Tired_Politics
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2020
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The US two party political system fails to meet its goals because it is an incomplete adversarial system. It lacks the third piece of the puzzle.
US trials are also adversarial in nature. Each party to a lawsuit, the offense and defense, are given the responsibility to search and find evidence that supports their stance. These parties in essence battle against one another to uncover as much evidence as possible. Doing this can put strains on the parties’ relationships and cause animosity that could lead to cutting ties with one another. Once the evidence has been gathered, each opposing party with as much evidence for their side as they can muster, it is brought to a third party for review. The judge or jury act as a disinterested third party with no ties to either side. They take the biased facts of each side and analyse them as one set of facts. Doing this provides a greater chance of discovering the truth (though not perfectly) and allows a decision to be made based on everyone’s findings.
The US political system creates an adversarial situation between too large of a group and has no disinterested third party to reach a balanced conclusion. In the US system, there is the same adversarial approach. There are two sides that will try to find as much evidence as possible to support their claims. However, instead of having a neutral third party look at the findings of each side and make a decision that is best for America, the two warring parties share power, often shifting between which party has more power (presidential, etc..). It’s like having a trial without a judge where each party takes turns being right. This year you have to go to jail for murder, but next year we will let you be the winner and take a break until our turn starts back up.
This is a ridiculous and ineffective way of dividing government power. This form of adversarialism does not create a balanced result but instead splits the entire country into enemies that never win. One group will try to get the poor vote and promise free money at the expense of the wealthy and middle class. The other group will ignore the poor and promise to support the rich and middle class. However, neither of these groups is trying to represent the entire country. They simply represent their half. Such leaders are not American leaders but Democrat or Republican leaders. Each is willing to upset and anger half of the country to keep the support of the other half.
I do not know what it will take to solve this problem. Finding a neutral third party who is truly able to represent the entire nation and has the backing to do so may not be possible anymore. The country is so used to this system that any third party presidential candidates receive hatred from both opposing parties. Perhaps the two party system is the best we can hope to do and maybe it will keep hoveling along for hundreds of years to come, but I hope we will find something better that will allow us to unite the nation and bring better times for everyone.
US trials are also adversarial in nature. Each party to a lawsuit, the offense and defense, are given the responsibility to search and find evidence that supports their stance. These parties in essence battle against one another to uncover as much evidence as possible. Doing this can put strains on the parties’ relationships and cause animosity that could lead to cutting ties with one another. Once the evidence has been gathered, each opposing party with as much evidence for their side as they can muster, it is brought to a third party for review. The judge or jury act as a disinterested third party with no ties to either side. They take the biased facts of each side and analyse them as one set of facts. Doing this provides a greater chance of discovering the truth (though not perfectly) and allows a decision to be made based on everyone’s findings.
The US political system creates an adversarial situation between too large of a group and has no disinterested third party to reach a balanced conclusion. In the US system, there is the same adversarial approach. There are two sides that will try to find as much evidence as possible to support their claims. However, instead of having a neutral third party look at the findings of each side and make a decision that is best for America, the two warring parties share power, often shifting between which party has more power (presidential, etc..). It’s like having a trial without a judge where each party takes turns being right. This year you have to go to jail for murder, but next year we will let you be the winner and take a break until our turn starts back up.
This is a ridiculous and ineffective way of dividing government power. This form of adversarialism does not create a balanced result but instead splits the entire country into enemies that never win. One group will try to get the poor vote and promise free money at the expense of the wealthy and middle class. The other group will ignore the poor and promise to support the rich and middle class. However, neither of these groups is trying to represent the entire country. They simply represent their half. Such leaders are not American leaders but Democrat or Republican leaders. Each is willing to upset and anger half of the country to keep the support of the other half.
I do not know what it will take to solve this problem. Finding a neutral third party who is truly able to represent the entire nation and has the backing to do so may not be possible anymore. The country is so used to this system that any third party presidential candidates receive hatred from both opposing parties. Perhaps the two party system is the best we can hope to do and maybe it will keep hoveling along for hundreds of years to come, but I hope we will find something better that will allow us to unite the nation and bring better times for everyone.
