The Two Party System

[Snatch]

Who thinks its flawed? Why/Why Not?

This is my quick opinion:

I think the two party system is fucked. If election time does nothing else, it teaches us that the two party system is completely flawed. They galvanize the masses with their black and white bullshit (this election literally). Neither said has any sort of accountability. Incumbents in congress trounce the competition, despite approval ratings lower than George Bush's. No one can ever make a difference in this country. Look at Obama, what is he really going to change? Absolutely nothing. There's still going to be a graduated income tax. There's still going to be an overbearing federal government. The United States is still going to have foreign dependency. The list goes on and on. So what difference does it make who we vote for? The power is always going to be in the hands of a rich protestant with special interests. There is no accountability for politicians. Do a shitty job, and go right back to the private sector, or high paying speaking engagements. They can do whatever they want.

[Archangel]

I think five parties are the way to go. One for each extreme, one moderate on each side, and one dead centre. That way, the moderate left and right parties don't have to pander to the retards at the fringes, while when there is no clear majority, the centre party (or even the fringes) can act as a coalition partner to whomever is most in tune with the realities of the day.

It's not perfect, but FAR better than this "for us or against us" mentality inherent to a two party system.

[Da Raider]

the two major parties will continue to do everything in their power to keep it a two party game.

[Archangel]

They've been pretty good at that, haven't they?

[fuldstændigamok]

I would say the more the merrier, but it has been known to fuck up elections too, so yeah, 5 seems like a nice, reasonable number.

[Archangel]

The problem is that you would need a viable right fringe party to appear at the same time as a left-wing one, because otherwise, people won't vote for one in order to keep the other guys out.

[Archangel]

I would say the more the merrier, but it has been known to fuck up elections too, so yeah, 5 seems like a nice, reasonable number.

Yeah, any more, and you get the kind of cluster-fuck they've been having in Italy since the war.

[fuldstændigamok]

Yeah, any more, and you get the kind of cluster-fuck they've been having in Italy since the war.

Or how Sarko won the last election, what with 5/6 far-left parties each stealing 1 or 2% from the socialists who would have won easily otherwise.

[Archangel]

Or how Sarko won the last election, what with 5/6 far-left parties each stealing 1 or 2% from the socialists who would have won easily otherwise.

Which is why you need a 5% minimum to be let into parliament.

I think I just described our system in Germany, with the difference being that there are two far left parties here instead of one.

[Rover]

I think five parties are the way to go. One for each extreme, one moderate on each side, and one dead centre. That way, the moderate left and right parties don't have to pander to the retards at the fringes, while when there is no clear majority, the centre party can act as a coalition partner to whomever is most in tune with the realities of the day.

It's not perfect, but FAR better than this "for us or against us" mentality inherent to a two party system.2 parties is better than 5. It mutes everyone's voice and moderates everything already. You bitch about American evangelicals, but what gets legislated in their name? Ban on abortion? National ban on gay marriage? Bible taught as the literal word of God in school? No, none of that. On the flip side. What about the tree worshipping Greens? None of their dirt and water worship agenda gets passed either.

The problem with European political parties is that it gives more than a voice to the fringe. It gives them electibility and their ideas credit. Look at that Austrian fascist leader that was killed in a car accident a month or so ago. A fascist that had an active voice in government? No thank you.

I'll take the muted tones of Democrats and Republicans in all their wishy washy beigeness.

[Snatch]

In the United States, election and campaign laws do everything they can do disenfranchise third party and independent candidates.

It's nearly impossible to complete the paperwork without a team of lawyers. So, if you don't run with the big boys, and you're not rich, it's nearly impossible for you to run.

They wouldn't let Obama do anything. Why do the Democrats actually want "Change."

[Yelram]

The two party system ensures that atleast half of the electorate gets their way, otherwise, theres far more people who dont get what they want. The parties change with the issues at hand. I dont see a problem with the system. I see far more problems with introducing more parties than I see with keeping two.

[Snatch]

2 parties is better than 5. It mutes everyone's voice and moderates everything already. You bitch about American evangelicals, but what gets legislated in their name? Ban on abortion? National ban on gay marriage? Bible taught as the literal word of God in school? No, none of that. On the flip side. What about the tree worshipping Greens? None of their dirt and water worship agenda gets passed either?

The problem with European political parties is that it gives more than a voice to the fringe. It gives them electibility and their ideas credit. Look at that Austrian fascist leader that was killed in a car accident a month or so ago. A fascist that had an active voice in government? No thank you.

