It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What would it be like if we ditched the 2 party system?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:41 PM
First off, let me say that I don't know nearly as much about the political process as I'd like to, so try not to be too harsh on me...I normally refrain from political discussion for good reason.

It seems (to me at least) that our present two party system is bordering upon a hoax. I realize it may not have started that way but it sure seems to have evolved into one. No matter which party is elected into power we never seem to see any substantial change. Both parties make grand claims about how much better off we will be under their particular brand of leadership, yet in the end we are generally faced with the same problems which one inherited from the other. I realize that minor changes occur but what about the big picture?

Both parties spend so much time extolling the virtues of their own, while exuding vitriol at the other. It seems to me at times that so much effort is expended through bickering between sides, that there is not much time or energy left to actually DO the job at hand. Are the two parties really so different? They sure sound different when they 'talk their talk', but they all look the same when they 'walk their walk'.

Sure we have people at the extreme edges, but we also have people at the middle. We have democrats who lean far to the right and we have republicans who are leaning as much to the left. With everyone all over the map what is the point of the parties?

What if there were a no party system? What if we voted our officials or selected our canditates on their own merits and views alone, instead of finding ourselves constantly divided by political boundaries? How many people have been elected in the past for no other reason than that they were in the 'right' party? Could a bi-partisan system actually be standing in the way of progress?

Obviously, I don't have any answers here but I can't help but wonder what life would look like today if there had never been any political party in our history, if we had only ever selected a leader based on his/her own merits and nothing more.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:57 PM
Politics were taken over by the rich and power hungry years ago.Even in local elections money is an issue for the candidates.There have been a handful of office holders that held the respect of the opposition.However none of them have been in my lifetime. What this country needs is a statesman,someone who will stand speak his mind,shed light on the issues.Not the same old same old puppets the republicrats offer us.
Each succesive election has gotten worse since the early 1960s.The primary process is a sham,the electoral delagates are in the parties pocket. Our vote in a general election is regarded without merit,as the electoral college does the electing.Then again the supreme court can just appoint the victor.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:54 AM
As a former resident alien, working and living in Los Angeles, I've had plenty of oppertunities to watch the political scene up close and personal. I've often wondered how come, a country as huge as it is, and with so much diversity in ethnic baggrounds, only fostered two political parties.

Here in Denmark we're a monarchy with a Queen, but she only for show. She has no govening powers. Even though her son will become King after she dies. That same thing goes for him. A smaller version of Great Brittan.

Even though we're only a small nation, with a population of only 5.5 mill. Our goverment, which is represented by a few handfilled elected candidates. We still have a wopping 13 different political parties to choose from.

It's inconceiveble for me to imagine any of us, having only two choices. It's almost like, it can only be black or white, no greys, a yes or a no, no maybe's. When Bush declared war on terror, and said we taking down Saddam... looked straigt at the camera and uttered, you're either with us or against us. Which was the "shotgun wedding" of the new age. Even though many danes, "me included" wouldn't buy into the bull# they were selling, our goverment still signed us up. Even though several parties tried to make coalitions, they just couldn't get the majority vote. Anyway, I feel that this sort of goverment, is the only real way to deal with issues that arises. The same parties that see eye to eye today on one issue, may not feel the same on another tomorrow.

Someone on ATS has a quote that goes: It's to late to change things from within, but it's to early to shoot the bastards.
I love that quote, but I don't agree that it's to late. You all know this to be true deep down. Having lived with you americans for over a decade, plus I married the hell out'a one as well. I know you're all great patriots, and you know noone can't change something sitting on their ass. Hoping that a miracle will somehow appear, isn't gonna happen. Except maybe with total commitment. Start the miracle, by going out into the streets by the millions, and start walking to the steps of congress, or governor mansions, official offices, sit down and don't leave. Grassroot political movements also work, but do take time.

Don't allow Bush to start a new war in Iran. Don't allow him to kill anymore of your precieous young kids. Don't give them an excuse to kill anymore innocent people, in order to line their own and friends pockets with gold.

If it should come to pass, that 2012 will be the big showdown. You could be standing on the other side, with a bigass smile upon your face saying: I didn't go quietly into that cold black night. At least I went out fighting in a blaze of glory...


posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:13 AM
I must admit, for a 'democratic' country, its not very democratic imo. Money seems to speak louder than words.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:18 AM
reply to post by Topspike

*Waves at Topspike* Hejsa...

I'm happy that you brought our system up. I don't want to sound nationalistic, but I think the Danish / nordic democracy is exemplary. We still end up with two wings of government, BUT each wing consists of different parties protecting the interests of the citizens who elected them in. Now that's democracy.
Of-course there will be compromises on behalf of the smaller parties, but in democracy the majority rules and the minority still get a lot of their points taken care of.

However, I'd like to point out that debating in the Danish government is far far less a kindergarten than the British one xD

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:26 AM
The two party system is a sham. The federalist papers even warned of what would happen should a political party system come about which it did. That is why I personally would like to see an end to all political parties and let those that would run, run on their own merits with no help from a party.

I would also like to see a new check and balance in the form of the people representing themselves by dissolving the house of representatives and replacing it with the house of the people utilizing the Internet for debate and legislation while at the same time keeping the senate as it is so that it remains a check on the house and executive branch.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:40 AM
Agree.... I don't see an overwhelming value to the current two-party system. Along those lines, if the two-party system was kept, suppose the US abolished the electoral college. Wait, there's more. In regard to Presidential elections (and perhaps all others), what if the person getting the most popular vote was President, and the one getting the second most votes became VP? Utter chaos? Or perhaps a balance?

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:45 AM
There really isn't a two-party system in the United States. That system only exists in the mainstream media. There are a lot of parties in the U.S. which fail to get national support though.

You can see the different parties here:

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:44 AM
First off we have one political party in this country with two wings, one slightly left of center and the other slightly right of center. Both represent the status quo and as such the only real difference between them is what type and how many crumbs to toss to the rubes... The Democrats want to give them a little more than nothing, the republicians grudge them even that.

Second, the older I get the more I favor a full blown parlimentary system since ours obviously doesn't work anymore.

I'd suggest offering ourselves to the Queen but I doubt that she would take us back.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by grover]

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:08 AM
Other than power grabbing I see no real difference between our two parties.
Well I should say specifically the two parties candidates.
Seems like we are stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.
What would be worse is so many parties would require the winning party to make deals with other parties to get anything done.
We basically have that already.

I am disgusted with our "politicians" much more than our political system. I am even more disgusted by "We the People". The average person pays no attention to what is going on other than "water cooler discussions". Too many don't vote and most don't even know the name of their own Senator, etc.

The old saying is too true, "we get the government we deserve". That is what we have today.

Want to change things...Get Involved. Start with local politics and a grass roots effort. Call, email and write your government elected leaders and tell them of your support or displeasure.

If you do nothing but whine I hope you enjoy the 25% hit your paycheck is going to take to cover the cost of gasoline and all things that are tied to that cost.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:09 AM
Creating divisiveness is the function of politicians in a representative democracy. They're doing their job.

Each wedge issue expounded upon, each polarizing stance taken, each political skirmish that can be made to involve ideological rhetoric, allows the public a chance to agree, disagree, or define themselves somewhere in the middle of the issue.

Representative leaders do not accurately reflect the views of individuals, they are the tent-pegs that anchor the fabric of public opinion. They define the extremes by their assumptions and motivations, and allow the public a common surface of discussion by what they enclose and draw taut.

To the extent that politicians have failed, that surface is discontinuous. Disaffected individuals find themselves with no common basis of discussion and/or agreement with the fabric of mainstream opinion. Believe me, if the political powers can figure out how to position themselves to get more people under their region of the tent, they will. That generates more votes and stability for their campaigns.

Perceptions of dichotomy in political opinion are subjective, and the granularity changes as you choose how you categorize. That's the way common opinion works. If you want to see one monolithic 'property party', there's evidence and argument that can support that viewpoint. If you want to see a Republican/Democratic battle, there's lots of evidence for that, too. If you want to categorize various politicians by their positions along the spectrum of a particular issue (civil liberties, foreign policy, economics, etc), you can do that, too.

In that sense, democracy isn't broken, any more than a vastly tangled ball of spaghetti can be considered 'broken'.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:58 AM
to have no more "democrats" and no more "republicans" would be nice

except that the new "unified" party we'd create would be split in two...again...

There are people who think there's only *this* way to fix the problems
there are others who think there's only *that* way to fix the problems

until they sort out their differences, there will be a divide

atleast, in my opinion that is

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:11 PM

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:17 PM
While we're talking about having two parties and different points of view, what happened to free in speech in the US? There's a been cases where supporters and religious leaders on either side of Obama and McCain have come out and said something, or they were caught on a microphone, and then they get grilled for it.

Then the respective candidate distances themselves from the person, condemns them, and begins the rhetoric of 'that person doesn't represent me!'. Well, you hung with them for some time, you should know... And they should be able to say their true opinion and not have to tip-toe around everything.

Also, the New Yorker cover recently with the cartoon of Obama and his wife. Obviously it was a spoof of the hard right saying how Obama is supposed to be a Muslim, but that was also condemned from either side.

If I were an American, I'd just not vote

top topics


log in