Should America abolish the two party rule?

[jayhawk]

And when I mean rule, I mean how the same two parties have been stealing votes since the 1860's. As in lording over us, as in making American politics black and white, when we all know that nothing in life is ever that.

To oversimplify, I would quite like a system much like Germany's. You get X% of votes, you get X amount of seats. This way we can have representatives of all the political spectrum.
Now, someone who is perhaps close minded and ignorant would like to see their opposites politically banished, but not I. I want to see communists, green partys, religious extremists, pirates all represented. To me, a democracy is the ideas of all of the people, whatever their political leanings might be.

For your information, I am a Libertarian, which is a person all for small government, low taxes and unlimited freedoms.

[katwalk]

Yes because we only have 2 flavors of stupid now.

[BlaRo]

Yes. Jesus Christ, yes. I'm sick of this "either you're with us, or you're against us" system of fearmongering and partisan finger-pointing we've had to suffer through since the beginning of time. There's no room in the middle for moderates like me, and there's certainly no room for those who vote based on individual issues without having to be lumped into a certain mindset. The infalliable circle-jerking that goes on within each individual party is sickening, and the corruption and hypocrisy within both is dangerous.

Sometimes I even feel bad for Ralph Nader.

[nomix]

Abolish? No. Abolish smacks of totalitarianism. Jeltsin did democracy a great disfavor when he abolished the communist party.

What you really need is proper a proper campaign finance reform. Let's call campaign contributions of several hundred thousand dollars what it is. A bribe.

Special interest must be ignored, ignore it for two terms, and it'll be out of work. Abolish religion from your politics, in a country with a state church (Norway), a prime minister need not be religious in any way. He can be a decleared atheist.

In a country which has no state religion, you're in a wad of trouble if you're not christian, even if you're just catholic, you're off to a bad start. Not to mention no religion at all.

I look forward with great interest for the first decleared ateist president. Once that's happened, we can ignore that issue. Religion is a private matter, and after one has shown that you can be president without believing in God, it may be such a private matter.

Just my .2.

[thevictor390]

It can't technically be abolished because it isn't technically a rule. But yes, the current dominance of two parties sucks. I really don't like the idea of political parties in general. A candidate should be judged on his own personal merits.

I find myself leaning towards the right, which of course makes me a Republican which also makes me a God-fearing hatemonger

[jayhawk]

I agree with you 1 billion percent that religion and politics should not be anywhere near each other nomix, and I think everyone knows my views on religion. God, Jesus Christ or any other prophets care not a whit about our trivial squabbles called politics.
However! There are those who feel that politics and religion could or should co-exist, especially in America. And they should be represented as such.

*EDIT* I used the word abolish to grab your attention. Hey, it worked!!

[epp_b]

Wait ... the fact that you only have two parties is a rule? What the? I don't even.

Lib, PC, NDP and Green are the major parties in Canada (in reality, Green doesn't have a chance), or otherwise the parties that have representation in every "riding" (a predetermined segment of a population represented by a candidate). We have smaller parties like the Bloc (which is only in Quebec), the CHP and so forth, but they're purpose is just to have some representation, not to be large enough to actually have a chance at national leadership.

The list of parties eligible for elections in Canada is here. And before any Americans go "Z0Mgg!111!1!!! cOMMOONIIST P4rRTIEEEE!!!" ... the reality is that some of these parties are silly and don't even have a chance at winning a seat (ie.: communist party, pot-head party, etc.).

You don't need to part of an elite club or have the fortune of being born into the right family to go into politics here: you can join or start a party in Canada for whatever you want. It's a little thing we call "freedom"

Seriously, take a look.

So, I voted YES. The only reason Bush was ever able to get enough votes to ruin 8 years of US history is because of the blind, idiotic, with-us-or-against-us patriotism Americans show towards political parties.

[LurkerPatrol]

Si señor

As Kat put it, we have dumbasses in only 2 parties.

When I was still @ Berkeley and we had the election coming up, I couldn't be bothered to go and vote for my pick. I said to my parents: It's like choosing between rotten lettuce and rotten spinach in a salad bar.

If we start a multi-party system, I'll immediately join whichever party believes in free curry for all.

[thevictor390]

It's not a rule, and there are many more than two parties. But the overwhelming majority of positions (and presidential votes) go to Republicans and Democrats.

[nomix]

Another thing you need to do is to reform how you elect your president. The current system is something left over from a time when the governing class did not trust the populous. One might not trust them today either, but I'll explain my point.

One election that springs to mind is the 1984 presidential election, between Reagan and Mondale.

Reagan got a clear majority of the votes, with 58.8 % of the voters. Mondale got 40.6 % of the votes. That is not up for dispute.