I'll take the muted tones of Democrats and Republicans in all their wishy washy beigeness.

Wow.

[Archangel]

You bitch about American evangelicals, but what gets legislated in their name? Ban on abortion? National ban on gay marriage? Bible taught as the literal word of God in school? No, none of that.

The fact that those are even agendas brought forth to the national public tells me that they have too much power.

[Archangel]

Oh, and the Austrians will always be fascists to some degree. Remember where Hitler was from, and remember that their longest-tenured post-war president was a nazi war criminal.

[Limp]

ABORT THE GAYS!

[fuldstændigamok]

The problem with European political parties is that it gives more than a voice to the fringe. It gives them electibility and their ideas credit. Look at that Austrian fascist leader that was killed in a car accident a month or so ago. A fascist that had an active voice in government? No thank you.

True enough. But that's also the definition of democracy. Sometimes it sucks, granted, but still, on the long run, it works nicely enough for me.

[Yelram]

True enough. But that's also the definition of democracy. Sometimes it sucks, granted, but still, on the long run, it works nicely enough for me.

Thats why we have a representative democracy. People are stupid, and if you give equal power to everyone with an idea, you end up taking a good idea, and adding all sorts of spiel to it until its suddenly a bad idea.

[Archangel]

Yeah, I thought the point of democracy was to give everyone a voice. It's the centre majorities' responsibility to keep the ship righted in such a fashion as to safeguard against the exodus of the masses towards the fringes.

[Snatch]

I'm also not suggesting proportional representation.

I'm saying that all of the legislation that goes out of its way to benefit the two party system is what needs to be stopped. The gerrymandering, special interest, overlegalized bullshit.

I say, let the major candidates try to fill out their own campaign paperwork, and if they can't do it, they shouldn't be able to run. That alone would even out the playing field.

[Da Raider]

I'm all for a third party gaining legitimacy.

[Snatch]

Thats why we have a representative democracy. People are stupid, and if you give equal power to everyone with an idea, you end up taking a good idea, and adding all sorts of spiel to it until its suddenly a bad idea.

People are stupid. Most of the posters in this thread are more intelligent than Sarah Palin. You'd have her be president of the United States.

I have to choose between a ticket with a retard/old guy, and an affirmative action candidate. How is that representative?

There has never been anything other than rich protestants that have survived terms as presidents. How is that representative?

Taking good ideas and adding all sorts of spiel to it? Sounds like every bill in congress. Like when your boy Bill Frist worked as hard as he possibly could to sneak through legislation that would stop online gambling.

[Archangel]

Yeah, well, it wasn't exactly that one rich Catholic's own fault that he didn't run for a second term...

[Yelram]

I'm also not suggesting proportional representation.

I'm saying that all of the legislation that goes out of its way to benefit the two party system is what needs to be stopped. The gerrymandering, special interest, overlegalized bullshit.

I say, let the major candidates try to fill out their own campaign paperwork, and if they can't do it, they shouldn't be able to run. That alone would even out the playing field.

A third party comes about when the other two are fucking up, its happened several times in the past. If Obama drops the ball, I'll probably look to rally behind a third party, unless the repubs pick someone decent.

[Archangel]

I love it how Yelram now wants the US to go in the shitter even more just so he can tell people that he was right all along.

[Snatch]

Yeah, well, it wasn't exactly that one rich Catholic's own fault that he didn't run for a second term...

Seems coincidental that both Kennedy's were killed.

[fuldstændigamok]

A third party comes about when the other two are fucking up, its happened several times in the past. If Obama drops the ball, I'll probably look to rally behind a third party, unless the repubs pick someone decent.

When? Has a US prez ever been independant? I'm no expert but I think that I won't be wrong saying that all of them have been either rep or dem.

[Snatch]

A third party comes about when the other two are fucking up, its happened several times in the past. If Obama drops the ball, I'll probably look to rally behind a third party, unless the repubs pick someone decent.

Oh, when they're fucking up. Have you seen the approval ratings? Have you seen the economy? Have you seen the war in Iraq?

What more do they have to fuck up?

You're basically saying, "it's ok to fuck with voter's rights, suppress thought, suppress speech, and fuck with the constitution, because it's easier that way."

[Archangel]

Yep, that sounds like the Yeller I know.

[Yelram]

I love it how Yelram now wants the US to go in the shitter even more just so he can tell people that he was right all along.

