Please don't accuse me of hating America. It's because I love it, that I bring this up. Or do accuse me of it, and know that you are wrong by doing so. I love our country, the ideas that it was founded on, much of what our nation has stood for over in the history of the U.S. Please note that what I hope for in no way goes against our country's founding document, the constitution. I want our nation to be the greatest democracy on the planet, and be shining beacon of light, and the right way to do things. I want everyone to respect what we stand for, and to let our actions back up our stated values and principles. The main problem that I see is the two party monopoly on the political system. We used to criticize the Soviet Union or Iraq for claiming to have elections when only party was, in reality, able to win. Well is only two parties that much better? Think about how often the two candidates aren't really that different anyway. This election is a slight exception, but often it seems that the two parties are two shades of the same color. They've gained power and manipulated the rules so that third party candidates don't stand much of a chance. With these two parties in control special interests target both parties, and seem to really dictate policy in an increasingly alarming way. If we had 8 parties or 10 parties that would be more difficult to do. People could vote one party based on certain issues and another party based on other issues. The wide variety of voices and positions that our citizens hold would have more accurate and better representation in the political system. A third party may never win the presidency but they could gain enough seats in the house or senate to have a legitimate voice. Politicians wouldn't have to only appeal to a couple small groups of voters in their effort to win elections. I'm not a supporter of Nader, so this isn't some bid help him out, and it isn't even so much about just this one election, but our nation's democracy as a whole. We had such a bitter electoral contest in Florida last presidential election and we ended up having the supreme courts decide to order votes not to be counted. That doesn't bold well for what should be the nation's largest democracy. We need real change, and the sooner the better. But a problem with the two party system is they stack the deck in their favor so that real change isn't so much of a possibility.
I would love for there to be more choices, but it just is not likely to happen. The best way for issue voters (people that vote based on 1 or 2 issues) to make sure the election goes their way is to band together with other people who don't conflict with them. The reason it is nearly impossible to have a viable third party was shown by Perot and Nader. When the third party draws more voters from one side than the other, then a vote for the third party candidate that you agree with, might as well be a vote for the major party candidate that you don't. That is why there were so many Republicans working to get Nader on ballots for this election.
True, but if there were five candidates on the ballot all with a more equal access to media, ballots etc. then we could have many people voting for neither Democrats or Republicans. I do agree that it's not likely to happen, and I believe that's part of what is broken about our democracy.
I think that if we are to build a viable third party, at first we should probably band together to recommend candidates rather than actually putting one up. We can constructively debate the various pros and cons of each and make nonbinding recommendations until the party is strong enough to get into the debates (we would have to poll 15% to make the debates). If we were strong enough to poll even 5-10%, the majors would be inclined to work with us to receive our endorsement at which point, we are having a major impact without even running one of our own for office. Any viable third party is going to have to appeal to the populace, specifically the 40% of voters that don't affiliate themselves with a party and the 50% of the population that doesn't vote at all.
50% doesn't vote...everytime I see that stat I'm awestruck. Maybe we should offer a tax write off for those who DO vote or a penalty for those who don't? Don't the Aussies have a penalty in place for NOT voting?
(not meaning to be nit-picky, but the U.S. government isn't a deomcracy. It's a republic.) -- droxford
I don't know. Two party seems to work fine. That's pretty much the way the founders wanted it, so that no one side would get out of control, and I think the balance is good and adds moderation to the political process while keeping the ideas of both sides open and out there.
Two party system is fine. The main point of the American systems is checks and balaces. The term limits and atleast a two party system is about limiting abuse. It's been fine so far, and as bad as some think Bush is, he really didn't do anything really bad when you put it in the world's historical context. I really don't want a 5 party system where the fringes have a say in the gov't. I don't want a ultra religious conservative pouting in congress about family values, nor do I want an idealistic hippy trying to change the world through un realistic means.
