting rid of the IRS and blabbing on about the Zero Agression Principle, to win at the local level, so as to achieve viability, the LP must focus on what the current issues that the citizens are concerned about and develop a response that is unique to the Libertarian ideology that solves that problem. They must explain why their methods are better at meeting the concerns of the public than when compared to the Democrats and Republicans. Thus the LP would have to operate at a grass roots level to succeed.

Personally, I think that if the LP wants to win a presidential election, it should not have picked Bob Barr as its candidate, as that choice would look hypocritical. A far better choice, ideologically and pragmatically, would have been a Paul/Gravel ticket, as both of them agree more with the LP platform than Barr did and they both have far better name recognition.

The two party system is shit, so is any number of parties. I am opposed to party politics period. You are supposed to represent your constituents, the people who voted for you, not the people who label themselves the same as you.

the lie is that the sovereignty of economic interests contributes a damd thing to freedom or resembles it in any way. the degree to which other nearly dominant systems fail also is of no pertinence to the point.

and does a winner take all system actually represent the intrests, let alone wishes, of ANYbody? somehow i really seriously doubt it.

The two party system is shit, so is any number of parties. I am opposed to party politics period. You are supposed to represent your constituents, the people who voted for you, not the people who label themselves the same as you.

Oh to get rid of the parties would be so wonderful.
Until then vote libertarian !!

The Democrats and Republicans may not be everybody's cup of tea, but do you really want the Libertarians or Constitution Party in power?

i want the greens in power, with the libber's as maybe the loyal opposition.
over the replicrats and demmikins, hell yes, any day of the tweek.
(and i wouldn't mind a liberal socialist labour pary winning a few seats once in a while either)

i want the greens in power, with the libber's as maybe the loyal opposition.
over the replicrats and demmikins, hell yes, any day of the tweek.
(and i wouldn't mind a liberal socialist labour pary winning a few seats once in a while either)

The greens are unlikely because they really just represent farther left grouping of the democrats.
The libertarians on the other hand represent a new position.
Not to mention they will forever be know as the ones who got Bush elected.

The greens are unlikely because they really just represent farther left grouping of the democrats.
The libertarians on the other hand represent a new position.
Not to mention they will forever be know as the ones who got Bush elected.
we weren't talking about "likely". and as for republican lite representing a new position, what postion would that be? if it isn't one that's a bit too obscene.

greens on the other paw, really do represent a position that is under represented in the extreme. and one, that if people were to stop beeing conned into lying to themselves, would realize is where their intrests actually reside.

No, but I imagine some people would like to see a centrist party...The Democrats already exist and fill that gap.

we weren't talking about "likely". and as for republican lite representing a new position, what postion would that be? if it isn't one that's a bit too obscene.

greens on the other paw, really do represent a position that is under represented in the extreme. and one, that if people were to stop beeing conned into lying to themselves, would realize is where their intrests actually reside.

Libertarian party is not republican lite by any means.
break down of those likely to get elected positions.
Civil Liberties of the democratic party aka no torture no gitmo.
Economic liberties of the Republican party.
Defense spending of the democratic party.
Social Spending of the republican party.

The libertarians are sort of represented by factions within both parties.
the Democrats have the Democratic Freedom Caucus and
the Republicans have the Republican Liberty Caucus.

That whats gives them the best chance of being the next party is they have factions within both parties and are the largest 3rd party.

In Us politics the Greens represent the left where as the democrats represent left center. Not really any new views just an enlargement of current democrat views which means more divisive and more partisan.
Where as the Libertarians are a new position in some aspects Left and in other aspects right.

Wondering how you all feel about the two-party system in the US.

I don't like political parties...

Suppose instead of election a man were qualified for office by petition signed by four thousand citizens. He would then represent those four thousand affirmatively, with no disgruntled minority, for what would have been a minority in a territorial constituency would all be free to start other petitions or join in them. All would then be represented by men of their choice. Or a man with eight thousand supporters might have two votes in this body. Difficulties, objections, practical points to be worked out— many of them! But you could work them out. . . and thereby avoid the chronic sickness of representative government, the disgruntled minority which feels— correctly!— that it has been disenfranchised.