You are just making shit up now man. I really want the US to go into the shitter? I VOTED FOR OBAMA ASSHOLE, in the primaries. The DEMS want the US economy to be bad, they want us to lose in Iraq, they want those things because it helps get them elected. I can show you the names of the democratic senators that voted FOR the Iraq war, and less than a year later were running on a "against war" platform. So fuck off, you have no clue what you're talking about.

[Snatch]

When? Has a US prez ever been independant? I'm no expert but I think that I won't be wrong saying that all of them have been either rep or dem.

There used to be whigs, federalists, etc.

[Archangel]

You are just making shit up now man. I really want the US to go into the shitter? I VOTED FOR OBAMA ASSHOLE, in the primaries. The DEMS want the US economy to be bad, they want us to lose in Iraq, they want those things because it helps get them elected. I can show you the names of the democratic senators that voted FOR the Iraq war, and less than a year later were running on a "against war" platform. So fuck off, you have no clue what you're talking about.

A third party comes about when the other two are fucking up, its happened several times in the past. If Obama drops the ball, I'll probably look to rally behind a third party, unless the repubs pick someone decent.

To me, that sounded like you didn't mind the idea.

And you're illustrating my point. The fact that people vote for some shit they're against says to me that people are pandering to certain people in search of votes.

[Snatch]

To me, that sounded like you didn't mind the idea.

And you're illustrating my point. The fact that people vote for some shit they're against says to me that people are pandering to certain people in search of votes.

Not even that.

They tow a party line. If something goes wrong, you blame it on the other side. They all run together. That way it's black or white. You're with us or them. They vote with the war, in unison, and against, in unison. The rest is just talking points.

Then it's easy. Anytime something goes wrong, they don't need to figure out solutions or make themselves accountable. All they do is blame it on the other side, and people without a reasonable alternative, continue to stay with their own party.

[Yelram]

When? Has a US prez ever been independant? I'm no expert but I think that I won't be wrong saying that all of them have been either rep or dem.

This is exactly why you fucking Euros should mind your own business. We dont pretend like we understand whats going on in your political system, so dont sit here and pretend like you even know the history of the US. Abraham Lincoln was the FIRST REPUBLICAN. During the civil war there was a "national union" party, which he was under for his second term. Since then, Republicans have more or less been the dominant party (with FDR and Clinton being the exception) So any overturn of the status quo is epitomized within the Democratic party. So it is your job, as the one looking to change things, to shape the democratic party agenda to closer fit yours.

[Archangel]

Hey, I knew that stuff. Don't lump me in with that Frenchman.

[fuldstændigamok]

To be fair, I DID mention that I was no expert.

[Snatch]

This is exactly why you fucking Euros should mind your own business. We dont pretend like we understand whats going on in your political system, so dont sit here and pretend like you even know the history of the US. Abraham Lincoln was the FIRST REPUBLICAN. During the civil war there was a "national union" party, which he was under for his second term. Since then, Republicans have more or less been the dominant party (with FDR and Clinton being the exception) So any overturn of the status quo is epitomized within the Democratic party. So it is your job, as the one looking to change things, to shape the democratic party agenda to closer fit yours.

Really dude? You don't remember how many southerners flipped their parties during the civil rights period? They were democrats and became republicans? You're citing party changes that happened 150 years ago. In the first 90 years of a democracy, a lot of changes happened. Big fucking surprise. Since then, very few changes. I guess they figured everything out perfectly!

Really though, Democrats are secondary to Republicans in dominance? Were you in the same history class as Palin?

There haven't been too many fewer Democrat presidents, and FDR held office for more than 2 terms.

A democrat put someone on the moon. A democrat dropped the atomic bomb. A democrat started the vietnam war. A democrat was president during World War I. A democrat was president when the UN was founded.

[Yelram]

Really dude? You don't remember how many southerners flipped their parties during the civil rights period? They were democrats and became republicans? You're citing party changes that happened 150 years ago. In the first 90 years of a democracy, a lot of changes happened. Big fucking surprise. Since then, very few changes. I guess they figured everything out perfectly!

Really though, Democrats are secondary to Republicans in dominance? Were you in the same history class as Palin?

There haven't been too many fewer Democrat presidents, and FDR held office for more than 2 terms.

A democrat put someone on the moon. A democrat dropped the atomic bomb. A democrat started the vietnam war. A democrat was president during World War I. A democrat was president when the UN was founded.

