Yet another thread about the two party system

I am starting to wonder if most of Americas problems dont stem from the "two party and ONLY two party you dumass" way of thinking.

It has divided us into two widely seperated camps in which both claim there is no middle ground, no other possible choice than the two that they offer and to even THINK so is not only stupid but also un-American. This line of reasoning is alienating most of the rest of us, those who do not blindly follow the party line. I know that all Republicans and Democrats dont goose step with the extremes of there party but it seems to a lot of us that they (the extreme) are making the calls.

Hell even I, probibly one of the most rabid Libertarians on the board, dont believe the Libertarian party line hook line and sinker.

I think we are on the road to a multi-party system like those used in a lot of other countries. If for no other reason than that so many Americans are growing tired of the same-o same-o coming out of Washington.

A third party doesn't have to get a majority to be effective, if the party that is in power need your 2-5 votes to get a piece of legislation passed, who do you think holds the power there?

See this is the reason why I don't think we should have political parties. Heck, I hate politics. I'm neither a Democrat or Republican. From what I've witnessed over the years the politicans don't seem to care about the welfare of the American people. They only seem to care about themselves. This of course how I view politics.

So join the party that most closely resembles your personal political attitudes and try to change it from within. Nobody says that the most extreme left or right candidate has to be the one the party chooses! Good God, look at what the Democrats did this year! Kerry is THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR IN CONGRESS, and Edwards is #4! If you want something more moderate in a two party system, which is not what we have, although in practice that's the way it comes out, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!

Very good point Mr. Mulder. Or course having only two parties makes our goverment easy to exploit.

[edit on 8/9/2004 by cyberdude78]

Another TWO PARTY HATER HERE. None of the parties today speaks to my way of life. The republicans do not want anyone else to get wealthy... the democrats are too weak on capital punishment...and nobody wants to free all the poor brothers and sisters incarcerated unfairly for using GOD'S SACRAMENT. So much time is wasted on petty party bickering. Our politicians are now working for the people who give them money, and not the constituency. Paid lobbyists should also be illegal as these people are there merely to deliver the cash bribes.

I'm sure that this has been posted many times before, but the 2-party system has the force of law in most states. The reps and dems have written their state conventions into the state constitutions, and their program is defined and the tabulation of electors is outlined by the state.

In contrast, the 3rd parties can proceed as non-profit corporations, which means that they can do anything they want. Invariably, sore losers will sue in court in order to protest a close vote. The legalized parties don't face this problem, so the net results is that any third parties shred themselves on a state level, before they ever become effective.

Regardless of what you think of H. Ross Perot, that is exactly what happened to his political party in Texas. He got all paranoid and started shouting about conspiracies. There was no factual conspiracy: the state Democrats just paid the legal bills for any dissaffected party-members who wanted to protest. H's sycophants did the rest.

Nader avoided this by creating a party so tightly controlled by himself that it has been argued that his political party is more like a business venture than a caucus. To do that, you have to have a lot of conspiratorial string-pulling behind the scenes, or a 'secret police' within your organization. I don't know enough about his operation, but I bet Nader has chosen the latter, since there is little of the compromise stances that result from backroom deals.

The long and short of it is that in order to have 3rd parties, you'll need to amend constitutions in almost every state. Do you think the politicos on both sides will ever let that happen?

Alright, I'll be honest here in saying that I like Kerry's policies more than Bushes at the moment. Only Kerry seems to keep chaning his mind on certain issues which I don't like. One of the things that disturbs me about Bush is his tax cuts. Why is he giving tax cuts when:

a. We're at war

b. Our national debt and budget deficeit is in the trillions

Shouldn't instead of giving tax cuts, use those to help the troops in Iraq or reduce the national debt?

AMUK - first .. great Lobo img.