...if only.

Two parties are quite enough. The world is in the middle of the most extreme recession since 1929. Do you really think its a good idea to increase the burden on big business by forcing them to buy off the leaders of several extra parties? Will no one think of the capitalists?

lol

Two parties are quite enough. The world is in the middle of the most extreme recession since 1929.

Of really ? whats the GDP change ?
There is a far lesser drop now then in the 1970's.
the GDP is by convention of economist the yard stick to measure the economy and a recession.

I suggest an Ankh Morporkian style one man one vote system. I also suggest that I be the man.

the lie is that the sovereignty of economic interests contributes a damd thing to freedom or resembles it in any way. the degree to which other nearly dominant systems fail also is of no pertinence to the point.

and does a winner take all system actually represent the intrests, let alone wishes, of ANYbody? somehow i really seriously doubt it.

It represents the interests and wishes of those who are in power and nothing else. This is supposed to be a republic here in the US but all it is really is a mockery of the kind of government we all hold so dear.

I suggest an Ankh Morporkian style one man one vote system. I also suggest that I be the man.

Am I going to have to have a word with Lord Downey?

This country was bought and paid for a while back. Modern elections don't really matter.
A more...em, scholarly explanation, I guess, comes from people like Richard Hofstadter (sp?). It's not that both parties are controlled by the same people, it's that Americans just don't have a wide spectrum of opinions. Maybe it's from a history of a federal government that just didn't do that much, maybe it's indoctrination at an early age, maybe it's the structure of the government itself. But saying "modern elections don't really matter" seems unfair.

The two party system was designed by the founding fathers and is useful, if not necessary, with our current political system. Getting rid of the two party system (as well as the things with necessarily lead to two parties) would be tedious and not all that helpful.

It might not be the best, but it works for us.

Its also helpful to note that comparing two political systems as they are in two countries is a futile enterprise. Each political system works different in each country, and wouldn't transfer as it is.

The two party system was designed by the founding fathers and is useful, if not necessary, with our current political system. Getting rid of the two party system (as well as the things with necessarily lead to two parties) would be tedious and not all that helpful.

It might not be the best, but it works for us.

Its also helpful to note that comparing two political systems as they are in two countries is a futile enterprise. Each political system works different in each country, and wouldn't transfer as it is.

VirginiaCooper, I must disagree. The founding fathers opposed all political parties- they wanted all elections to be nonpartisan. That is why Washington warned against the dangers of faction in his farewell address.

VirginiaCooper, I must disagree. The founding fathers opposed all political parties- they wanted all elections to be nonpartisan. That is why Washington warned against the dangers of faction in his farewell address.

Its curious you would say that, since the founding fathers divided themselves into political parties.

i think that in a winner take all system 2 parties are inevitable.

That's why I think that "winner take all" systems are intrinsecally stupid. Look at the turnouts in 2-parties countries, compare with the turnouts in more-parties countries.

Its curious you would say that, since the founding fathers divided themselves into political parties.

that's because parties are incredibly useful, not because they thought they were good. the first group that gets a party organized has a massive electoral advantage over those disorganized losers over there.

from where did you get the idea that they originally designed the system for two parties? just the existence of said parties?

i have a new sell-out reformist but still quixotic political goal that i came up with the other day. convince some state somewhere to change its state senate into a proportional representation body, thus making it something different from just a slightly less representative version of the state house and into something that actually represents the state as a whole.

...and nobody cares. awww

Its curious you would say that, since the founding fathers divided themselves into political parties.

Parties were not part of the plan when drafting the Constitution, though, and the Founding Fathers were still uneasy with the concept even as they split into factions. George Washington, for example, tried to stay above such things.

Parties were not part of the plan when drafting the Constitution, though, and the Founding Fathers were still uneasy with the concept even as they split into factions. George Washington, for example, tried to stay above such things.

His Farewell address warned against the party system and entanglements overseas. Needless to say Id think he would whip both sides ass.

His Farewell address warned against the party system and entanglements overseas. Needless to say Id think he would whip both sides ass.

Oh, he'd do more than that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA).

