Should America abolish the two party rule?

[jetsetter]

Here are some advantages of a two-party system:

-- Multiparty systems tend to encourage regional voting, so a
two-party system will tend to have some support from throughout a
country or other electoral unit.

-- Two-party systems tend to be quite stable and predictable (although
obviously not as stable as a one-party system, which has obvious
disadvantages).

-- With two parties, the candidate who wins almost always has a
majority of the votes or close to it. In some other systems, a
candidate can be elected even though supported by a small minority.

-- Both parties in a two-party system tend to see broad support and
thus tend to become politically moderate and better able to rule. In
the USA, for example, both major parties have solid bases they can
count on, so they seek support from the center.

-- A two party system prevents the inequities of split voting. For
example, suppose there are two conservative parties and a liberal
party. If the two conservative parties divide the conservative vote, a
liberal party could win even though most voters are conservative.

-- In a two-party system, it is common for one party or the other to
co-opt ideas that have little support. In a multiparty system, a
minority platform plant may not gain support outside the party that
advocates it.

It does have its advantages.

[BlaRo]

In a two-party system, it is common for one party or the other to co-opt ideas that have little support. In a multiparty system, a minority platform plant may not gain support outside the party that advocates it.

When was the last time that happened? The issues that both parties focus on have always been beaten to death in debate after debate after debate: gun control, abortion, capital punishment, etc. There's no room for new ideas in any of these parties for fear of being too controversial. Where's the advocacy on legalizing marijuana? Or raising the speed limit? Or lowering the drinking age? Or lessening our support of Israel?

I feel that American partisan politics doesn't accomplish any of the things you've mentioned as well as it sets out to do, and has only succeeded in driving "red state" and "blue state" politics even more divisively against each other. Before Obama was elected American youth interest in politics was at an all-time low - and certainly now that the elation of having a black president is wearing off, it seems like it's "down to business again." And it's certainly to blame for outlandish statements like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh calling Obama a "racist."

[Firecat]

Some of those "advantages" better fit a one-party system. If a third party is pressing an issue which is gaining public support, it would force the 2 major parties closer to their position. Just look through history and you can see the changes that were brought around due to third parties.

With more voices and choices I'm sure we can get a higher turnout than 60% thus more people would be represented. Roughly, Obama received around 30% of the votes from eligible voters.

[katwalk]

Originally Posted by Firecat

Roughly, Obama received around 30% of the votes from eligible voters.

And a large percent of people I know who voted for him did so because the idea of palin being anywhere near the white house was frighting.

[BlaRo]

Originally Posted by katwalk

And a large percent of people I know who voted for him did so because the idea of palin being anywhere near the white house was frighting.

I always thought McCain would have had a stronger chance at the presidency if he had chosen anyone BUT Palin, in a desperate attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator rather than the actual question of how much of an effective leader she would be in the first place.

[katwalk]

Originally Posted by BlaRo

I always thought McCain would have had a stronger chance at the presidency if he had chosen anyone BUT Palin, in a desperate attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator rather than the actual question of how much of an effective leader she would be in the first place.

He basically proved right there he was shit at decision making and that is what swayed me over to obama. I was really on the fence until then.

[Dogbert]

-- Two-party systems tend to be quite stable and predictable (although obviously not as stable as a one-party system, which has obvious disadvantages).

"Stable and predictable" aren't necessarily a good thing, when you're as inept as our current legislators are. They're only "stable and predictable" because they're too busy sucking to actually get anything meaningful done.

-- With two parties, the candidate who wins almost always has a majority of the votes or close to it. In some other systems, a candidate can be elected even though supported by a small minority.

When has a President been elected from a "clear majority"?

[BlaRo]

By the way, to the OP: what's the difference between selecting "no" and selecting "I am fine with the current system?" Isn't that, you know, rather redundant?

[tigger]

Originally Posted by jayhawk

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.
...
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.

I would be absolutely in favor of such a system, but what a nightmare it would be getting there. You would be fighting two massive political machines. Sweeping laws regarding campaign finance and redistricting would be required. In the end it would no doubt require amending the Constitution, (I wouldn't expect much help from legislators on that) likely meaning the passing of a referendum vote in 2/3 of states. Which I think has only happened once?

Of course any of this would require the 90% of Americans who know nothing about politics to wake up. I actually think that would be the most difficult part.