Ummm, you're wrong. Go look at the list of presidents since Lincoln, and tell me the republicans arent the dominant party.

25 republican terms 100 years
15 democrat terms. 60 years

So 40 years isnt dominance?

[Archangel]

To be fair, I DID mention that I was no expert.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that Yelram doesn't know Pétain's first name(s).

[Snatch]

Ummm, you're wrong. Go look at the list of presidents since Lincoln, and tell me the republicans arent the dominant party.

Counting Lincoln? 84-60 in years if my really quick math is right. Lincoln wasn't the first Republican candidate though.

[Snatch]

Ummm, you're wrong. Go look at the list of presidents since Lincoln, and tell me the republicans arent the dominant party.

25 republican terms.
15 democrat terms.

So, there's been 160 years since 1860?

[Snatch]

Since 1908 its 54-46. That number will probably be equal by 2016.

[Stax]

Yelram, again, do you understand that the Republican and Democratic parties of Lincoln's era are not the same thing as today? That a huge part of (to use an easy example) FDR's big wins was a Strong South that now almost entirely votes Republican?

[Feng]

Yelram, again, do you understand that the Republican and Democratic parties of Lincoln's era are not the same thing as today? That a huge part of (to use an easy example) FDR's big wins was a Strong South that now almost entirely votes Republican?

It even used to be called the Democratic-Republican party.

[Yelram]

Yelram, again, do you understand that the Republican and Democratic parties of Lincoln's era are not the same thing as today? That a huge part of (to use an easy example) FDR's big wins was a Strong South that now almost entirely votes Republican?

No shit, whats your point? The democrat party isnt the same as it was 10 years ago. That is more information in SUPPORT of the 2 party system. The parties change. But either way, since Lincoln, its been very slanted towards republicans.

[Yelram]

It even used to be called the Democratic-Republican party.

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0331130-00&templatename=/art

It wasnt the same party dipshit.

[Stax]

No shit, whats your point? The democrat party isnt the same as it was 10 years ago. That is more information in SUPPORT of the 2 party system. The parties change. But either way, since Lincoln, its been very slanted towards republicans.

But that's a meaningless statement. The rankings of teams with the most World Series wins are:

1. New York Yankees (26)
2. St. Louis Cardinals (10)
3. Philadelphia/Oakland Athletics (9)

But none of those three teams were even in the playoffs this year. This is obviously an imperfect example as the Yankees actually have shown continued success across eras, but the point holds. The fact that Lincoln won 2 terms as a Republican in 1860 and 1864 has absolutely zero meaning on any sort of Republican dominance in terms of presidential races today (in the same way a 1910 World Series win by the Athletics has nothing to do with what they're going to do next season).

[Yelram]

But that's a meaningless statement. The rankings of teams with the most World Series wins are:

1. New York Yankees (26)
2. St. Louis Cardinals (10)
3. Philadelphia/Oakland Athletics (9)

But none of those three teams were even in the playoffs this year. This is obviously an imperfect example as the Yankees actually have shown continued success across eras, but the point holds. The fact that Lincoln won 2 terms as a Republican in 1860 and 1864 has absolutely zero meaning on any sort of Republican dominance in terms of presidential races today (in the same way a 1910 World Series win by the Athletics has nothing to do with what they're going to do next season).

Wow, seriously, am I talking some other language. The point began as "there have been other parties", then I said "since Lincoln, the republicans have been the dominant of the two parties". I never said "since Lincoln won, and Eisenhower won, Mccain is sure to win". I picked Lincoln because he was the last president elected to a party that wasnt republican and wasnt Democrat, hence the title of the thread.

[Archangel]

It's always baseball with Stax, innit.

[Genius]

I don't think the system is broken. I think the system is very subject to manipulation, and that the people currently populating the system don't have ethics, integrity, or political altruism anywhere on their agenda. I think the never-ending election cycle is to blame for this erosion of ideals, because in order to build the political capital to win an election, ideals must be sacrificed. This is especially true of the Presidency. So rather than changing the fucked up system, I think the better answer is to change the fucked up people who fucked up the system.

That's why we all should vote ANTI-INCUMBENT in 2012.

[Stax]

Wow, seriously, am I talking some other language. The point began as "there have been other parties", then I said "since Lincoln, the republicans have been the dominant of the two parties". I never said "since Lincoln won, and Eisenhower won, Mccain is sure to win". I picked Lincoln because he was the last president elected to a party that wasnt republican and wasnt Democrat, hence the title of the thread.

Well that's just fine and dandy, but the two-party system of Lincoln's time has realigned 3ish times since then (McKinley, FDR, then a missing realignment in the 60s that possibly waited until Reagan)

It's always baseball with Stax, innit.

Yes, yes it is.

[Yelram]

Well that's just fine and dandy, but the two-party system of Lincoln's time has realigned 3ish times since then (McKinley, FDR, then a missing realignment in the 60s that possibly waited until Reagan)



Yes, yes it is.

Of course it did. I dont know what you're trying to prove here. You are doing nothing but making my point. I believe in the two party system because the parties are not static.

[Stax]

Of course it did. I dont know what you're trying to prove here. You are doing nothing but making my point. I believe in the two party system because the parties are not static.

Huh? Then why were you mentioning the total terms held by each party in the first place? That's my confusion, because those are largely meaningless numbers because while they are the same in name they are not the same party (not static, as you say).

[Yelram]

Huh? Then why were you mentioning the total terms held by each party in the first place? That's my confusion, because those are largely meaningless numbers because while they are the same in name they are not the same party (not static, as you say).

Can you read? Or do I need to rehash the goings-on of this thread? I said republicans have been the dominant party since Lincoln. Snatch said "duh, where did you study history, the same place as Sarah Palin!!" . And so to show him how wrong he was, I attempted to post the years associated with republican rule vs. dem rule. Although unsuccessfully do to the assassinations, and resignations, that manipulate the actual years vs. guy in charge.

[Insomniac]

The way the system has been set up from the beginning, it's a two-party system. We didn't just luck into what we have now. The United States tried to stay away from political parties, but it's the most effective way to get shit done because it's essentially just vote-trading on a larger, more organized scale. And when it comes to federal government, it's always been an ideological struggle of less vs. more, from Federalists and Anti-Federalists to today.

Third parties in America have supplanted the major parties only once (when several of them found enough common ground [slavery] to form their own party), but many times their agendas have become popular enough they're incorporated into the major party's platform, as recently as Perot's complaints being taken into the Republican party.

The American two-party system acts as a moderating force on the impulses of extremes by forcing them to appeal to the "great middle" of moderates to get anything done at all. That may not be the best way, but it is a very stable way, and it still allows growth and change.

[Stax]

Can you read? Or do I need to rehash the goings-on of this thread? I said republicans have been the dominant party since Lincoln. Snatch said "duh, where did you study history, the same place as Sarah Palin!!" . And so to show him how wrong he was, I attempted to post the years associated with republican rule vs. dem rule. Although unsuccessfully do to the assassinations, and resignations, that manipulate the actual years vs. guy in charge.

... You said literally ONE post ago that your 'point' was that the two parties are not static.

Why would you care (or cite) how many terms one party (by name) has held anything if your 'point' is that while the name stays the same the party does not? "Republican" dominance by name is a meaningless statement because the Republicans of Lincoln's time would likely be 1960s Democrats (fighting for civil rights), Republicans of McKinley's time would be today's staunch economic conservatives, Republicans of FDR's times would be the Chris Shays/Lincoln Chafee's of the world, and we see today Reagan Republicans and perhaps shades of whatever the next generation of Republicans will be. Saying that "Republicans" (using one broad term) dominated is a wholly stupid and meaningless statement, especially if your 'point' understood the fact that parties are changing entities.

[Yelram]

... You said literally ONE post ago that your 'point' was that the two parties are not static.

Why would you care (or cite) how many terms one party (by name) has held anything if your 'point' is that while the name stays the same the party does not? "Republican" dominance by name is a meaningless statement because the Republicans of Lincoln's time would likely be 1960s Democrats (fighting for civil rights), Republicans of McKinley's time would be today's staunch economic conservatives, Republicans of FDR's times would be the Chris Shays/Lincoln Chafee's of the world, and we see today Reagan Republicans and perhaps shades of whatever the next generation of Republicans will be. Saying that "Republicans" (using one broad term) dominated is a wholly stupid and meaningless statement, especially if your 'point' understood the fact that parties are changing entities.
How is it meaningless? It doesnt matter that since the creation of the republican party, many more than half the elections have gone to them? It may be inconsequential to you, but it isnt in a historical perspective. A parties dominance is directly connected to its ability to change to fit conditions.

[Stax]

How is it meaningless? It doesnt matter that since the creation of the republican party, many more than half the elections have gone to them? It may be inconsequential to you, but it isnt in a historical perspective. A parties dominance is directly connected to its ability to change to fit conditions.