Just curious. I'm a registered Libertarian here in the states (although I shy away from the mainstream of my party, i.e. the Ayn Rand fan club) and I still consider myself to be a patriot. My parents are both registered Republicans, and we have a few Democrats in the family (most out of the Dixiecrat breed, but some liberals) and I find several points of disagreement with both in terms of national leadership and private citizens who call themselves members of the party, chiefly because most of them are ignorant of their party's platform and see it as an issue of "I like Jesus" or "I like the gays." That being said, I'm not one of the unnecessarily radical people who believe that ALL of the two major party's leaders are deadly. I am friends with and admire many people who're registered under the two bigguns. I also think Bill Clinton was one of the most effective presidents of our times. Very underrated when you look at tables of the deficit, international conflict, and national debt especially, but that's a different story.

Wondering how you all feel about the two-party system in the US. Effective? Needs more diversity? Do you think third-party presidential candidates should be barred from the debate? Did you like Ross Perot? :P What about Bloomberg's potential presidency?

Any comment would be appreciated.

Thought I'd go back to the O.P.

The Two-Party system, as imperfect as it is, works (for the most part). I have observed in watching other governments where multiple parties align to form coalition majorities and then split, that those governments are a bit unstable.

The Two Party system gets it factions in general agreement on the most important items of that party's platform. Not everyone in the party generally gets everything that they want. The Parties have the internal strife, but the government seems more stable.

I did like Ross Perot... before he dropped out. He lost his credibility ( a "quitter" ) as someone who could withstand the pressure of the Presidency.

I could get behind a "Reform Party", but I believe it's more practical to try and influence one of the two major parties. Again, Perot was a credible candidate until he lost his nerve that one time.

Parties were not part of the plan when drafting the Constitution, though, and the Founding Fathers were still uneasy with the concept even as they split into factions. George Washington, for example, tried to stay above such things.Hence their original (but since replaced) rule that, as already mentioned earlier in this thread, gave the job of Vice-President to the runner-up in the Presidential election...

The Two-Party system, as imperfect as it is, works (for the most part). I have observed in watching other governments where multiple parties align to form coalition majorities and then split, that those governments are a bit unstable.

The Two Party system gets it factions in general agreement on the most important items of that party's platform. Not everyone in the party generally gets everything that they want. The Parties have the internal strife, but the government seems more stable.Plus, if the government really messes up then the electorate can blame a single party and vote it out of office... whereas with multi-party coalitions the blame might get shifted around and anyway elections are more likely to result in different coalitions that still have largely the same membership.
But then you can also (although, I think, more rarely) get this result with two-party systems: consider for example the case of Austria, where the two largest parties -- Christian Democrats and Social Democrats -- were in perpetual coalition from the first post-war elections until the 1990s and all that elections really determined was how large a share of the ministerial jobs each of them got... Call that 'democracy'?

from where did you get the idea that they originally designed the system for two parties? just the existence of said parties?

Well, not exactly - there are a few steps in between the design and the outcome, but essentially our system only works with two parties. Winner-take-all districting, the Electoral College, the President's direct election, campaign finance laws... and yes, that later one has nothing to do with the founding fathers, but the others do. If the founding father's didn't expect a two-party system they weren't as smart as we give them credit for.

Parties were not part of the plan when drafting the Constitution, though, and the Founding Fathers were still uneasy with the concept even as they split into factions. George Washington, for example, tried to stay above such things.

Where do you get your definition of factions? The one I'm most familiar with in the context of the founding fathers is that of Federalist 10, which doesn't have to do with political parties. In fact, I would argue that given the context of Federalist 10 and how Madison was trying to protect against factions, two political parties would in fact be his solution!

Where do you get your definition of factions? The one I'm most familiar with in the context of the founding fathers is that of Federalist 10, which doesn't have to do with political parties. In fact, I would argue that given the context of Federalist 10 and how Madison was trying to protect against factions, two political parties would in fact be his solution!
Is Federalist 10 the one where Madison explains how factions are impossible to escape, so the government should almost pit them against each other to protect minorities? I seem to remember he had a cool metaphor where factions were fire and liberty was air, or something like that.