Originally Posted by BlaRo

Sometimes I even feel bad for Ralph Nader.

Don't ever say that.


I know what you mean. I don't fit either parties "ticket" and they sure as hell won't work together, so where does that leave me?

Originally Posted by nomix

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.

Something needs to be done about campaign financing for certain, but redistricting is a very interesting area that gets little attention. Both those issues are pretty close to home for me, too.

Missouri's legislature is being seriously corrupted by a former House speaker named Rod Jetton and some of his GOP buddies. Last year they got a law passed allowing unlimited campaign donations and now whenever lawmakers vote the way that Jetton "consults" them to they miraculously get tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations.

In Kansas, Republican lawmakers have in the past used their control of the legislature to boost their own re-election prospects through redistricting. IIRC Texas and oh, almost every other state has had similar problems. It's already hard enough for a Democrat to get elected in Kansas without having to deal with screwy districts. There are only 6 states in the union that use a non-partisan committees to determine district lines. I think that should be required in all states.

Since this post is already huge, I won't even start on religion in politics and how much I hate it.

Originally Posted by Viper007Bond

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

Funny, it seems to work just fine for quite a few countries around the world.

Originally Posted by 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.

I have not. Unfortunately I live in Kansas, where just about all politicians think that Obama is a Muslim terrorist from Kenya, taxes on anything is the devil, and I dunno, probably that only white landholding men should speak in public.

Originally Posted by jetsetter

It does have its advantages.

A relative stability is the only upshot I see. I think a proportional representation system with multiple parties in our House of Representatives would be a great place to start. Also, the electoral college needs to go away. Despite it doing neat stuff like technically making my vote for president worth something like twice that of a Californian. I am twice the man that Arnold Schwarzenegger is!

[Viper007Bond]

Originally Posted by tigger

Funny, it seems to work just fine for quite a few countries around the world.

Forgive my ignorance, but is it really more than two party? Or do the multiple so-called parties just team up and become two big groups? See earlier example where parties want to alliance to become more powerful.

Really that's what's happening in the US, it's just that few people know the names of the sub-groups and you can't vote directly for them. For example, the Blue Dogs. They have views that are quite a bit different than a lot of Democrats, but they're still technically Democrats as they'd be rather powerless on their own.

Don't get me wrong -- I'd love more choices, but if say the Republicans were to split up into two groups (normal Republicans and crazy religious Republicans for example), the Democrats would stomp them in the polls as the Republican votes would be split between the two new parties.

[Dogbert]

Originally Posted by Viper007Bond

Don't get me wrong -- I'd love more choices, but if say the Republicans were to split up into two groups (normal Republicans and crazy religious Republicans for example), the Democrats would stomp them in the polls as the Republican votes would be split between the two new parties.

Which has happened. I feel the Democrats would split up between carbon-counting Democrats and just normal, anti-rape Democrats, though.


At the risk of sounding like a crazy nutjob, I want to take this one step further and say we should abolish the union of the states. Stay with me for a second. I'm bored at work and want to explain this a little.

If you look at just about any graph of how states vote in elections (the 2008 ones being a prime example), you get four distinct areas that actually divide very neatly geographically:

- The West Coast (CA, NV, OR, WA, and HI), very Democrat
- The West (ID, MT, ND, WY, SD, UT, CO, NE, AZ, NM, KS, OK, TX, AK), very Republican
- The South (LA, AR, MS, AL, GA, FL, SC, TN, NC, KY, WV, VA), fairly Republican
- The North (MN, IA, MO, WI, IL, MI, IN, OH, PA, NY, ME, VT, etc.), very Democrat

All of these regions, together, are constantly fighting amongst each other in Congress. As I see it, most of the problem as to why our government is so terribly inefficient is because it's trying to sort out the differences between these regions to come together to solve problems, all the while trying to make 300,000,000 people happy.

If you make the regions into their own countries, they can govern however they want, which means they can (theoretically) get more done. Also, each region only has to worry about tens of millions of people, not hundreds of millions as it stands now.

But that won't decrease the regions influence in the world scale by any means. None of them will certainly be "AMERICA #1 SUPERPOWER FUCK YEAH" anymore, but they'll be on equal footing population-wise with the rest of the developed world:

- West Coast: South Africa, South Korea
- West: Italy, Myanmar
- South: Iran, Egypt
- North: Japan, Mexico

... so it's not like this split will cause all these regions to just fall off the world radar.