Republicans of Lincoln's era have little if anything to do with McKinley era ones, even less with FDR era ones, and even less with Reagan era ones.

To again return to baseball, bringing up what Republicans have done since Lincoln is like saying because a player hit .300 his rookie year he will do so now in his 15th year. No, the player has aged and so has his skillset, he is not the same player so you cannot just say the one year = the other.

Republicans captured the lightning of slavery in a bottle for one era of dominance, adapted under McKinley to a more business-oriented set of politics, lost out when those policies failed to allow for a Democratic period of dominance for 40 years, got a somewhat weak multi-faceted conservative coalition (going different ways on economic, social, and foreign policy issues) for about 20-30 with Reagan, and now that coalition appears to be collapsing a bit.

[Insomniac]

Better baseball analogy would be is it really the same franchise is all the players are gone, the team moved to a new city, got a new logo, and then different ownership?

[Stax]

Better baseball analogy would be is it really the same franchise is all the players are gone, the team moved to a new city, got a new logo, and then different ownership?

I FUCKING LOVE THE OKLAHOMA CITY THUNDER

[Yelram]

Republicans of Lincoln's era have little if anything to do with McKinley era ones, even less with FDR era ones, and even less with Reagan era ones.

To again return to baseball, bringing up what Republicans have done since Lincoln is like saying because a player hit .300 his rookie year he will do so now in his 15th year. No, the player has aged and so has his skillset, he is not the same player so you cannot just say the one year = the other.

Republicans captured the lightning of slavery in a bottle for one era of dominance, adapted under McKinley to a more business-oriented set of politics, lost out when those policies failed to allow for a Democratic period of dominance for 40 years, got a somewhat weak multi-faceted conservative coalition (going different ways on economic, social, and foreign policy issues) for about 20-30 with Reagan, and now that coalition appears to be collapsing a bit.

I'm not arguing with you dude, you can sit and masturbate if you want, but my statements are still true, and my point is still valid. Parties change. Typically the democrats have been the change bringer.

[Stax]

I'm not arguing with you dude, you can sit and masturbate if you want, but my statements are still true, and my point is still valid. Parties change. Typically the democrats have been the change bringer.

If parties change why do you care which party nominally held the presidency?

[Yelram]

If parties change why do you care which party nominally held the presidency?
Because in a two party system, its either one or the other, and its very telling which ones are able to get votes, even though time, and policies change.

[Stax]

Because in a two party system, its either one or the other, and its very telling which ones are able to get votes, even though time, and policies change.

If there was a robot who lived forever who ran both parties, that would be true. Since it's not, no.

[Yelram]

If there was a robot who lived forever who ran both parties, that would be true. Since it's not, no.

Then why do we even keep track? Why do we even have parties? We should just forget the history of parties, because Stax says its irrelevant. God what a stupid waste of typing. Get over it. Since Lincoln, republicans have won large majority of the time, take that for what it means. Exactly what was stated. No assumptions, no additions, no insinuations. Its a fact.

[Feng]

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0331130-00&templatename=/art

It wasnt the same party dipshit.

That's the point you friggin moron!

[Stax]

Then why do we even keep track? Why do we even have parties? We should just forget the history of parties, because Stax says its irrelevant. God what a stupid waste of typing. Get over it. Since Lincoln, republicans have won large majority of the time, take that for what it means. Exactly what was stated. No assumptions, no additions, no insinuations. Its a fact.

Lincoln winning and establishing an era of Republican executive dominance is a sign that Republican leaders IN LINCOLN'S TIME under the philosophy of the party AT THAT TIME held dominance. Those two all-caps bits make Lincoln-era (and McKinley-era and to a lesser-extent FDR-era) Republican 'term counts' and such pretty meaningless. No one from Lincoln's Committee for Reelection is in the Republican Party today nor is anyone espousing those positions, so it doesn't apply today.

[Snatch]

People can argue for the virtue of a two party system, but it is not maintained naturally. It is done through legislation. It's not something that has survived, because it is the best. It has survived, because those in power have guaranteed that it would.

People can't just CHANGE it if they want to. It's impossible, because of the way things are set up. If it is the best possible system, than why doesn't it allow for the potential of change. If the system was ideal, then it would be able to survive challenge.

[Stax]

People can argue for the virtue of a two party system, but it is not maintained naturally. It is done through legislation. It's not something that has survived, because it is the best. It has survived, because those in power have guaranteed that it would.

