It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The glory of the two party system!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2004 @ 05:42 AM
link   
I was gotten to thinking when reading Slugfest's post where he said it's a shame America is destined to remain a 2 party country.

No it's not, 2 parties is why America is the most sane and NORMAL nation in the world, while nations like France go off in 50 different directions.

Let me explain how the two party system is so great.

First it's not "static" it does change from time to time. The change occurs when the people finally want a party that represents them over-all. Great example is the Revolution of 1800, when the Federalist Party was utterly whiped out in lieu of the Jeffersonian-Democrats to restore what the people of America deemed was their values.

A second party took place of that appealing to the "minority".

See look at it this way. Create broad moderate legislation and most of the people are happy, but you can't have everyone happy so create broad and moderate opposition to cover them.

This is fair, balanced, and reasonable.

The alternative, well I'm sure many complained about Bush "not winning the election".

Well hell at least he won with 49.8% of the Popular vote.

In some nations where they have 14 different parties, the President or Chief Executive whatever he be called, is elected by only 7% of the people.

So you decided...49.8% or 7% which do you want it?

Now where do two parties not really be necessary? The States...where people get more results from their governments and therefore things happen faster.

But nationally, the 2 party system is a god-send.

Instead of coalitions being formed by radicals we have to actually have good and just cause for doing what we want. Our government doesn't just suddenly invent a moronic things such as ohhhh...banning religious items in schools and hospitals, because this is going to piss off a lot of the people.

France got away with this because a lot of the people vote many different ways.

England's been a bit more extreme in many respects than the US because England, has what...3 or 5 major parties?

How much of a plural majority did Blair get elected by...that is by his party which is how much of a plural majority is his party elected by? (more accurately asked).

Is his party elected by 51% of the people of UK? (not sure myself so I'm really curious).

Anyways, if you have many different parties, one will usually dominate all others, we saw this with that whole November Republic thing in Germany when the Nazis kept getting their way because they represented about 14-30% of the people before they took over all of Germany for themselves.

Nasty things these 3rd parties.

When the time comes to switch gears, it happens, Democrats and Republicans constantly have switched platforms to meet the needs of the voters, and when they finally are not representative and won't give, they'll be voted out indefinately for new replacements.

Remember, it was once the Federalists and Anti-Federalist, then Jeffersonian-Democrats and Whiggs, then Democrats and Republicans.

2 party system does not mean you're stuck with the same ideology.

In the 1800s a government as large as ours is today would have been immediately over-thrown, the people wouldn't allow it.

1930s changed all that and now you have new platforms...the Democrats suddenly are socialist, the Republicans suddenly are anti-federalist.

Blah blah blah.

I can ramble forever but you get the idea...




posted on May, 30 2004 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Yeah, we get the idea.

You have not travelled outside the US much to see how real governments work, how electoral systems can be made accountable and auditable, and how proportionate representation best works to represent diverse interest groups in coalition and co-operation to run the business of government.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 07:04 AM
link   
I find your claims that my not leaving America limits my views as stupid as my claims of you not coming to America limiting yours.

If you call a Chief Executive elected by a 7% plural majority "representative" then you're a looney.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 07:40 AM
link   
I have been in and out of North America sufficiently over many years to know what to like and what not to like.

Actually, Chief Executives ought to be appointed, not elected. Surely you would recognise the difference?

Keep digging, young American, the world is watching with interest.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I completely agree with FREEMASON in principle.

About five minutes after the US has a viable third party, it will have 5 or 6 or 12 including both good and bad.

It's not that I'm particularly scared of Nazis,
but it wouldn't be far fetched for say the SOCIALISTS to win. Or the RELIGIOUS RIGHT.

For anyone that thinks that complaining over the 2000 election was bad, imagine a party winning with 34% of the vote with the remainder split two ways. Then you'd have 66% of the country FURIOUS instead of the 51% you have now.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   
In the long run it doesn't matter. Anyone who WANTS to be in office should automatically be disqualified. Should all be appointed. Like a draft.

They are mostly all lawyers anyways, and we know what that means.......

but seriously.. Freemason gave an excellent example of why the two party system works.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Alot of crap!

I agree that 2 party system have some advantages, but not the ones you put.

There is many country's that have many partys and they are doin very well thank you.

(Japan, UK, Canada, Germany and many more).

You are saying that America is STRONG cause of the 2 party system.

Ofcourse that's not correct.

The america is strong cause of the economy and good law system.

Nobody is untouchable in USA (even the president), and that's a good thing.

Regardless on 2 party system, America had many problems that other countrys did not had (and other way around ofcourse), like legal racism or other similar problems.

Saying that 2 party system is the best way to go is very stupid.

History is not showing that.

Pero.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
For anyone that thinks that complaining over the 2000 election was bad, imagine a party winning with 34% of the vote with the remainder split two ways. Then you'd have 66% of the country FURIOUS instead of the 51% you have now.



Those stats are silly. Whatever proportion of the votes that is won is won, and the system for forming government deals with that.

Most eligible Americans seem too apathetic to even vote, and that is how the system wants it, isn't it?