I might make a thread about this, instead of threadjacking jayhawk's nice thread, but I want to see where it goes first.

[Cold Fussion]

We talking a sort of Holy roman empire setup Dogbert?

[Dogbert]

Neg, completely autonomous and separate countries; the Union would be dissolved, as it were. This would allow each new country to determine their own governance style; i.e. number of parties, binding documents, etc.

[AiR]

I do not think the word "abolish" is fitting to the situation but yes, I would like to see more partys. Would make it more exciting, interesting and hopefully relevant to the peoples desires I think. With the internet it's easy to start a party, just look at the Pirates.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, only with systems where 'the winner takes all'.

Originally Posted by 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.

I have done that, a couple of times.

Originally Posted by jetsetter

-- In a two-party system, it is common for one party or the other to
co-opt ideas that have little support. In a multiparty system, a
minority platform plant may not gain support outside the party that
advocates it.

The dems and the GOP were able to agree over war and torture.

Originally Posted by katwalk

And a large percent of people I know who voted for him did so because the idea of palin being anywhere near the white house was frighting.

What's funny is that before the election, a Norwegian historian called Hans Olav Lahlum wrote a book about the Presidents, and included a profile of the two presidential candidates. He specificly wrote that

"As McCain is older, with known illnesses, it is essential that he choses a Vice-Presidential candidate that is not controversial, one that seem to be stable enough to assume the office shall he die [...]"

And he chose.. SARAH PALIN!

[thevictor390]

Originally Posted by AiR

I do not think the word "abolish" is fitting to the situation but yes, I would like to see more partys. Would make it more exciting, interesting and hopefully relevant to the peoples desires I think. With the internet it's easy to start a party, just look at the Pirates.

I would like to see no parties. It wouldn't work, but I'd like to see it.

[tigger]

Originally Posted by Viper007Bond

Forgive my ignorance, but is it really more than two party? Or do the multiple so-called parties just team up and become two big groups? See earlier example where parties want to alliance to become more powerful.
...
Don't get me wrong -- I'd love more choices, but if say the Republicans were to split up into two groups (normal Republicans and crazy religious Republicans for example), the Democrats would stomp them in the polls as the Republican votes would be split between the two new parties.

Parties form coalitions as necessary to pass legislation or create governments. But that does not mean its a de facto two party system of government. Or a one party system. You would have actual parties for everything from libertarians to communists. Parties that wouldn't be afraid to propose or back varied legislation.

The situation you describe is happening under our current system (see the NY-23 election). But it would be a non issue if we had a system of proportional representation. Then all 3 parties would be represented because each party would get the same share of seats as they got of the vote.

Originally Posted by Dogbert

Neg, completely autonomous and separate countries; the Union would be dissolved, as it were. This would allow each new country to determine their own governance style; i.e. number of parties, binding documents, etc.

I don't see that ending well at all. Because then they wouldn't just be regional conflicts between a bunch of fat old white guys in Congress. It would be regional conflicts between different countries with different ideas, institutions and standing armies.

[SpitfireMK461]

Originally Posted by thevictor390

I would like to see no parties. It wouldn't work, but I'd like to see it.

I agree. George Washington had the right idea.

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."

Political parties are the bane of government. They create unnecessary division and dispute often just because of party labels and not individual ideals. People should not be judged on the party they register with, but on what they truly believe and what they do. As long as we have organized parties, though, that will never be the case.

I am a registered democrat, but I'd rather just be a liberal here and a conservative there. Unfortunately, in this day and age, you lose all strength outside of a party. If only the country could once again be led by a President who takes no side.

[epp_b]

Ha ... I only "got" it now that Jayhawk meant "rule" as a verb, not a noun

[teeb]

Originally Posted by tigger

Parties form coalitions as necessary to pass legislation or create governments. But that does not mean its a de facto two party system of government. Or a one party system. You would have actual parties for everything from libertarians to communists. Parties that wouldn't be afraid to propose or back varied legislation.

They don't necessarily form coalitions. Another possibility is minority government - a notion that has its own advantages and disadvantages.

Minority government isn't uncommon. Scotland has a minority government at the moment, for example, and I believe Canada do too.

It basically means every issue has to be negiotiated and fully debated. It does lead to some stalemates and to (it could be argued) a diluted and less exciting government program, but that's debatable.