The thing is that "both sides" totally ignore some issues, particularly issues that run contrary to big money interests. The Dems and Reps are simply two sides of the same coin, a coin that is owned by big money interests. It is time for the people to have a voice again.
At least with 5 parties, it would take real leadership and consensus building to get things done rather than the current system of "when we are in power, we screw you and when you are in power, you screw us."
The two party system is derived form the fact that 2 is the lowest common denominator for people of differing opinions, us and them. You don't have to watch much 'Survivor' to see that people will form coalitions with others with somewhat sympathetic views to exert power over those with more objectionable views. Our two party system is just an extension of that natural coalescence. There are probably as varied views within our two parties as between them (see Zell Miller) but in the end politicians have to choose, us or them to get support, funding and positions in the governmental hierarchy. What is so sad is how a tin horn idealouge from a rock solid electorial district can dictate the direction of a party even though his ideas may be out on the fringe. His years of senority snowball his power and influence beyond his intellectual capacity or popularity. Of course I am refering to Tom Delay, but republicans can point to Martin Frost in Dallas. He is a democrat in a staunch republican district but the electorate is reluctant to vote him out because of the seniority he retains and the local econmic benefits that come with it.
I think the problem is clearly deeper than just having to choose between an Republican and Democratic president. Seems to me that all throughout the political system every issues has more than two sides, and it just doesn't make sense to me that a country as diverse as America should force its citizens into choosing leaders based on their black and white opinions on certain subjects. Further, when you start talking about the abuses of big corporations, campaign financings, misuse of power once in office, etc. - well, from afar it all looks like a big soap opera for rich people who have nothing better to do (apparantly, which is scary) then criticize each other. The question is would significant third party candidates have a positive impact on the overall process. There is a difference between what you want and what you think is right, no? I don't think it would be cool if America was run by extremist either, but do think it would be fair if the 5-10% of the extremist out there were able to elect representatives that mirrored their views (and could thus influence gov't process slightly).
I don't really think the 2 party system is working all that well. People often complain that they are voting for the lesser of two evils and not a candidate that they really support. Others complain that the two parties are really the same. Plus even in presidential elections only 50% of registered voters vote. Some people dont' see that it matters who they vote for, others are so turned off they don't vote at all. I don't consider that something working to the best of it's ability. Add to that even less participation in non-presidential elections and we see that something is wrong. I also disagree tht it's what the founders wanted. They didn't make it so that otehr parties have to jump through nearly impossible hoops to be allowed in debates, etc. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that two parties are better than multiple parties etc.
I am right there with you. I have been reading the writings of Thomas Jefferson lately (the library at the college divested itself of a few thousand books over the summer) and I have not seen anything that indicates that he believed we should have only two parties. Besides, if we are talking about what the founders wanted, then Gore should be the VP since they originally structured things so that the runner up in the presidential election became VP.
More parties would suck. You'd give disproportionate power to small fringe groups that become swing votes. Recipe for disaster. We'd end up like Italy where a new government comes to power every six days, or when Roma or Juventus loses a soccer match, whichever comes first. No thank you. The system we have ensures stabililty, which is awesome. Gore and Bush were not alike. Clinton and Dole were not alike. Bush Sr and Clinton were not alike. Bush Sr and Dukakis were not alike. Reagan and Mondale were not alike. Reagan and Carter were not alike. Ford and Carter might have been alike. We could go on. Two parties are great. They keep us toward the middle and fringe ideas that are good ideas usually filter their way through to the mainstream agendas. If you want a founder who addresses this, its not Jefferson, its Madison.
the problem seems to be that both parties are either way too far right or way to far left. there are many people - myself included - who yearn for something a little more moderate.
Can you point me to any of his discussions of this? They should be in the public domain and thus on the 'net.
Federalist papers. He writes about the dangers of 'factions' and 'splintering' of power. He doesn't say 'two' is the optimal number or anything like that, but he does contend the wider you disperse the power base the more problematic effective governance becomes.
