• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The two-party system has failed us.

Unrein

Active member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
448
Reaction score
66
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
It's failed us, the ordinary people of this country, but has been paramount in the success of the corporate plutocracy and virtual enslavement of the masses.

What's clear is that there is no justification for the notion that party politicians (with extremely few exceptions) have any interest in defending and supporting the will of their voting constituency. It's strange, how common hatred, resentment and distrust toward politicians and parties is in us, yet how religiously we obey and vote for them never-the-less.

The state of party-politics boils down to a rotten fact that everyone is aware of but either feels helpless to resist, or too marred in cognitive dissonance to accept: politicians are bought and sold to the highest bidder. Yet we support, register and vote for them anyway.

And a curious system has evolved to accommodate the fact that politicians serve a different hand than the one that technically votes for them. Behold, the "two-party system". It's ingenious in these respects: A. It's less conspicuous than 'one-party' system, where the corruption and incompatibility with democracy is too obvious to even the stupid masses that populate this country. B. It's as restrictive as possible in the amount or diversity of choices given to the people. It's literally TWO, the bare-minimum to still perceptibly have a choice. So for this, it's much easier for consolidation of power and agenda. The corporations funnel their funds into their pockets, (now basically without restriction or loopholes even necessary to jump through), that's what buys their ads, which in turn buys their support and votes. The order and priorities of this system are completely wrong.

Now, this isn't a conspiracy, it's an obvious fact that we all can verify, and verifies itself to us every day, on every news program, with every speech or address or deliberation. We simply ignore it. We play the game they want us to play, which is buy into the bold-faced lie that their solutions, red herrings and false divisions are the only options.

The system completes its self-serving cycle at the level of media and schools, or the psychological warfare against the people. The media, 1, is the corporation that benefits from the system being the way it is, so will bombard us with stories of Lindsey Lohan and dogs with three-legs, in-between 5-minute segments of eight people trying to solve very large and involving topics by yelling at one another and calling it 'productive political discourse', to keep us distracted from the truth. Then, 2, the media benefits from this low-cost, high yield form of yellow journalism anyway. It's more profitable. Why report on research-intensive whistle blowing with all of these boring 'facts' and 'numbers' when cute animals and fat old people screaming at one other is far more exciting and fulfilling to the stupid audience, whose stupidity is only ensured and proliferated by the very act of engaging in watching these shows, spending their life knowing nothing outside the life-instructions of the tv-box faces?

And the schools? Dear God, the schools. Let me put it this way, I took a half-year economics class in high school and we literally spent the entirety of it reading one book about how 'rich people are rich because they save their money instead of spending it', and learning nothing except that countries have different GDPs (we learned this because we spent a week making construction paper bar graphs) and businesses will hire you if you're more efficient at working! Real informative stuff, very important in understanding the big picture of how and who is screwing you over in this world with the blinds forced over your head.
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So are you proposing a 3 or 4 party system then?
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Communists' way is 1 party system. How would a no party system work?
People who want to run for office would do so on their own. There simply wouldn't be any political parties.
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
People who want to run for office would do so on their own. There simply wouldn't be any political parties.
Ok, so one wants to become president, the other a vice president, the other a prime minister, etc. So a few questions:

1) How to treat competition (i.e., 2 or more people wanting the same chair?)

2) How would they agree on anything (i.e., say a conservative president has a liberal prime minister?)

3) Who would decide on which platform would these candidates acting on their own would need to fill (i.e., who decides whether it is a platform where: a) the president is boss, b) prime minister, c) King, etc)? Who arranges the hierarchy that independent individuals seek obtaining? Who agrees that the hierarchy is valid and representative of its people? Platform?
 

Woodman909

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
1,285
Reaction score
565
Location
Southwest AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's failed us, the ordinary people of this country, but has been paramount in the success of the corporate plutocracy and virtual enslavement of the masses.

What's clear is that there is no justification for the notion that party politicians (with extremely few exceptions) have any interest in defending and supporting the will of their voting constituency. It's strange, how common hatred, resentment and distrust toward politicians and parties is in us, yet how religiously we obey and vote for them never-the-less.

The state of party-politics boils down to a rotten fact that everyone is aware of but either feels helpless to resist, or too marred in cognitive dissonance to accept: politicians are bought and sold to the highest bidder. Yet we support, register and vote for them anyway.