Anyway, by political parties I was thinking of organizations that nominate candidates and aid their campaigning. I know ideological factions began almost as soon as the Constitution was put into effect, between Jefferson and Hamilton especially. I'm embarrassed to say I don't know exactly when the Jeffersonians became the political party called the Democratic-Republicans, or when the Hamiltonians became the Federalists.

Is Federalist 10 the one where Madison explains how factions are impossible to escape, so the government should almost pit them against each other to protect minorities?
Yes. Factions being groups of people representing various viewpoints. In the US's case, democracy is protected against factions by pluralism, or so Madison said. It doesn't actually work that way, but my point about the two party system protecting against factions runs something like this: with only two parties, there is inevitably going to be different factions joining into whichever party they agree with/like better. However, since there aren't only two opposing viewpoints, the factions' opinions are going to be moderated simply by joining a party, and then to get anything done both parties need to find a compromise, so further moderation takes place.

The first two parties were the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and they existed even before the Constitution did. Ours is a history of bipartisan politics.

Yes. Factions being groups of people representing various viewpoints. In the US's case, democracy is protected against factions by pluralism, or so Madison said. It doesn't actually work that way, but my point about the two party system protecting against factions runs something like this: with only two parties, there is inevitably going to be different factions joining into whichever party they agree with/like better. However, since there aren't only two opposing viewpoints, the factions' opinions are going to be moderated simply by joining a party, and then to get anything done both parties need to find a compromise, so further moderation takes place.

I'm not sure if that was exactly what Madison and others were thinking of, but it does make sense. I can imagine them approving more of two parties with big tents than a lot of more specific groups.

Just curious. I'm a registered Libertarian here in the states
FFS

As to the idea that two-party systems are big load of fail - eh the other parties aren't popular for a reason that cannot simply be put down to the system not being "fair" enough.

That's why I think that "winner take all" systems are intrinsecally stupid. Look at the turnouts in 2-parties countries, compare with the turnouts in more-parties countries.
Yeah look what a shower of shite proportional representation is, though. Constant fucking governmental paralysis in Italy, the débâcle we know as Belgium and a Grand Coalition which sacrifices voters' true opinions on the altar of unity in Germany.

Yeah look what a shower of shite proportional representation is, though. Constant fucking governmental paralysis in Italy, the débâcle we know as Belgium and a Grand Coalition which sacrifices voters' true opinions on the altar of unity in Germany.

I got a hardon when you spelled debacle like that.

The moral of this story is - the only perfect democracy is pure democracy, and that's shit too.

Yeah look what a shower of shite proportional representation is, though. Constant fucking governmental paralysis in Italy, the débâcle we know as Belgium and a Grand Coalition which sacrifices voters' true opinions on the altar of unity in Germany.
Neither system is perfect.* It does seem like politicians in multiparty systems are more bound to vote in line with their party, though, is that true?

*And with that statement, New Limacon said something profound beyond words. The thought had never occurred to anyone before, ever.

Neither system is perfect.* It does seem like politicians in multiparty systems are more bound to vote in line with their party, though, is that true?
No idea. I'm sure it depends if there's some kind of large coalition going on or a single party with an overall majority at that time.

FFS

As to the idea that two-party systems are big load of fail - eh the other parties aren't popular for a reason that cannot simply be put down to the system not being "fair" enough.

First past the post electoral systems have a strong tendency to become two party systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law). Probably because third parties are unlikely to win and voting for a 3rd party makes it more likely that the candidate that a voter dislikes the most will win.

Yeah look what a shower of shite proportional representation is, though. Constant fucking governmental paralysis in Italy, the débâcle we know as Belgium and Grand Coalition which sacrifices voters' true opinions on the altar of unity in Germany.

A mixed proportional system that mixes the strengths of both pure electoral systems may be the most optimal.

First past the post electoral systems have a strong tendency to become two party systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law). Probably because third parties are unlikely to win and voting for a 3rd party makes it more likely that the candidate that a voter dislikes the most will win.
Damn right.
A mixed proportional system that mixes the strengths of both pure electoral systems may be the most optimal.
:eek2: Honest?

:eek2: Honest?

No. I lied. :upyours: :p

No. I lied. :upyours: :p
:gundge:, etc.