Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by patent98310
We have a two-party system because of the structure of our electoral process, you'd have to amend the constitution to completely destroy it. I also
don't see why the wealth of modern politicians is any kind of proxy for their level of corruption.
This is demonstrably false. There is absolutely no language in the Constitution for the United States that mandates a two party system or any type of
party system. In his farewell address of 1796 George Washington gave very dire and specific warnings against political parties. Here, in part, is
what he had to say:
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical
discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different
shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and
is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and
countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent
despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an
individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the
purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of
the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and
false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence
and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one
country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of
liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with
favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From
their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of
excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to
prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine
themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The
spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real
despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the
truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different
depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and
modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the
people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which
the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the
customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient
benefit, which the use can at any time yield. "
The people of the United States are not legally nor morally bound to any party system let alone a two party system. If they had to radically amend or
alter the Constitution in order to end the two party system then how do you explain the long history of emerging parties in the U.S.? Indeed, the
Republican party was not even founded until 1854, years later Theodore Roosevelt started the Bull Moose Party, Eugene Debs ran for President as a
member of the Social Democratic Party, and more recently we have the Libertarians, the Green Party, Ross Perot's Reform Party and the Constitution
Party to name just a few.
We the people of the United States may, at any time, with out altering or abolishing the Constitution elect a non party affiliated candidate to the
office of President, to Congress or may elect one as Governor of a state or Mayor of a city and to the legislature of any given state. There is no
law demanding the voters must elect only those candidates affiliated with a political party. Education indeed! Read the Constitution for the United
States and come to understand it as that is the Supreme Law of the Land.