Should the 2 party system be done away with?

[RightinNYC]

One problem...how do you propose we "do away" with it. Right now, its not established, thats just how people vote. Any proposal that you come forward with that limits who people are allowed to vote for, I would oppose.

 

[wonder cow]

The two-part system is tyranny.

Laws and regulations in States favor the big parties, as do current campaign finance rules.

But, do we want what happened in California in the 2003 recall election where every freak in the world gets on the ballot?

2003 List of canidates

 

[Inuyasha]

The two-part system is tyranny.

Laws and regulations in States favor the big parties, as do current campaign finance rules.

But, do we want what happened in California in the 2003 recall election where every freak in the world gets on the ballot?

2003 List of canidates

And after all that look at what they wound up with.

Americans more often that not reject third parties out of hand. The Dummiecrats and the Repuks get together to thwart third parties. It's probably the only time they ever agree on anything. hey don't want to share their cash cow.... us.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

I would like the people who voted "no" to support their arguments for voting this way. The 2 party system is tyranny.

 

[alphamale]

I would like the people who voted "no" to support their arguments for voting this way. The 2 party system is tyranny.

If enough people thought like you, they could form a third party and win, but they don't think like you. The only "tyranny" is that of the majority, but that's the basic premise of a democracy.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

If enough people thought like you, they could form a third party and win, but they don't think like you.

the polls disagree with you. Elections should be about current issues and a vision for the future. For me that vision is of a truly representative democracy. I want Americans to look back 50 to 100 years from now -- when we have a vivid multi-party democracy and say -- “can you imagine in the last century how there were only two major parties and dozens of colas? Boy, were we an immature democracy!”

A survey published in the July 16 Economist asked U.S. voters whether they felt their elected officials represented their priorities. Only 17 percent said “yes.” In the greatest democracy on earth 83 percent can't say they are represented! It is no wonder we have such low voter turnouts. (A survey of non-voters found that that a majority of non-voters felt that the candidates did not represent their concerns -- even in the last election 40% of registered voters didn't vote, Kerry gave them no reason except not being Bush -- not good enough.) It is also not surprising that Democrats are at their lowest popularity in more than 50 months while Republicans are also dropping in the polls. Neither party represents the priorities of the people." It is time for a change, Its considered a tyranny when there are people in power who don't represent the majority of people.

There is a clearly need to have another or more political parties. What evidence backs up the opinion of the 2 people who voted no on my poll? go ahead, tell us why we should keep the 2 party system.

 

[alphamale]

the polls disagree with you. Elections should be about current issues and a vision for the future. For me that vision is of a truly representative democracy. I want Americans to look back 50 to 100 years from now -- when we have a vivid multi-party democracy and say -- “can you imagine in the last century how there were only two major parties and dozens of colas? Boy, were we an immature democracy!”

No, elections are about what the majority wants, not "visions of the future".

A survey published in the July 16 Economist asked U.S. voters whether they felt their elected officials represented their priorities. Only 17 percent said “yes.” In the greatest democracy on earth 83 percent can't say they are represented!

There are a wide range of views within elected officials, even though there are only two parties. In a single member district, if there are more conservatives and they win, and you are a liberal and you lose - tough, the majority rules. You however are represented by a liberal who won in some other district. There's only one system where peoples' lives aren't put up on the majority rule auction block - that's libertarianism.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

There are a wide range of views within elected officials, even though there are only two parties. In a single member district, if there are more conservatives and they win, and you are a liberal and you lose - tough, the majority rules. You however are represented by a liberal who won in some other district. There's only one system where peoples' lives aren't put up on the majority rule auction block - that's libertarianism.

what did that have to do with anything? If a conservative wins and your a liberal blah blah blah blah? Its fact that a large number of people are not represented! They need people who represent them. And the dems and reps are not doing anything to fix that.

There are a wide range of views within elected officials

This is a good statement. 83% of the people disagree with you, but forget them right? its just a very insignifacant number right? Yea, Since when
has the majority ever been right?

 

[RightinNYC]

the polls disagree with you. Elections should be about current issues and a vision for the future. For me that vision is of a truly representative democracy. I want Americans to look back 50 to 100 years from now -- when we have a vivid multi-party democracy and say -- “can you imagine in the last century how there were only two major parties and dozens of colas? Boy, were we an immature democracy!”

A survey published in the July 16 Economist asked U.S. voters whether they felt their elected officials represented their priorities. Only 17 percent said “yes.” In the greatest democracy on earth 83 percent can't say they are represented! It is no wonder we have such low voter turnouts. (A survey of non-voters found that that a majority of non-voters felt that the candidates did not represent their concerns -- even in the last election 40% of registered voters didn't vote, Kerry gave them no reason except not being Bush -- not good enough.) It is also not surprising that Democrats are at their lowest popularity in more than 50 months while Republicans are also dropping in the polls. Neither party represents the priorities of the people." It is time for a change, Its considered a tyranny when there are people in power who don't represent the majority of people.

There is a clearly need to have another or more political parties. What evidence backs up the opinion of the 2 people who voted no on my poll? go ahead, tell us why we should keep the 2 party system.

