Inter.spem.et.metum Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Do you agree or disagree with the present two-party system in America? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Disagree.It's a stupid game.I choose not to play it.(although it's fun to watch . .) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 I'm with Orb on this one:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Sorry. I don't think having a two party system is *the* problem, in fact I strongly argue that multi-party countries like Israel and a lot of Europe suffer from *paralysis* because you have to build weird illogical coalitions of people from *opposite* ends of the political spectrum to get anything done. Not that there should not be horse-trading in politics, but the bottom line is that anyone who thinks that just creating more parties will solve anything should come see me about buying a bridge in Brooklyn... Have I got a deal for you,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Do you agree or disagree with the present two-party system in America?Er, system? In what sense exactly? I've had a discussion in the past elsewhere about this, there seems to be nothing in the US constitution that imposes a limitation to two parties. Sorry. I don't think having a two party system is *the* problem, in fact I strongly argue that multi-party countries like Israel and a lot of Europe suffer from *paralysis* because you have to build weird illogical coalitions of people from *opposite* ends of the political spectrum to get anything done.From opposite ends? Well I've yet to see that! Anyway, in the example of Italy a change of law in the '90s replaced the pure proportional system with a mostly majoritarian one, specifically designed to cause bipolarism by forcing parties to form coalitions from the start (when presenting lists of candidates). Although executives have been a bit less precarious, as hoped by the promoters of the change, it hasn't really improved things all that much. Not that there should not be horse-trading in politics, but the bottom line is that anyone who thinks that just creating more parties will solve anything should come see me about buying a bridge in Brooklyn...In your country, although you formally have two parties at the moment, neither of these lacks its internal differences. These however are only effective in the legislative of your system; with your president being one single person with total authority over the executive, it can't get stuck on disagreement... the US president can freely choose and change staff and even has some control over the judicial. I think you have less to worry about paralysis, with this system, if anything you would have an even greater need for more parties (or less tight coalitions). With the very fact that a lame duck can remain in place, you might often need it to be as lame as possible. Thanks, but that bridge is the last one I'd ever buy. :phones: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inter.spem.et.metum Posted October 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 The two-party system is a way to control the population. As some have already said, they polarize the country into two seperate groups, bunching all ideologies to either extreme. Most people are pretty moderate when it comes to the majority of the issues, they see a balance in things. But the two-party system forces them to vote either republican or democrat, because they know if they vote for an independent their vote won't count. It's a cycle. No one believes an independent can win, so an independent doesn't win, so no one thinks an independent can win. The republicans and democrats gain millions of dollars in funding from lobbyists, then use those funds to advertise against each other. They try to make us feel that by not voting for the "lesser of the two evils" will allow the greater of the two to win. We shouldn't have to vote for any "evil", even the lesser of. The idea isn't to add a bunch of different political parties to our government. We should attempt to create a single party that makes compromises on either side. If you can't compromise, you don't have the best interest of everyone, and you don't matter. There are plenty of issues that I disagree with the majority of the population on, but I'm willing to move on. We must start moving forward. Our politicians need to start making real decisions that aren't politically or economically motivated. What ever happened to serving the people? I hate to burst your bubble, but we live in a virtual democracy. It's an illusion. The people running our country don't have to make choices their constituants want them to. But it doesn't matter. Voter turn out is going to be an all time low this presidential election, even with all the hype. The population is so disenfranchised, and no one wants a politician to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 First, it is all about money. The candidate who raises the most money usually wins. Second, I belong to the largest party in MA. It is called Unenrolled and it includes half of all voters, so it is really a third party. Also, I have voted in every election since 1972, except one primary election that was for an unopposed candidate. Usually, I write in Mickey Mouse and Mickey never wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 I think I was unclear.I don't believe there is anything fundimentally wrong or broken with a two party system.However, to the question of:Do you agree or disagree with the present two-party system in America?(emphasis mine)I believe our present system is horribly broken and disfunctional. Money runs everything which gives corporations more representation than they should have (frankly I think they should have none). Queso 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inter.spem.et.metum Posted October 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 Would it be agreed that those with the most power should have the least to benefit from their own decisions? I believe people could actually compromise if they didn't have their own interests first and foremost. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. -Lord Acton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.