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Why are most people apathetic? There is no one you can really get on board with. Neither the republican or democratic party represent the working man/woman.

Demos are too interested in catering to the fringe groups and carrying out Johnson's failed great society, while the Repubs protect their own business interests and the religious nuts. I'm sick to death of having to decide against the lesser of two evils.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
A strong 3rd party should in theory happened because of a split in one or both of the parties, usually when the masses want changes. One or both parties will have to re-invent themselves and take in some of the popular 3rd parties ideals. That should more or less dissolve it. And there will always a small population that just wont like it and try to destroy the 2 party system or whatever they blame.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 02:16 AM
link   
First, I really hate how the "old world" thinks that America is the "new guy on the block"

A few facts:

1) America is the oldest nation on the earth. (Look-up what a nation is.)

Primarily nations were created out of de-colonialization. While Britian may say to many that it is the oldest nation this is not true, it has the oldest legal system yes, but until about 1920 it was still an Empire which is far different in political decision making than a nation is and you can see this difference between Britain today and Britain pre-WW2. (Many factors go into this but Britain is the most complex of the older nations).

France, toss them out the window, France has only been a nation since 1963, before that it was a different nation, before WW2 it was a different nation and so on until it first became a nation in 1798.

Germany, became a nation somewhat in 1870s, but it wasn't until after WW1 that it became a nation and it was Nazi, and then after WW2 West Germany became its own nation and East Germany united to that in 1990.

Japan, became a new nation out of an old Empire in 1946.

Russia, born as a "nation" in 1917 which then worked to form the Soviet Union, became a completely knew nation in 1991.

The list goes on.

The second oldest continuous nation on earth is technically Haiti. It formed after the French Revolution and until just recently has remained relatively as it was when it first formed.

Britain becomes confusing because of their long legal traditions which have bound them even politically for quite a while. But a good point is when America seceeded from Britian, the King was still the head-of-state, now the royal monarch is only the figure-head-of-state. (Queen Victoria anyone?)

The United States has been governed by one code of laws AND one structure of government for 217 years. Longer than any other nation on earth.

Britian easily has been ruled by a long standing code-of-laws but not by one structure of government.

Every other nation is relatively younger than 50 years with the exception of Haiti.

2) America's political system is not "radical". It is slow moving and there-fore not as much a threat to freedoms as other nations have been to their own peoples.

3) The two party system does lend to much of the slow processes that sometimes people are so annoyed over. But those slow processes are good see #2.

Most eligible Americans seem too apathetic to even vote, and that is how the system wants it, isn't it?

4) Most Americans do vote, just not in the National Elections.

This is because the strongest governments in America are the State governments, followed by the local governments then the Federal government and then school boards.

So most Americans actually vote, but not many are interested enough in federal politics to vote there, this doesn't really matter because most influences that federal policies have are over foriegn affairs not over local affairs.

Now on to more of my opinions on other comments.

Saying that 2 party system is the best way to go is very stupid.

History is not showing that.


History shows that America is the oldest nation state on earth. (I should reitterate that we're talking nation states because before a nation state exists it is just a collection of ethnicities which is not a nation. Take that into account when reading the above facts of America's oldest nation bit.)

In fact Montesqieu even wrote that "America has been created by its own people." That was a very powerful observation because until then no nation was creted by its people, it was created by long-standing ethnic ties and relations.

Regardless on 2 party system, America had many problems that other countrys did not had (and other way around ofcourse), like legal racism or other similar problems.

Legal racism existed in Britain, France (today), Germany, South Africa and so forth, this is not due to anything but social values. Which is not really reflected by party systems.

There is many country's that have many partys and they are doin very well thank you.

(Japan, UK, Canada, Germany and many more).


Japan and the UK and Canada are doing well because they are following mainly age-old traditions. France and Germany are debateable and I would say they are not doing well at all because they have few traditions and they are succumbing to radicals more than moderates due to plurality victories and coalitions.

Over-all, I still have noticed that my one point has never been refutted by the opposition.

There are nations out there, great nations like France or Germany or even Britain, whose leadership is not elected by a majority but by a plural majority.

I ask Masked_Avatar what amount of the population elected Canada's current Prime Minister?

Or since he's probably appointed, what amount of the population has elected his party?

If it is not at least 48% I don't think you have much a leg to stand on in the most crucial area of legitimacy of government.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   
FreeMason,

I have idea how to even start


1) America is the oldest nation on the earth. (c) by FreeMason


Are you out of your mind?????????????????????

I have nothing personal against USA at all, really.

There was many many nations on this planet but you are trying to define "nation" as you think is right.

Some of the nations don't even exist as such anymore, but they was way older then USA.

Take a old "Greece" for a example.

That's very silly.

USA is one of the yungest nation on the world.

There is so many thing's you say I don't agree with you, but will pick only one.

"Japan and the UK and Canada are doing well because they are following mainly age-old traditions"

Only this country are fare more advanced in human rights then USA.

Then don't have death penalty, or other problems like with guns, or for example there is more then 2 MIL people in prisons in USA.

