Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17
Like Tree9Likes
  • 1 Post By Praetorian_Prime
  • 2 Post By cosmictraveler
  • 2 Post By Ascended
  • 1 Post By icewendigo
  • 2 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By RonenD1

Thread: Party System

  1. #1 Party System 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1
    I wanted to pose a question, do you feel that the largely two party system works for the American elections? Please leave your opinoins and any ideas you may have on the matter.


    eaglepass likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I think there should be about seven primary parties.

    I think that it's two primary parties because most folks figure that voting for a third (Or forth or fifth) will always lose. So they choose the lesser of two evils.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    In a first past the post voting system (and assuming rational voters) the long term equilibrium is a two party state.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    10
    It's an interesting topic.
    I think the more parties you have - the less stability you'll have.
    Iraq for example has a lot of parties right now after the war - and it's not doing so well... On the other hand you can attribute it to other thing.

    But if you take the US - there is a pretty serious problem with legislation these past few years - where republicans and democrats block each other.
    A third party might be able to balance the scale there...
    (I'm all for democrats BTW, but something still seems pretty rotten in how almost all congress members act right now)

    Any Political scientists here to shed some light on the issue from an academic point of view?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    I think that the two party system is OK when it is really a two party system but what we have become is basically a one party system.

    Both parties spend, spend, spend, no matter who is in charge, on everything they want. Then they borrow money from themselves, the Federal government prints its own money then buys this money from itself which is ILLEGAL to do but what the hell they do it anyway.

    So folks we have a one party system that is only disguised as a two party system today and I for one do not like what Congress as a whole is doing with all that spending. One day, generations from today, that money is going to have to be repaid by our grandchildren, is it really worth this type of spending to hand to our grandchildren with our dilemmas?
    Last edited by cosmictraveler; December 3rd, 2012 at 02:28 PM.
    westwind and RonenD1 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    But if you take the US - there is a pretty serious problem with legislation these past few years - where republicans and democrats block each other.
    I think for most things right now, that's a good thing.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by RonenD1 View Post
    It's an interesting topic.
    I think the more parties you have - the less stability you'll have.
    Many European countries have multi-party systems where coalition government seems to work just as well or better than two-party systems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,486
    Unfortunately with any 2 party system it is always going to end up as a very adversarial process, this is certainly no different in America, with many ending up polarised into one camp or another seemingly with little real regard for the actual policies being expressed by the individual parties. This can best be seen by whole areas of of the country brought up to live and die supporting a particular political party. Which in reality means they arn't exercising any real choice in the process as their minds were made up for decades ago in many cases. As a result the actual number of people deciding the outcome of elections is far smaller than the actual real total of eligible electorate.
    This all means that the choice of who governs an entire country can come down to a very small percentage of adults from a choice of two parties, not necessarily setting the best example for the idea of true democracy.

    But also as has been previously mentioned because of the 2 opposing parties having to represent entire wings of the political spectrum what we can find is the things that one party may see as absolutely necessary for the welfare of certain sections of the nations society the other party could be vehemently opposed as they feel it may be really expensive to a section of society that they represent, thus we end up with awkward stalemates as the 2 parties seek to block any legislation proposed by the other.
    Whilst the actual idea of a compromise between the parties oposing viewpoints might be deemed desirable this can often prove difficult to achieve and thus not as much can or is being achieved as otherwise would be possible, so some might suggest this is handicapping America from really fullfilling it's true potential on the world stage, escpecially when comparisons are made with the developments being made in countries such as China and India.

    Should the idea of a change to the tradition of the 2 party system really seem unthinkable perhaps a less adversarial system might be created, where by compromises are easier to achieve, by having less dominance by the parties over the candidates, where the people themselves are more able to freely express their own opinions and excert some independence in the choices they make over voting for bills and for the requirements that they have for achieving compromise. Perhaps in time this might even come to be seen as desirable and help to also show other countries a way forward in the development of democracy.

    One thing is for sure though that whilst ever the ordinary people are unhappy with the way countries are being run because of a particular political system, then it is time to make changes within that system as ultimately that is what all political systems are for, they are there to serve the interests of the people and this should always be their first responsibility.
    Darkhorse and RonenD1 like this.
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    Is it compulsary voting by all citizens over 18 in the USA? Our National Government in Australia, ( Federal Government ), has, for almost 100 years, called for Compulsary Electors. Also the Electorate is often called upon to decide between several paid up Parties to elect , by Primary Vote if possible, the one Party to Govern. Should voting be close, then Preferences are worked out and play a part in the election of any one Candidate.