Here's the problem: Your thinking is focused on the wrong thing. It's not a matter of should we "keep" the system or "do away" with it. It's not an official thing. If people dislike the way things are going, then they will vote differently. It is VERY easy to get on the ballot for local elections if you have a decent platform and some support. And if people do a good job, they will move on up in the world.

For those of you who don't know how NY elections work, there are numerous parties on the ballot, (I think 7 or 8 last statewide election), that get to choose who to endorse. Candidates can receive the endorsement of multiple parties, ie. The Republican can get the Conservative party endorsement, the Democrat can get the Working Families endorsement. When election time comes, whether you vote for the guy on the republican or the conservative platform doesnt affect his vote total, but it does affect how strong that party looks, and whether it stays on the ballot. This system allows for minor parties to have considerable influence in the election. No republican has won state wide office w/o the conservative party endorsement for a looooong time, for example.

This nation has been historically known for its citizen's propensity to form voluntary organizations. if enough people are dissatisfied enough, they will take action.

whether or not people say it in the polls, one of the biggest reasons why people don't vote is because they're content. They're not ecstatic, but they're okay. They have a house, a car, and a playstation, and they're doing pretty well. Neither party is really THAT different, and both parties basically provide the same framework. So why bother? It doesnt mean youre disillusioned, but that you're not illusioned at all.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

It is VERY easy to get on the ballot for local elections if you have a decent platform and some support. And if people do a good job, they will move on up in the world.

Thats what government thought about free enterprise. Then companies started to have monopolies and hurt small buisnesses. So the government regulated it. Its the exact same situation here. If known, political leaders were to split from their party and join the libertarian party, that party would be recognized by the public with a known platform and therefore, rack up support. Thats why Sen. James Jeffords(I - VT) is still in power. His platform was already recognized by the people of VT that people voted for him.

So basically, we should apply the same philosophy of the laws regulating monopolys on the economic system, to the political system.

 

[RightinNYC]

Thats what government thought about free enterprise. Then companies started to have monopolies and hurt small buisnesses. So the government regulated it. Its the exact same situation here. If known, political leaders were to split from their party and join the libertarian party, that party would be recognized by the public with a known platform and therefore, rack up support. Thats why Sen. James Jeffords(I - VT) is still in power. His platform was already recognized by the people of VT that people voted for him.

So basically, we should apply the same philosophy of the laws regulating monopolys on the economic system, to the political system.

Except you have to prove its a monopoly. Which it's not.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

Except you have to prove its a monopoly. Which it's not.

Can you prove that it isn't? which it is.

 

[RightinNYC]

Can you prove that it isn't? which it is.

Last time I voted, there were 9 different candidates on the ballot. I picked whichever one I wanted. I had free choice to choose the billionaire Bloomberg, the latino Ferrer, the conservative Ognibene, a 27 year old Socialist, or even Jimmy McMillan from the "Rent is Too Damn High Party," among others. How is that a monopoly?


Just because some groups are more successful than others, doesn't mean its a monopoly.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

Last time I voted, there were 9 different candidates on the ballot. I picked whichever one I wanted. I had free choice to choose the billionaire Bloomberg, the latino Ferrer, the conservative Ognibene, a 27 year old Socialist, or even Jimmy McMillan from the "Rent is Too Damn High Party," among others. How is that a monopoly?


Just because some groups are more successful than others, doesn't mean its a monopoly.

If its too succesful, yes, it is a monopoly. 83% of the Americans believe they are not represented and they don't vote for other parties because they have no idea what their platform is and don't want to make the wrong decision. Also, in presidential elections, some parties are not on the ballot. In Texas, you had straight Dem or rep. In wisconsin, you had Dem, rep, and Nader on the ballot. In Maryland, you had Dem, Rep, and Libertarian. Now is this fair?

 

[RightinNYC]

If its too succesful, yes, it is a monopoly.

It has nowhere reached that point.

83% of the Americans believe they are not represented and they don't vote for other parties because they have no idea what their platform is and don't want to make the wrong decision.

I've seen this fact cited by you several times. Care to provide a link?

Also, in presidential elections, some parties are not on the ballot. In Texas, you had straight Dem or rep. In wisconsin, you had Dem, rep, and Nader on the ballot. In Maryland, you had Dem, Rep, and Libertarian. Now is this fair?

The reason that no other parties were on the ballot is because they didn't have enough support. In order to get on any ballot, all it takes is a certain number of petition signatures. If they aren't able to get that many, then why should they be on the ballot?

 

[taxedout]

Just because some groups are more successful than others, doesn't mean its a monopoly.

No it doesn't.
It just means that most people prefere sweet sounding lies to the unknown.

 

[talloulou]

What I'd like to see is some sort of campaign reform that helps level the playing field for candidates not running within the two major parties. Also third party candidates should be given equal televised debate time. My biggest problem with the dominating two party system is the fact that as of late there is not much tangible difference between the two parties. The Kerry/Bush debates were the most boring debates I've ever seen. Absolute zero stimulation. They just weren't all that different politically speaking. I honestly felt like there was no real choice in that election outside of....... would I like to see things continue with the current Republican President or would I like things to continue the same with a new Democrat President? Kerry was a little more wishy washy than Bush but basically his policies when he would admit them were quite similar if not the same as Bush's.