If this countrys are age-old traditions then, I am very happy they are like that.

Japan for example have more culture history then USA x 10 times.

UK, Germany, France are much more liberal countrys then USA, or for example Japan is by my exp one of the moste liberal country in the world.

Ofcoruse, we are talking about the nation's, but you should not compare nations with type of political system then had/have.

Please don't try to explain history as you think it's right, and don't quote that as a fact.

You are saying that 2 party system is the best way to go! I say it's not! The fact is there is many country with much more party's then then USA, and they are doin just fine.

For example, north europ. (Finland, Denmark, Norway etc), are in many way fare more advanced countrys then USA (living standard, tech standard, etc) then USA, and they all have multi party system, ofcourse they don't have space program, cause it's expensive, and that's where we came to what I already said before.

Economy, this is where USA is strong, and that's why everything is mostly good in USA, cause everything is driven by money.

Even bush pill up 200 MIL for election campaign!, it's all about business and money, and that's a good thing.

Even if USA have more partys, I am sure they would work just fine, cause money is the only ideology there, and they have means to make alot of money, it's a huge market, almost 300 mil people, high tech standard.

Pero.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Originally posted by RANT
For anyone that thinks that complaining over the 2000 election was bad, imagine a party winning with 34% of the vote with the remainder split two ways. Then you'd have 66% of the country FURIOUS instead of the 51% you have now.



Those stats are silly.


Huh? What's silly? The "viability" aspect of a third or fourth or fifth party signifies support or chance of winning votes. In other words, splintering of the population into factions.

Any well organized group could win. There's more polariztion and less inclusion. Right now the major parties attempt to reach out to "sub-groups"...in the alternative, the more America splinters, the more the sub-groups can go off on their own fighting each other rather than compromising.

It may sound silly, but why not a Hispanic Catholic party then? They'd win if they unified. Or a Labor Party or whatever. I'd bank on some splits,like the Dems would splinter off into various racial minority parties with some going Libertarian and others into economic theory parties like Socialism. The Republicans would splinter into some Free Trade corporate entity versus a Morality party, again with several going off Libertarian.

I guess it wouldn't be bad...Libertarians would probably win all the time, but with some tiny plurality.

Bottom line: I couldn't stand the national elections if they were like the California run-off. Schwarzennegger versus Gallegher versus Gary Coleman.

What a joke.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I can only speak for Canada, but I imagine many other countrys with 3 or more parties are the same. When the 'winning party' wins by less then 50% it's a minority government. This leads to much more comprimise. The winning party can not really do anything with out the support of at least one other party. The loosing partys could co-operate with one another and gain up against the winning party. It's generally not a system where the leader of the country has full power. It doesn't lead to 66% of the population FURIOUS, It may lead to 100% of the population FURIOUS because nothing is getting done, or it leads to very few furious, and the large majority content.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Until the last election I always believe in a democrative system, now I see the one with the most money and help to steal the elections will win.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Also, the definitions used in my Politics, Anthropology, and Sociology classes at college was

Nation: "A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality"

State (Country): "territorial and political units composing a federation under a sovereign government"

The Nation is the people while the State is the government or country.
You don't need a State (country) to be a nation. i.e. the former Yougoslavia and Czechoslovakia were States but not nations. Now the Croats, Slovaks, Bosnians, Czechs, Serbs etc were all nations but they didn't have their own state Until the 1990's.

The USA is an old country, in that it has an old constitution that hasn't been updated like most other older countrys that have been around longer.

The CIA's list of every countrys independance days
www.cia.gov...

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by zero_snaz]



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
We are a very new nation but our constitution was written by mans ahead of their times, mens with visions and they to me sawed the future. To bad the politicians of today are a whole bunch of morons.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   
No I stated in my own post to not confuse Nation States with ethinc groups.

America is the oldest Nation on the earth, because it is the first nation to be created by its people conciously.

Other nations such as Britian have not been created by a concious effort but by simply ethnic groups banding together over time as they saw more similarities with themselves versus other regions.

To show you how there is a difference between nationality and ethnic groups, look at Iraq or former Yugoslavia. Both are having problems now because one nation formed over a myriad of seperate ethnic groups whom did not see eachother as the same people.

I think Zero_Snaz's link will show you all that I am correct.

Only a few nations will have exceptions, such as Britain (I can't think of any other off the top of my head), and that I already discussed why it is a difference.

Take Spain for instance, new nation since 1930s.

And the rest of what Pero says is crap...but I'm not even interested in responding to it because of the horrible english I have to sift through.

You can not compare Greece which was occupied in part by the Turks until WW1 as being an "older nation" than the USA.

Don't confuse older HISTORIES with older nationalities.

The USA is the oldest nation on earth, we've been operating our government far longer than any other nation has been operating theirs.

Because of this, we certainly have a better say at what is best for governance than do other nations.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I see what you mean and I agree with you, but we our constitution is what keeps this nation together.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   
A little bit of trivia.
The Oldest Legislative body: The Althingi was established in 930 in Iceland by Viking-era settlers. The world's oldest legislative body is now Iceland's official parliament.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join