People can't just CHANGE it if they want to. It's impossible, because of the way things are set up. If it is the best possible system, than why doesn't it allow for the potential of change. If the system was ideal, then it would be able to survive challenge.

In the United States the 2 party system is not maintained only through simple legislation, but through Constitutional forces that go back to the start of the country. You need a majority, not a plurality, to be elected president. Any party looking for a true national identity would seek to field a presidential candidate, which means someone with a legitimate shot at 50%+1 (or enough to send it to the House and a majority in the House), which leaves room for 2 parties. Also the US system is designed to be inherantly slow moving, so adding in other level to break through (building a coalition amongst, to use Arch's example, 5 parties) would only slow the process more. Parties act as a lubricant.

[Archangel]

The metaphor could be continued nicely by having someone take it up the arse...



Say, the voting public?

[Genius]

People can argue for the virtue of a two party system, but it is not maintained naturally. It is done through legislation. It's not something that has survived, because it is the best. It has survived, because those in power have guaranteed that it would.

People can't just CHANGE it if they want to. It's impossible, because of the way things are set up. If it is the best possible system, than why doesn't it allow for the potential of change. If the system was ideal, then it would be able to survive challenge.
People in power have been doing their best to stay in power for a lot longer than just the existence of the US. Is it really worth smashing the whole system when what we will wind up with is more power-hungry people doing their best to attain power, and then doing everything they can to keep it once they get it?

[Yelram]

That's the point you friggin moron!

No I mean like IT WASNT EVEN LABELED THE SAME THING. Noone is espousing the original principles of the republican party Stax? Are you fucking nuts?

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/dialogue/owens.html

[Swurgen]

Parties should be abolished as much as possible although Survivor style factions would always exist. With 2 parties, it's too easy for those assholes to collude and keep out any competition and keep shit status quo.

What we need is strictly audited campaign spending limits (on all elected offices - sliding scale based on the level of the office) so that a 3rd party could theoretically have a chance without being one of the 50 richest people in the US.

[Yelram]

People can argue for the virtue of a two party system, but it is not maintained naturally. It is done through legislation. It's not something that has survived, because it is the best. It has survived, because those in power have guaranteed that it would.

People can't just CHANGE it if they want to. It's impossible, because of the way things are set up. If it is the best possible system, than why doesn't it allow for the potential of change. If the system was ideal, then it would be able to survive challenge. This whole thread shows how the parties have changed over time. Even in the last 10 years, so your point is totally invalid.

Swurgen, i'm all for the restriction of campaign funds, and a better populace directed primary. I think the funds to run should be granted equally to everyone with a certain amount of followers. Ironically, we need a primary system that works MORE like American Idol. One that starts with a large pool, and that allows the entire electorate to direct the direction of this pool until there are people left. These two would THEN be picked by the parties, as to which is the left candidate, and which is the right. At that point lobbying funds could come into play.

[Archangel]

For somebody who always gets on my case about the value of hard work, you certainly have no problem posting all day long.

[Snatch]

This whole thread shows how the parties have changed over time. Even in the last 10 years, so your point is totally invalid.

Swurgen, i'm all for the restriction of campaign funds, and a better populace directed primary. I think the funds to run should be granted equally to everyone with a certain amount of followers. Ironically, we need a primary system that works MORE like American Idol. One that starts with a large pool, and that allows the entire electorate to direct the direction of this pool until there are people left. These two would THEN be picked by the parties, as to which is the left candidate, and which is the right. At that point lobbying funds could come into play.

How have the parties changed so much in the last 10 years. What has changed?

To Stax, how many presidents have won with a majority in the last four elections? Once, Bush. Presidents can win a plurality.

I don't see what you guys don't get. Things shouldn't be RIGGED so that its nearly impossible for anything other than the wealthy and major parties can win major office.

[Snatch]

Yelram,

Explain to me how it's an even playing ground when Democrats and Republicans can miss filing deadlines and appear on a ballot illegally in Texas?

[Yelram]

For somebody who always gets on my case about the value of hard work, you certainly have no problem posting all day long.

I was mainly in the shop today. I can cut metal and post on the internet simultaneously. True story...

[Stax]

To Stax, how many presidents have won with a majority in the last four elections? Once, Bush. Presidents can win a plurality.


No, they all have. A majority of the electoral college.

I'm all for a repeal of that, but whether that comes with a change of plurality/majority (so a plurality of the popular vote) would be a whole second debate.

[Insomniac]

This goes to the whole point of two-parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912

Between the two of them, Taft and Roosevelt had 60 percent of the vote and 0 percent of the power.

[marquis]

Stax made the only real point about the 2 party system in the US being a part of "constitutional forces." The Constitution creates a proportional representation via the electoral college. It also states that there is a requirement for 270 electoral votes for election to the Presidency. A viable 3rd party would make it so no one would be president. There simply would not be enough electoral votes to meet the burden of 270. And the only way to make any changes to that would be to be to make a massive chage to the consistution via amendment and a constitutional convention. And even if it could get that far it would have to then be ratified by 2/3 of the states to become law. That is just not going to happen. And therefore there will always be a 2 party system.

If anyone really wants to add a 3rd party, the way to build it is to grow from the ground up. Local races, lead to state races, lead to national races. If this election has proven anything, itls that you need individual support before you are going to get national support.

[Snatch]

Stax made the only real point about the 2 party system in the US being a part of "constitutional forces." The Constitution creates a proportional representation via the electoral college. It also states that there is a requirement for 270 electoral votes for election to the Presidency. A viable 3rd party would make it so no one would be president. There simply would not be enough electoral votes to meet the burden of 270. And the only way to make any changes to that would be to be to make a massive chage to the consistution via amendment and a constitutional convention. And even if it could get that far it would have to then be ratified by 2/3 of the states to become law. That is just not going to happen. And therefore there will always be a 2 party system.

If anyone really wants to add a 3rd party, the way to build it is to grow from the ground up. Local races, lead to state races, lead to national races. If this election has proven anything, itls that you need individual support before you are going to get national support.

I am not suggesting any kind of constitutional amendment. The problem with the two party system is that they do whatever they can to keep themselves in power, legal or illegal.

There's more than just the executive branch. There's the state and local levels, where it's still very difficult for third parties because of finance, campaign laws, gerrymandering, etc.

Here's a way to settle your electoral problem. Have a primary with all the parties, and the top two candidates, total, then go head to head. I mean, there's already so many candidates running for the major party tickets, with some being near the fringe.

[vasili denisov]

There's still going to be a graduated income tax. There's still going to be an overbearing federal government. The United States is still going to have foreign dependency. The list goes on and on. So what difference does it make who we vote for?
A non-parliamentary system makes it very difficult to have any third party; parties of any strong support tend to gravitate around ideology, ethnicity, religious belief, nationalism / tribalism, or a very strong idea, such as a position on slavery (in the US), or attitude towards the Palestinian conflict (in Israel). This is necessary in giving people some unifying belief - allowing people to merge into something larger than themselves.

There's very little basis for that in the US; due to the decentralized aspect of the government as well as the strong sense of an american identity first and foremost, you don't have any regionalism passionate enough that it believes it is vital that it be represented first and foremost as a party. A party based around ethnicity or race is equally impossible. Whatever the difficulties the US faces, there's no issue on the table that's so dire it requires the formation of a new political party - nothing involving a possible civil war or breakaway state.

The two parties are opportunistic and will cherrypick any ideas from any party which gains traction in smaller budget races (local and state representative). Should there be growing support for a different tax approach or much smaller federal government, such ideas would be hijacked by the two, at which point they'd compete to implement them. When the reform party gained support in '92 around the principle of greater fiscal responsiblity, it was reflected in the policies of the Clinton administration.

That the libertarian party is pulling in such poor numbers is not due to the machinations of any political kingpins; there's not much support for their ideas and they've got a charmless candidate who doesn't believe half of them himself. That's why they've got a far lower profile than Perot or Nader this election.

This seems less an argument about political parties, and more a question of why certain ideas you support are not on the table, since the ideas of a flat tax and massively reduced government have many believers among republicans - those proposals aren't part of the platform because they have very little support right now.

The power is always going to be in the hands of a rich protestant with special interests.
Today the United States is going to elect a mixed race man born to a teen mother; if you believe that those outside of a certain presidential cast carry different ideas, a man of humble birth who might have been beaten to death for trying to vote fifty years ago should be enough for you.

[UNC]

How many partys should we have?

hmmmm

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa195/mrgr8shagxx/Snapshot_20081104_4.jpg

[HAWK]

Someone may have already said this....

But the two-party system is an illusion. Sure they disagree on so much...but when it comes down to it EVERYONE scratches EVERYONE's back.