Should America abolish the two party rule?

[epp_b]

It does lead to some stalemates and to (it could be argued) a diluted and less exciting government program, but that's debatable.

Exciting Exschmiting. I'll take fair legislation, please.

[efoolution]

While our German System is far from perfect and has lots of faults too ... I do prefer it quite a lot to only being able to choose between two parties ...

On the question if America should change in that aspect towards a "more parties" system ... IMveryHO they should. But then I doubt, they can. It´s too much the american way, too much at the core of things. From my POV the US love their a or b, yes or no, right or wrong, black or white* approach to things. There seems to be only little in the middle, few people who are willing to compromise with others ... so I don´t really see a Multi-party system emerge in US ...


* no racial reference meant here

[jeffy777]

Originally Posted by katwalk

Yes because we only have 2 flavors of stupid now.

So true.

[Thomas93]

We have numerous parties here, from racists to legalising cannabis groups. The system is still hugely dominated by two parties. Yes the others get a say but their voice is hardly ever heard, and they don't have the power to make much difference. As Nick Griffin (Leader Of The BNP, who are viewed as racists) proved with an appearance on question time where the "Big 3" in British Politics were also there. The Labour party, the conservatives and the Liberal democrats. When the parties sense a chance to get the public on their side they all take the high road, condoning Mr Griffin and his policies and generally giving themselves the moral high ground."Yes, we do take your money and put in over zealous claims but hey, least i'm not racist" approach. Having more parties does not give us as great a variety as you think, but rather like the last general election, many wanted Blair out but were torn between the conservatives and the democrats, the two parties were canibalising votes for each other while Labour went ahead and won with an extremely small majority.

[jetsetter]

I'm hesitant to give up a system that was worked generally well for the last 233 years. With the exception of the Civil War the United States has been remarkable stable when compared to the various European countries mentioned in the previous posts.

[salle]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

I'm hesitant to give up a system that was worked generally well for the last 233 years. With the exception of the Civil War the United States has been remarkable stable when compared to the various European countries mentioned in the previous posts.

What kind of reasoning is that?
You really have no clue what you're talking about or you're mixing domestic politic stability with foreign politic stability...
Lets take Denmark as an example, became a true democracy (i.e. female suffrage) in 1915, the last civil war they fought was in 1864, when two regions wanted to become independent as they saw themselves as Germans rather than Danish. So overly simplified it was at the heart a nationalistic dispute. You would claim that their system is unstable or less stable than that of USA?
Give me an example of a current unstable constitution or system of governance in any of the countries mentioned so far?

[Thomas93]

But at the end of the day it's not just a civil war!

Salle at the risk of sounding slihtly off-topic the German party system shows no benifit to me, just seems like it will cause more in-fighting.

[BlaRo]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

I'm hesitant to give up a system that was worked generally well for the last 233 years.

Spoken like a true conservative.

[tigger]

Originally Posted by efoolution

On the question if America should change in that aspect towards a "more parties" system ... IMveryHO they should. But then I doubt, they can. It´s too much the american way, too much at the core of things. From my POV the US love their a or b, yes or no, right or wrong, black or white* approach to things. There seems to be only little in the middle, few people who are willing to compromise with others ... so I don´t really see a Multi-party system emerge in US ...

I can tell you that in my experience, everyone I know from died-in-the-wool conservatives to @#$%ing hippies would like to see us move towards a multi-party system. The problem is that current legislators will not pass the necessary reforms to support that (they don't want to lose their jobs after all) and because of that it's just so much harder for 3rd parties to break into the current system.

It's apparent if you look at the NY-23 election going on now. The right is split between the Republicans and "Conservatives". The Republican candidate is pretty far left for a Republican, so a lot of right-wing leaders have backed the 3rd party Conservative candidate. It's being turned into a 3 way election just because the Republicans tried to run such a liberal candidate. That just illustrates what happens when you try to create these "big tent" parties.

Originally Posted by salle

Give me an example of a current unstable constitution or system of governance in any of the countries mentioned so far?

Italy . Okay, okay, that one hasn't been mentioned. As far as I'm concerned, the US was created as a sort of experiment in democracy ... and we gave up on that idea long ago. Personally I think that we shouldn't have. A large part of the problem is certainly the 2 party system. Who quoted Washington talking about the pitfalls of political parties? Ah Spitfire. I think that's dead on. And teeb you got me on minority governments; completely slipped my mind. But then I've never been to interested in the form of government, just the function.

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by BlaRo

Spoken like a true conservative.

I do not deny it. Some seem far to ready to throw away a system that has, for all of its faults, done quite well. As I said earlier, the United States is unique in its stability for a country of its size and complexity. Welding together such a diverse people spread over such a large amount of land is quite difficult and there are plenty examples of failures to achieve what the United States has achieved.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

I'm hesitant to give up a system that was worked generally well for the last 233 years. With the exception of the Civil War the United States has been remarkable stable when compared to the various European countries mentioned in the previous posts.

Would the United States be less stable if you elected your number one guy by adding up the votes?

[Dogbert]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

Some seem far to ready to throw away a system that has, for all of its faults, done quite well.

Only you could look at the past decade of politics in the US and go "yeah, that's gone quite well".

In damn near every way besides the military, the US spends more to achieve less than any other developed country in the world. Why? I blame the endless partisan bickering and massive bureaucracy.

[Cobol74]

Vote Joanna Lumley. (Well I would if I could).

We have a De Facto two party system - it would work if our Politicians were not so really, really poor. Mind you - no place to hide if you are poor. In a country with a consensus type government then you get in-competence disguised.

[nomix]

Well, when you've got a system where a party can get 23 % of the popular mandate and still only end up with 3 % of the seats in the houses of commons, you're pretty much stuck with two parties.

[shellygrrl]

To answer the poll question: HELL YES. (FYI: I'm from one of only two states that has, in the past, elected a Governor who was neither Republican nor Democrat, have voted neither R nor D in any of the gubernatorial or presidential elections I've voted in, and I'm not registered with any political party.)

That said...

Originally Posted by 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.

Mainly because the masses have their heads shoved so far up their backsides (or something) that they don't inform themselves of the other options out there for them.

Originally Posted by tigger

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.

Indeed. I would love dearly to see proportional representation or something a la Canada and the UK; but it would, pretty much, be a nightmare.

Originally Posted by teeb

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.

Canada's had a minority Conservative government for quite a few years (since, what, 2004/05?). Mainly because no one trusts Stephen Harper enough to give the Cons a majority; they're not into Iggy; and it'll be a frosty day in hell before they give the NDP a chance to run the show (and lord know the Bloc Quebecois never will). But I digress.

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.

And then there's the "No Confidence" motions!

[NooDle]

[tigger]

Originally Posted by nomix

Well, when you've got a system where a party can get 23 % of the popular mandate and still only end up with 3 % of the seats in the houses of commons, you're pretty much stuck with two parties.

Or you can get 23% of the vote and get ... 35% of the seats.

I wouldn't want a SMP parliamentary system. It makes our electoral college look like the cutting edge of democracy.