And a curious system has evolved to accommodate the fact that politicians serve a different hand than the one that technically votes for them. Behold, the "two-party system". It's ingenious in these respects: A. It's less conspicuous than 'one-party' system, where the corruption and incompatibility with democracy is too obvious to even the stupid masses that populate this country. B. It's as restrictive as possible in the amount or diversity of choices given to the people. It's literally TWO, the bare-minimum to still perceptibly have a choice. So for this, it's much easier for consolidation of power and agenda. The corporations funnel their funds into their pockets, (now basically without restriction or loopholes even necessary to jump through), that's what buys their ads, which in turn buys their support and votes. The order and priorities of this system are completely wrong.

Now, this isn't a conspiracy, it's an obvious fact that we all can verify, and verifies itself to us every day, on every news program, with every speech or address or deliberation. We simply ignore it. We play the game they want us to play, which is buy into the bold-faced lie that their solutions, red herrings and false divisions are the only options.

The system completes its self-serving cycle at the level of media and schools, or the psychological warfare against the people. The media, 1, is the corporation that benefits from the system being the way it is, so will bombard us with stories of Lindsey Lohan and dogs with three-legs, in-between 5-minute segments of eight people trying to solve very large and involving topics by yelling at one another and calling it 'productive political discourse', to keep us distracted from the truth. Then, 2, the media benefits from this low-cost, high yield form of yellow journalism anyway. It's more profitable. Why report on research-intensive whistle blowing with all of these boring 'facts' and 'numbers' when cute animals and fat old people screaming at one other is far more exciting and fulfilling to the stupid audience, whose stupidity is only ensured and proliferated by the very act of engaging in watching these shows, spending their life knowing nothing outside the life-instructions of the tv-box faces?

And the schools? Dear God, the schools. Let me put it this way, I took a half-year economics class in high school and we literally spent the entirety of it reading one book about how 'rich people are rich because they save their money instead of spending it', and learning nothing except that countries have different GDPs (we learned this because we spent a week making construction paper bar graphs) and businesses will hire you if you're more efficient at working! Real informative stuff, very important in understanding the big picture of how and who is screwing you over in this world with the blinds forced over your head.
From what I can gather of your opening post, it is not so much the 2-party system that has failed, rather the thieves and outright scumbags we've been electing to office that makes the system appear to have failed. I submit that I agree with you in principle but to articulate I would say: It is not the 2 party SYSTEM that has failed, it's the 2 PARTIES we have that suck. They exist only to perpetuate their existence. They argue issues on the basis of positioning rather than what is right, good or fair. They play to cameras and news media to get their air time to spout their party lines and talking points. On any issue they immediately take sides, build their points to yap about then bore us to tears for weeks or months while important things go unattended. It is time to clean house. Not just sweep with a broom, but mop, scrub and disinfect.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
13,451
Reaction score
7,215
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
People who want to run for office would do so on their own. There simply wouldn't be any political parties.
Political parties - in fact if not in name -have been around pretty much since the dawn of the city-state. It's human nature for like minded people to band together to further their mutual interests.

Rather than no political parties I'd like to see dozens. There's something to be said for the system used in many European countries where government is done by coalition.
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Political parties - in fact if not in name -have been around pretty much since the dawn of the city-state. It's human nature for like minded people to band together to further their mutual interests.

Rather than no political parties I'd like to see dozens. There's something to be said for the system used in many European countries where government is done by coalition.
Yes, I like the parliamentary system as well. The problem with political parties is that their only goal is to achieve power. I can't think of anything that can be corrupted faster than a goal like that. Without political parties, there is a chance that some candidates, at least, might actually have the common good as a goal. People in political power aren't allowed to address the common good, only the good of the power seeking party that got them elected. Having many parties would be my second choice followed by 2 parties and 1 party in that order.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
69,791
Reaction score
51,916
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
People who want to run for office would do so on their own. There simply wouldn't be any political parties.
This is my fantasy, as well. However, if I'm honest with myself, I have to ask if that doesn't amount to a one party system.

I think that the better solution is to fix gerrymandering nationwide by letting a computer draw districts using only census data as input. Then we can take a look at state laws designed to keep smaller parties off the ballot.
 
Top Bottom