2 party systems

[airraid81]

Personally, I feel that 2-party systems are the best way to go, because there isn't really many alternatives. You need a limited number of parties to raise money, and if you had individuals with no parties, then it would be much harder to get enough money to run.

But of course, as with everything, there are problems. With 2-party systems, you basically get 2 people who are kind of extreme. The more moderate canidates get knocked out in the primaries.

[TheShrike]

Not much choice? You're saying less choice is the only choice?

And why don't you just come out and say it. Just come out and say "The American Way®", rather than "2 party systems".

As far as having two extremes goes... last time I looked, Republicans and Democrats were two sides of the same corrupt corporate fat-cat ass-kissing personality.

[airraid81]

At 8/2/05 11:46 PM, TheShrike wrote: Not much choice? You're saying less choice is the only choice?

And why don't you just come out and say it. Just come out and say "The American Way®", rather than "2 party systems".

As far as having two extremes goes... last time I looked, Republicans and Democrats were two sides of the same corrupt corporate fat-cat ass-kissing personality.

The Republicans and Democrats are both extremes. Once you label yourself either one, you have to please the voters of whichever you pick so that you can get the nomination, so they won't nominate someone who stands in the middle ground.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 8/2/05 11:39 PM, airraid81 wrote: Personally, I feel that 2-party systems are the best way to go, because there isn't really many alternatives. You need a limited number of parties to raise money, and if you had individuals with no parties, then it would be much harder to get enough money to run.

But of course, as with everything, there are problems. With 2-party systems, you basically get 2 people who are kind of extreme. The more moderate canidates get knocked out in the primaries.

The best party system is a no party system, where representatives are elected to office based on the views they hold rather than what group of spinners and cronies they're in cahoots in. If the people actually gave a shit about politics, they could elect the people that would serve their views and beliefs the best, rather than just pigeonholing themselves in an alignment with a party because of something they heard from a talking head on TV or radio.

[airraid81]

At 8/2/05 11:53 PM, -Illustrious- wrote:

At 8/2/05 11:39 PM, airraid81 wrote:

The best party system is a no party system, where representatives are elected to office based on the views they hold rather than what group of spinners and cronies they're in cahoots in. If the people actually gave a shit about politics, they could elect the people that would serve their views and beliefs the best, rather than just pigeonholing themselves in an alignment with a party because of something they heard from a talking head on TV or radio.

That's not going to happen unless you make an outrageous un-Constitutional law against political parties. There's always going to be a group of people who want to get their way, so instead of having people of simular ideaologies taking votes from each other, they decide the best way to go is to have only one of them run, then they put all their money and resources behind that one person.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 8/2/05 11:58 PM, airraid81 wrote: That's not going to happen unless you make an outrageous un-Constitutional law against political parties.

I didn't say it was going to happen, or that it stands a snowball's chance in hell of happening. But it still doesn't change the fact that it would be better to have that system in place. If you're going to base your criteria about what is the "best system" solely on what is likely to be used in America, then this thread is pointless, because we are too entrenched in a two party system now to dig out.

There's always going to be a group of people who want to get their way, so instead of having people of simular ideaologies taking votes from each other, they decide the best way to go is to have only one of them run, then they put all their money and resources behind that one person.

Of course there will be, because in politics you have to make comprimises to benefit yourself. Sure, people will tend to group together behind stronger candidates, overlooking disagreements on some small issues to help elect one that shares one's views on large issues. A congressional race might be between 4 or 5 strong candidates. Either way, it's much better than having to pidgeonhole or clothespin vote between the two parties now or cast a vote in futility for a third party candidate that doesn't stand a chance.

[ReThink]

At 8/2/05 11:53 PM, -Illustrious- wrote: The best party system is a no party system, where representatives are elected to office based on the views they hold rather than what group of spinners and cronies they're in cahoots in. If the people actually gave a shit about politics, they could elect the people that would serve their views and beliefs the best, rather than just pigeonholing themselves in an alignment with a party because of something they heard from a talking head on TV or radio.

Damn right! The 2 party system divides people up into ideologies and dicourages moderates. Frankly, I hate the US 2 party system. It lumps all of the people of each party from moderate to extreme into 2 categories and you have to choose one despite the fact that neither may be very desirable. In Canada we have 4 political parties which hold a part of the power and one more which is vying for a seat. While our political landscape may be dominated by 2 parties we are a minority government. What that means for you americans who have never heard the term is that the party with the most seats has less then half of the seats.

I love having a minority government, sure it may not be as fast at passing legislation, but everyone gets a say this way and things are much more clarified and moderate. Everyone has a say, and no voices in the government can be discounted. But then, we also have a bit of a tendency for members of parliament to leave their parties when they disagree with the party line, as was seen is the recent same sex marriage debate.

The US government is very unrepresentative with the 2 party system, one party has all the power while the other can't do anything but watch. In the current situation that means that almost half of americans don't have their say in the way their government is run. I would love to see 1 or 2 more parties gain some power in the US to balance things out, it would also be great if governors and senators would break from their party lines on issues, if not abolish the parties altogether.