What is however up for dispute is the number of electoral votes that went to Reagan. Reagan won 49 of 50 states, which gave him 525 seats in the electoral college. Mondale won one state + DC, and got 13 seats in the electoral college. This means that then-president Reagan won 97.6 % of the seats in the electoral college, while he only got 58.8 % of the popular vote.

As I've stated, there's no doubt that Reagan would have won anyway, but it does lead to the question, if it's possible to get 97.6 % of the electoral college with 58.8 % of the votes, there is something iffy with the system. We know that presidents have been elected with minorities too, which leads gravity to the issue.

You are not electing people to make an educated decision about whom to vote for as President of the United States, you are electing people which will vote as the popular mandate in the states they represent tell them to vote. In other words, if California vent to me, they couldn't vote for jayhawk.

What that means is that the complete idea of the electoral college is silly. It just is. It's a simple question you're asked when you vote, this guy or that guy, just add up the number of votes, and bob's your uncle.

(For those interested in trivia, in the 1992 general election, the Liberal Democrats won 22.6 % of the votes, but only managed got 20 of 651 seats in the houses of commons, that is 3.07 % of the seats.

In comparison, the tories got 42.2 % of the popular vote, ending up with 376 seats (57.8 % of the seats), labour ended up with 30.8 % of the vote, with 229 seats (35.2 %).

Just to point out that the American system isn't the only system of fault. Notably, the last two elections in Norway gave parliamentary majority to three parties which did not get a majority of the popular mandate. It is though worth noting that designing a fail-safe system to elect a parliament is a lot harder than designing a fail safe system to elect a person to an office, in the latter example, you just count the votes.)

[Lupin_IV]

Originally Posted by epp_b

The list of parties eligible for elections in Canada is here. And before any Americans go "Z0Mgg!111!1!!! cOMMOONIIST P4rRTIEEEE!!!" ... the reality is that some of these parties are silly and don't even have a chance at winning a seat (ie.: communist party, pot-head party, etc.).

We've got crazy parties down here, too.
Remember the National Socialist White People's Party from The Blues Brothers? That actually existed.

[Firecat]

I think one would be hard-pressed to name one benefit or advantage to maintaining the status quo.

[thevictor390]

Having only two major candidates for election means that the winner is backed by a large percentage, whereas with multiple candidates, increasingly less approval is needed to win. Even with a tournament-style vote, the first round numbers tell the true story, after that its just the one you don't like the least.

That's all I got.

[Viper007Bond]

I hate to break it to you but it's impossible to have anything but two parties. Proof:

Imagine a world with 3 parties of equal size where everyone wants their candidate to win, but even more doesn't want some other guy to win (say Bush). People from Party A may vote for Party B to avoid Party C winning. Party A and Party B essentially merge over time to try and be more powerful than C.

It's a nice fantasy, but not possible without artificial rules and that goes against democracy.

[Firecat]

I don't think either party is doing a good job representing the people. If it were easier for third parties or independent candidates to get their voices out there, I think their messages would resonate a lot more. That's what the democrats and republicans fear.

But I'm giving the electorate more credit than they deserve. All these guys have to say is "gay marriage" or "abortion" and it sends everyone in a tizzy.

[salle]

So no other country besides the US is democratic? Even though your "democratically elected" president doesn't have to have the most amount of votes as you use electoral voting for the presidency.
For countries that have more than 2 parties they create coalitions of parties with similar ideas and ideologies but they are not permanent, it's actually very rare for parties to merge. And their alliances can shift over time so a small party could keep be in power as long as they're big enough for the others to need them to have majority.

[Rokovak]

Originally Posted by Viper007Bond

I hate to break it to you but it's impossible to have anything but two parties. Proof:

Imagine a world with 3 parties of equal size where everyone wants their candidate to win, but even more doesn't want some other guy to win (say Bush). People from Party A may vote for Party B to avoid Party C winning. Party A and Party B essentially merge over time to try and be more powerful than C.

It's a nice fantasy, but not possible without artificial rules and that goes against democracy.

'Artificial rules' such as what?

[Viper007Bond]

Originally Posted by Rokovak

'Artificial rules' such as what?

As in "you have to have 3 parties" or something.

[epp_b]

I hate to break it to you but it's impossible to have anything but two parties.

OH HAI! I'm the 40th Canadian Parliament and I consist of not three, but four parties!

The PCs are currently the "minority leaders", followed by the Liberals, Bloc QBs and NDPs. We don't vote directly for our Prime Minister; the leader of the party with the most representation (ie.: the most votes) becomes the PM.

Minority governments are great. A party can't just pass through any one-sided crap they want with a minority because they have to get at least a reasonable amount of approval from other parties. This means more diverse opinions and fairer, more representative law.

[katwalk]

Out of curiosity, who here has voted for someone because they wanted them to win, not that they thought they were the less stupid of the two? I certainly never have gotten to.