    Wiki-Pedia, who, as Members Know, I never bother consulting, would provide a lot more detail on Australia's Voting System. westwind.
    Words words words, were it better I caught your tears, and washed my face in them, and felt their sting. - westwind
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    "Is it compulsary voting by all citizens over 18 in the USA?"
    No.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    The 2 party system is not representative and is utterly corrupt by campaign finance. But note that the mainstream Media also pro-establishment also grant more coverage to the most corrupt pro-establishment candidates, and hardly cover candidates that are credible in their advocacy for "real" change.

    In a monarchy, the most influential people with more leverage in theory to change the status quo are usually those that benefit the most from the established corrupt system, but since they are in a conflict of interest and are the most likely to want to perpetuate the system that benefits them at the expense of everyone else, and oppose fundamental change. The king will not be the first to say he needs to be replaced by a more democratic form of organization. Looking to current politicians for reform is like writing a letter to the King asking him to abolish monarchy.

    So such a change is most likely to result from a large, committed and organized group of citizens, with a clear and specific objective.
    eaglepass likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RonenD1 View Post
    It's an interesting topic.
    I think the more parties you have - the less stability you'll have.
    Many European countries have multi-party systems where coalition government seems to work just as well or better than two-party systems.
    Proportional voting helps. I'm not sure if all of those countries use it, but the USA's "winner takes all" system certainly makes it difficult for third parties to get a foot in the door.



    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Unfortunately with any 2 party system it is always going to end up as a very adversarial process, this is certainly no different in America, with many ending up polarised into one camp or another seemingly with little real regard for the actual policies being expressed by the individual parties.
    This is because most people really intent to vote *against* a bad candidate, rather than *for* a good one.

    Republicans see Obama in power, and band together (ignoring personal differences in ideology) to defeat a common foe. Before Obama, Democrats did the same thing against George Bush.


    One thing is for sure though that whilst ever the ordinary people are unhappy with the way countries are being run because of a particular political system, then it is time to make changes within that system as ultimately that is what all political systems are for, they are there to serve the interests of the people and this should always be their first responsibility.
    The American media, which is a fairly small oligopoly of interests, has figured out how to work both sides by making them both equally bad.

    We don't vote between devils and angels. We vote either for one devil, or for the other who we see as being worse. They're both going to make whatever concessions the media group (or more particularly, those groups' owners) want. They're just offering us two different flavors of getting it stuck to us.

    As long as unlimited amounts of money can be funneled anonymously into a candidate's campaign via a nameless superpack, this is incapable of changing. Not only can we not avoid our candidates having strings attached to them which make them act like puppets - we can't even legally know the identity of the puppeteers behind them.
    RonenD1 and eaglepass like this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    10
    kojaxu - your last point is indeed the scariest of all in this debate... :/

    In the end, after all was said - I would still prefer a multi-party system - despite the instability it *might* cause.

    Mainly because it gives more Power to the people
    (Yeah, not the best argument, I know... I just tried to push Lennon in )
    eaglepass likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    43
    TO PRAETORIAN_Prime FROM EAGLEPASS...I like this thread. I also like the question reference to the two party system in the USA for election. If I may, with all due respect, I would like to propose another question: "Does the two party system serve the needs of the American people?" Better yet, I think it would better to ask: "... which political party system better serves the needs of the American people, the two party system or the multiparty system."

    My Quote: Beware-like matter and energy, political power can neither be created or destroyed; where power in the form of votes appears, it is because it disappeared from the form of money...the law of conservation of political power (No box needed this time...he is a Forum Freshman) !





    Last edited by eaglepass; January 25th, 2013 at 12:43 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    The 2 party system is not representative and is utterly corrupt by campaign finance.
    Only if you fail to place very tight caps on the magnitude of expenditure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    The 2 party system is not representative and is utterly corrupt by campaign finance.
    Only if you fail to place very tight caps on the magnitude of expenditure.
    In the USA there are no such caps. Officially there of course are tight caps, but effectively there is absolutely no cap whatsoever.A third party, superpack, simply approaches the candidate and asks how much they would like the superpack to spend on their behalf.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,786
    Depending on Jesse Ventura's success as a candidate in 2016, there may be a rising minority of independents. The establishment of another major political party is inevitable, and unless the government can successfully please the middle/lower class americans, it will likely be a democratic-socialist party, or perhaps a form of syndicalism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Bolivia star party
    By Jim Colyer in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 24th, 2012, 12:09 PM
  2. Socialist Party of the USA
    By kowalskil in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 7th, 2011, 01:30 PM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 24th, 2010, 01:56 PM
  4. The Pirate Party!
    By icewendigo in forum Politics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 30th, 2009, 09:59 AM
  5. It's a Rainbow Party!
    By Coffee in forum Art and Culture
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 17th, 2005, 11:49 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •