What I find most interesting, is that Anglo-Saxon countries have such a long history as two-party-states. Why is it that your countries only have two main political parties and how did this become so established? Why do many countries have multiple main parties but not Anglo-Saxon countries?

I believe that the two party system comes from a simplification of the political process.

Early on in America's history, our founding fathers were skeptical of a strong central government. They wrote the constitution to make sure that this never happens. They always wanted to be assured that a tyrannical government could not get enough power, which is why they limited the government.

In the Constitution, the powers of the National Government are expressed literally, and any other power not given to the National Gov is reserved for the state government. Our forefathers may have been paranoid, or they just knew that humans crave power and they wanted assurances against that.

Early in our history, Presidents attempted to pass certain things, like the formation of the National Bank of the US. Since the power to make a bank was not expressed in the Constitution under power for National Government, many people viewed this as a breach of power and unconstitutional.

This started the two parties. One of them wanted to adhere strictly to the wording of the Constitution, while the other wanted to use Implied powers.

This debate still runs on today. Today the Democrats want a strong National Government, in the form of welfare and many other socialist agenda programs. These programs and the control that they fester over the people, are exactly the type of power that our founding fathers did not want the National Government to have.

So, OutoftheBox, in my opinion, the two party system is around because of the struggle of too much National Power. One party wants more, while the other wants less, and they are constantly making agendas to further their own.

I personally like the Libertarian stance (which is that we are disenfranchised from the original wording of the Constitution, and we need to go back to it).

But... Anti-Masons.... that's just unusual. And they are claiming that the Masons are killing off the politicians who oppose them!

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce

Early on in America's history, our founding fathers were skeptical of a strong central government.
...
These programs and the control that they fester over the people, are exactly the type of power that our founding fathers did not want the National Government to have.

This isn't entirely correct.. The "Federalist" Party was created for just such a reason. To have a strong central government...

Notable "Founding Fathers" who were Federalists:

John Adams
Benjamin Franklin
George Washington
Alexander Hamilton
and
John Jay

Of course, I am including people that were at the Constitutional Convention and signers of the Declaration of Independence. Though, I do believe that Washington was not elected as a "Federalist" (the party was being formed officially while he was in office). He did believe in the federalist ideology and helped Hamilton gain support for the new party.

edit:

Included an incorrect individual as a federalist.
Actually... It isn't entirely incorrect. James Madison did help write the Federalist Papers, but he became opposed to what the party aimed to do later (eg. National Bank, etc).

[edit on 8/6/2008 by apolluwn]

I think that most of our founding fathers were skeptical of a strong national government, Britain time and time again proved to them what a government with too much power could do.

While there may have been a few that wanted a strong central government, their voices were drowned out and left out of the Constitution.

The entire Constitution was written to prohibit the Government from obtaining too much power over the people. This is one reason our system of checks and balances was adopted.

At the time of the Constitution, it seemed as if everyone was on the same page in regards to the government. But, it is when the Secretary of Treasury (Hamilton) started to "Interpret" the Constitution that the parties became divided. Still to this day, there are people that believe that our Constitution should not be interpreted in any way, shape or form. They believe that the Constitution was near perfect in its intent and practice (with the addition of Amendments).

These people wanted to make sure that any change to our Government would have to be Amended, which means all of the people will get a say in it. But, with Interpretation, the Government could go around the people and do things like start the First National Bank without an Amendment.

I do think we would have too many Amendments now, if every addition to government would need to go through the Amending process. But, our government would not have the power to run as rampant as it seems to be running these days.

Apolluwn, you are right about the Federalists that worked on the Constitution. However, I think many more were skeptical and paranoid of large government since they had just lived through a tyrannical Britain. They wanted to limit the power of government to assure liberty and personal rights for the future.
But, how you declare them Federalists, they were not Federalists until well after the Constitution. It was the debate over interpretation of the Constitution that brought the difference that is the two party system of today.

Edit: I just wanted to add that I thought it was funny that the Democrats use to be against a strong government, and now they are for it. Also, the term "Democrat" originated as a derogatory term meaning "mob rule".

[edit on 6-8-2008 by ThreeDeuce]

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
So, OutoftheBox, in my opinion, the two party system is around because of the struggle of too much National Power. One party wants more, while the other wants less, and they are constantly making agendas to further their own.

It's no different in multi-party nations. It's just more complex out there.

Originally posted by apolluwn
What are these other countries that routinely have multiple parties in control of the government? I do not believe that there could not me many, but I would love for you to prove me wrong.

I'm pretty sure that two-party-states are the minority.

At the Belgian federal elections of 2007, no less than four Flemish parties (in the Flemish part of the country) and three Wallonian parties scored higher than 15% (in the Wallonian part of the country). As a consequence, the current government consists of a coalition of I believe 6 political parties. 11 parties scored higher than 1%.

At the Dutch federal elections of 2006, no less than four parties scored higher than 15%. I'm not sure how the Dutch form their coalition. Ten parties scored higher than 1%.

At the Swiss federal elections of 2007, no less than four parties scored higher than 15%. I'm not sure how the Swiss form their coalition. Nine parties scored higher than 1%.

Countries like Germany, Italy or Spain also have multiple parties but only two parties that score high.

Anyway, the above examples should illustrate that the two-party-state is far from a standard in industrialised nations.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by OutoftheBoxthinker]

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
Apolluwn, you are right about the Federalists that worked on the Constitution. However, I think many more were skeptical and paranoid of large government since they had just lived through a tyrannical Britain. They wanted to limit the power of government to assure liberty and personal rights for the future.
But, how you declare them Federalists, they were not Federalists until well after the Constitution. It was the debate over interpretation of the Constitution that brought the difference that is the two party system of today.

Absolutely.

They were federalists after the Constitution was written and I do believe that the interpretation of the Constitution played a large role in it. Do remember, however, that the Constitution was drafted because many believed (several of whom became federalists) that a stronger federal government was needed and the absolute sovereignty of the states needed to be toned down.

I do agree with what you are saying for the most part, but I think the Constitution serves as sort of a compromise to some different ideals held by the founding fathers.

It is interesting that the federalists died out so quickly, but really they were kind of elitists and a government "of the people" shouldn't cater to the minority that are governing which seems to be in a loose sort of way what they federalists wanted. I think the people of the time became aware of this. This really makes me want to look into when the people lost sight of the ideals held by the people during the birth of the nation and started allowing the government to take more control and expand to its bloated present form.

OutoftheBox, one could argue that we are not a two party system because we allow Independent Runners for our President. I think this makes us more accessible for the common man than a normal four party system or such.

Since we have the two parties as a base, we can have many independents lobbying for the third slot. This gives us deviation from the normal political also, just like Germany, Italy and Spain like you mention.

So, Belgian Dutch and Swiss elections have four or more parties, but does that make their political system better than ours? Also does their four parties allow for deviation from the norm, or are the four parties set every year?

If they are set from year to year, then it seems as if it would be the same thing as ours, just divided more. I personally think that politics needs to be able to evolve, and our system allows that. I have not seen many other political systems that change with time.

As for the assertion by appolluwn that two party systems are the majority, Outofthebox you have named three countries with 3 or more parties and 3 with 2 main parties. I have to side with Appolluwn on this one, as there have to be more countries without 3+ parties running. Remember, you have to take into account all of the Communist, and Dictatorial countries also. Two Parties definitely seems the norm.

Originally posted by apolluwn
Do remember, however, that the Constitution was drafted because many believed (several of whom became federalists) that a stronger federal government was needed and the absolute sovereignty of the states needed to be toned down.

This really makes me want to look into when the people lost sight of the ideals held by the people during the birth of the nation and started allowing the government to take more control and expand to its bloated present form.

I couldn't agree more. The drafters knew that we needed a strong government, but that the government's power needed to be limited so that it would not be abused. Considering it was Hamilton's interpretation that forged the two parties, I would have to wager that a good portion of the country was wary of the government from that point on.

"Bloated Present Form" is an understatement when comparing our government today to the one at the nation's birth. I would call it an Incestial Radioactive Mutated Deformation of the government originally drafted. In no way did they mean for some Patriot Act to record every phone call and email in the country, or rights to be bridged because of "Homeland Security".

But, what interests me more.... is why was the first independent party Anti-masons? Is there something going on with the Masons that people knew then, but we lost sight of?

Part of 9/11 theory is that the planes that crashed were drone planes flown by remote (since experienced pilots would even have difficulty pulling those maneuvers). Now, if those planes weren't manned, where did all of the passengers (victims) go? I don't completely believe this, but the only way I can explain it in my mind is the Masons. If the government was going to get a large number of people to get on a plane, and fake their deaths; it would have to be a large secret society. A society like the Masons would be able to cover this up, and keep the families quiet.

But, this is all speculation. I don't have a clue about what happened during 9/11. All I know is that I have many questions that need answered.

So, were the Anti-Masons on to something?

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
Since we have the two parties as a base, we can have many independents lobbying for the third slot. This gives us deviation from the normal political also, just like Germany, Italy and Spain like you mention.

In your country, a third party candidate has no chance whatsoever. This is not the case in other countries. For example, fascists, communists and greens are commonly elected in various countries.

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
So, Belgian Dutch and Swiss elections have four or more parties, but does that make their political system better than ours? Also does their four parties allow for deviation from the norm, or are the four parties set every year?

First of all, it's just about four parties scoring higher than 15%. It's about 10 parties scoring higher than 1%.

Second, it is better because in our system a party can come out of nowhere and actually become very popular. In fact, in Flanders (Dutch-speaking part of Belgium) the anti-establishment parties get more than 30% of the votes. This is quite confusing for the establishment parties, since it makes it harder for them for form a coalition as they refuse to cooperate with anti-establishment parties.

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
As for the assertion by appolluwn that two party systems are the majority, Outofthebox you have named three countries with 3 or more parties and 3 with 2 main parties.

I mentioned three countries with ten or so parties of which on average four parties score high enough to be taken seriously.... and it's far from always the same four parties !

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
I have to side with Appolluwn on this one, as there have to be more countries without 3+ parties running.

I just took a few examples. I'm quite sure two-party-systems are far from the norm.

Originally posted by apolluwn
Well... not really. There are plenty of other parties in many countries but they are still dominated by 2 or 3 major parties. The other parties just don't ever end up in control of the government.

That's the difference. My country has anti-establishment parties with 20% or more of the votes and we've had greens in our government. I believe Italy even has communists and fascists in its government occasionally. That seems almost impossible in two-party-systems.

Until recently, my country had no libertarian party. The very first elections it took part of, it already scored more than 5%. Current polls indicate that this party might actually score 15% at the next elections. That's how much difference a multi-party system can make.

I know these aren't all necessarily directed to me, but I believe it is relevant to some of the things I had said...

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
In your country, a third party candidate has no chance whatsoever. This is not the case in other countries. For example, fascists, communists and greens are commonly elected in various countries.

Au contraire!

Ross Perot won 30% of the vote here. He was a third party candidate. He got second place.

Theodore Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate in 1912 and came in second. It is not a no chance whatsoever situation.

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
First of all, it's just about four parties scoring higher than 15%. It's about 10 parties scoring higher than 1%.

Not really. Who cares how much votes a party gets if they are never in control? In Britain, they have a party that routinely challenges the two major parties now. They aren't even in control..

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
I mentioned three countries with ten or so parties of which on average four parties score high enough to be taken seriously.... and it's far from always the same four parties !

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
I just took a few examples. I'm quite sure two-party-systems are far from the norm.

Three countries is not a majority. I could list more than three single-party dictatorships, three single-party dominated countries, and three two-party countries. How does that make multi-party systems the majority? Seriously.

Even if two-party systems aren't the "norm" they are more common than multi-party systems.

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
That's the difference. My country has anti-establishment parties with 20% or more of the votes and we've had greens in our government. I believe Italy even has communists and fascists in its government occasionally. That seems almost impossible in two-party-systems.

Exactly. Your country. This does not make it the rule. It makes it the exception. Besides, are we talking strictly federal government? If not, then the American party climate is far more varied than you believe it is...

Originally posted by apolluwn
Ross Perot won 30% of the vote here. He was a third party candidate. He got second place.

Theodore Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate in 1912 and came in second. It is not a no chance whatsoever situation.

I must admit I wasn't aware of that.

Still, both Ross Perot and Theodore Roosevelt are ultra-rich people and Roosevelt used to be mainstream. How much does Perot's agenda differ from those of the mainstream parties?

Originally posted by apolluwn
Not really. Who cares how much votes a party gets if they are never in control?

Sometimes, it's enough to have 5% of the votes to become part of the government if the combined votes of two major parties don't add up to 50%. That's how the greens entered our government a few years ago.

Originally posted by apolluwn
Three countries is not a majority.

I only picked a few random examples. Do I really need to go through all Asian and European parties?

Originally posted by apolluwn
Even if two-party systems aren't the "norm" they are more common than multi-party systems.

Do you have statistics or other data to prove that?

Originally posted by apolluwn

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
That's the difference. My country has anti-establishment parties with 20% or more of the votes and we've had greens in our government. I believe Italy even has communists and fascists in its government occasionally. That seems almost impossible in two-party-systems.

Exactly. Your country. This does not make it the rule. It makes it the exception. Besides, are we talking strictly federal government?

Yes, we're talking federal.

Any no, it's not the exception. You find similar situations in Holland, France, Austria, Italy and many other countries.

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
Until recently, my country had no libertarian party. The very first elections it took part of, it already scored more than 5%. Current polls indicate that this party might actually score 15% at the next elections. That's how much difference a multi-party system can make.

How is that really a difference? Instead of centrism in the parties before they are voted in you have centrism in between the parties after they are elected? This is two sides of the same coin for the most part... Obscure or radical ideals are still ignored in favor of the ideals that are relevant to the majority of the elected officials...

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker

I must admit I wasn't aware of that.

Still, both Ross Perot and Theodore Roosevelt are ultra-rich people and Roosevelt used to be mainstream. How much does Perot's agenda differ from those of the mainstream parties?

What does this have to do with what we are talking about? I don't think these issues have anything to do with the validity of third party candidates...

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
Sometimes, it's enough to have 5% of the votes to become part of the government if the combined votes of two major parties don't add up to 50%. That's how the greens entered our government a few years ago.

We have and have had third party candidates elected to office. This does not mean that anything that party stands for are being pressed. "Being there" does not constitute any state of control in that situation...

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
I only picked a few random examples. Do I really need to go through all Asian and European parties?

Do I need to go over all the parties in the United States and other countries? An abundance of parties does not mean anything when only a minority of those parties are ever in control. You seem to be missing this point...

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
Do you have statistics or other data to prove that?

You aren't proving anything to the contrary. I have already told you I can come up with more than three that are not routinely ruled by more than a very small number of political parties. The simple fact is that only a small number of countries with multi-party systems (with more than a few dominant parties) are even successful at it.

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
Any no, it's not the exception. You find similar situations in Holland, France, Austria, Italy and many other countries.

This is the truth. We have members of other "alternate" parties in various positions of the government. Just because there is a member from a different party in some position does not mean they have any power to press the issues of their party.

Originally posted by apolluwn
How is that really a difference? Instead of centrism in the parties before they are voted in you have centrism in between the parties after they are elected? This is two sides of the same coin for the most part... Obscure or radical ideals are still ignored in favor of the ideals that are relevant to the majority of the elected officials...

I'm not saying the multi-party system is the way to go. I'm merely implying it is a better way than the two-party-system.

Originally posted by apolluwn

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker

I must admit I wasn't aware of that.

Still, both Ross Perot and Theodore Roosevelt are ultra-rich people and Roosevelt used to be mainstream. How much does Perot's agenda differ from those of the mainstream parties?

What does this have to do with what we are talking about? I don't think these issues have anything to do with the validity of third party candidates...

In my country, pretty much anyone can start his own political party and be succesful. In the US, you need loads of money and/or connections to have a remote chance of getting enough votes to be noticed.

Originally posted by apolluwn
We have and have had third party candidates elected to office. This does not mean that anything that party stands for are being pressed. "Being there" does not constitute any state of control in that situation...

In my country, the greens definitely managed to put forward their agenda. They didn't only have their own members of parliament but also their own ministers, in spite of them having been a fairly marginal party most of the time.

Originally posted by apolluwn
Do I need to go over all the parties in the United States and other countries? An abundance of parties does not mean anything when only a minority of those parties are ever in control. You seem to be missing this point...

You seem to be missing the point that in multi-party states it is possible for radical non-mainstream parties to gain enough votes to be part of the government or at least put a lot of pressure on the government.

Originally posted by apolluwn
The simple fact is that only a small number of countries with multi-party systems

What do you based this on? Other than Anglo-Saxon countries, I don't know any countries with a two-party-system.

Originally posted by apolluwn
We have members of other "alternate" parties in various positions of the government. Just because there is a member from a different party in some position does not mean they have any power to press the issues of their party.

That's precisely where your system and our system differ.

When I speak of the government, I speak of ministers.... which means people who call the agenda. I'm not referring to our senate, which is less powerful. The parliament constantly has about 30% of people from anti-establishment parties who can definitely put pressure on the agenda of the mainstream parties in spite of them constantly being villified by the media.