I think the current 2 party system is dangerous in that often there is no choice. I would love to see people rebel against that.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

I've seen this fact cited by you several times. Care to provide a link?

can't, I use a library computer. So the history is.......not well organized.

 

[RightinNYC]

No it doesn't.
It just means that most people prefere sweet sounding lies to the unknown.

Exactly. And if people want to change that, they need to vote otherwise.

 

[RightinNYC]

What I'd like to see is some sort of campaign reform that helps level the playing field for candidates not running within the two major parties. Also third party candidates should be given equal televised debate time. My biggest problem with the dominating two party system is the fact that as of late there is not much tangible difference between the two parties. The Kerry/Bush debates were the most boring debates I've ever seen. Absolute zero stimulation. They just weren't all that different politically speaking. I honestly felt like there was no real choice in that election outside of....... would I like to see things continue with the current Republican President or would I like things to continue the same with a new Democrat President? Kerry was a little more wishy washy than Bush but basically his policies when he would admit them were quite similar if not the same as Bush's.

I think the current 2 party system is dangerous in that often there is no choice. I would love to see people rebel against that.

http://www.porkbusters.org/porkdetails.php?id=609

Congressman Randy Neugebauer wants to eliminate Federal funding to the parties. This would save 550,000,000 over ten years, and level the field. Works for me.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

No it doesn't.
It just means that most people prefere sweet sounding lies to the unknown.

Exactly. And if people want to change that, they need to vote otherwise.

Right, are you aware that you just agreed that people won’t vote for the unknown until they start voting for the unknown? *shrug* Anyways, it ain’t gonna happen until the status quo stops hobbling the competition into anonymity.

When one group has enough money to make the skies quake with their message, while the others can barely afford a few pamphlets, I’m sure we can all agree there is no real competition involved. The first group has all the money because they’re willing to serve the interests of those who have it, and there are few firm limits on how much they can give. Incorporate this with the fact that those in power can whittle away potential competition via gerrymandering, and the status quo is maintained without it being explicitly declared in the rules of the system. The only time that those in the former will ever loose to those in the latter, is when their bullshit rings so patently false, it overcomes not just the population’s political apathy, but their fear of the relatively unknown.

I am in no way saying that those with money should not get a say in government affairs that concern them, merely that the volume of their voice should have absolutely nothing do with the size of their wallet; their representation should be directly proportional to the number of their employees and customers who care enough to vote in their favor.

It seems like current campaign reform doesn’t work because these interests are clever enough, and have the proper motivation (the aggregate greed of Wall Street) to find loopholes in the most airtight of laws. Instead of constantly reiterating “Candidates can only receive $X per entity,” we ought to have laws that outright say “Candidates cannot spend more than $X on their campaigns, and all of $X will be supplied by the taxpayers.”

I think that reducing or completely eliminating Federal funding from political campaigns is a giant leap in the wrong direction. This would only make our elected officials further indebted to those able to put up huge wads of cash to advance their own interests. $550 million over 10 years is a piddling sum compared to the devastation this would do to the interests of people who cannot afford the sums necessary to outspend the competition.

I would rather not live in a country with the philosophy: By the people, of the people, for the people, but weighted according to said people’s ability to pay.

 

[RightinNYC]

Right, are you aware that you just agreed that people won’t vote for the unknown until they start voting for the unknown? *shrug* Anyways, it ain’t gonna happen until the status quo stops hobbling the competition into anonymity.

That's my point. None of this is going to change anything until people actually go out and change it themselves.

I am in no way saying that those with money should not get a say in government affairs that concern them, merely that the volume of their voice should have absolutely nothing do with the size of their wallet; their representation should be directly proportional to the number of their employees and customers who care enough to vote in their favor.

But how do they get that message out there?

It seems like current campaign reform doesn’t work because these interests are clever enough, and have the proper motivation (the aggregate greed of Wall Street) to find loopholes in the most airtight of laws. Instead of constantly reiterating “Candidates can only receive $X per entity,” we ought to have laws that outright say “Candidates cannot spend more than $X on their campaigns, and all of $X will be supplied by the taxpayers.”

Except that pesky first amendment causes problems again. The FEC does not have the right to tell me who I can and cannot support in an election. If I want to take an ad out in the paper praising something, I can do it. The Court has tolerated McCain/Feingold because in the scheme of a balancing test, its not so bad. Try implementing your plan, and watch it get overturned in days...

I think that reducing or completely eliminating Federal funding from political campaigns is a giant leap in the wrong direction. This would only make our elected officials further indebted to those able to put up huge wads of cash to advance their own interests. $550 million over 10 years is a piddling sum compared to the devastation this would do to the interests of people who cannot afford the sums necessary to outspend the competition.

So every candidate should be given equal sums of money, regardless of their support? Or should it be proportional? Because if it should, it would remain just about the same as it does now.