Problem with 3rd party politics in the USA as compaired to other countries such as Canida or any other parlemtary system is that our 3rd party votes are so overwealmed by the 2 major parties that any vote for said 3rd party is basicly lost. In a parlemtary system 3rd aprty votes translates into party representitivs who vote in Parlement. Downside is that in the parlemtary system you vote for your party and not the specific representitive. The representitive is piced by the party that you vote for.

However, since we do not have parlement and over the last couple hundred years we have fallen into the two party system. Any votes for the third party tend to only act as a spoiler.

wraith

i've said it before, and i'll say it again. we need a new voting system. the way we vote is one of the worst ways ever invented.
i believe stalin said something to the effect it doesn't matter who you let vote or how many, it's how you count the votes that matters.

Originally posted by vapor
i've said it before, and i'll say it again. we need a new voting system. the way we vote is one of the worst ways ever invented.
i believe stalin said something to the effect it doesn't matter who you let vote or how many, it's how you count the votes that matters.

Let's just hope we don't switch to the electronic voting system in this next election. That would be disasterous. We need to stick to the paper ballot.

Originally posted by mrmulder

Originally posted by vapor
i've said it before, and i'll say it again. we need a new voting system. the way we vote is one of the worst ways ever invented.
i believe stalin said something to the effect it doesn't matter who you let vote or how many, it's how you count the votes that matters.

Let's just hope we don't switch to the electronic voting system in this next election. That would be disasterous. We need to stick to the paper ballot.

I agree completely. When the largest maker of these machines also gives to one of the candidates(BUSH), then the fox is in the henhouse. No offense meant Mr. Mulder.

Originally posted by groingrinder

Originally posted by mrmulder

Originally posted by vapor
i've said it before, and i'll say it again. we need a new voting system. the way we vote is one of the worst ways ever invented.
i believe stalin said something to the effect it doesn't matter who you let vote or how many, it's how you count the votes that matters.

Let's just hope we don't switch to the electronic voting system in this next election. That would be disasterous. We need to stick to the paper ballot.

I agree completely. When the largest maker of these machines also gives to one of the candidates(BUSH), then the fox is in the henhouse. No offense meant Mr. Mulder.

Oh, not at all. No offense taken. With paper ballots you can keep a record of the votes. With the computer if the entire system is hacked all the information is lost.

I came from a four party system and I think it was a littler bit confusing when I was younger I could not differentiate the Socialist party from the Independents party.

Definitely this country needs another alternatives we should eliminate the republican and democrats and just get 3 or 4 candidates to just concentrate on the country's needs rather than affiliations.


[edit on 9-8-2004 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
So join the party that most closely resembles your personal political attitudes and try to change it from within.

I did

I joined the Libertarian Party and work on the local and state level to change some of the stances I dont think will work.

The two party system is slowly losing its grip on the country, look how much money the parties spend each year to convince the public that they only have two choices.

Does anyone have the stats on how much each party spends to stay in office each year?

Even now we have the seed of at least a four party, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and Green. We are on every state ballot this year, I believe. It wont happen this year or next but the voting public is growing weary of Business as usual in Washington. The big two are the main cause, they have managed to totally discredit the other to which I must appluad

We should definiately return to our founding fathers intent of a ONE PARTY system where the heir apparent, then King George, runs unopposed as long as he likes repaying loyalty with copious quantities of alcohol until ready to pass the gauntlet to the next guy he chooses.

The best thing about a two party system IMHO is that third parties have something to complain about. Forget the simplicity of ANYBODY BUT BUSH...now it's ANYBODY BUT DEMS AND REPUBLICANS!



I say enjoy the 15 minutes. For were we ever an INHERENTLY CORRUPT THREE PARTY SYSTEM, I'd be the first to complain and start my fourth party movement to take back America from the Big Three.

Revolution for the sake of revolution!

Glad to see you are on our side Rant......LOL

Actully I am talking about a MULTI party system not a three party system.

Are you saying that every question has only TWO possible answers?

I love a bulletin board where BOTH points of view can be so freely expressed. LOL. In joke.

The Norse God Of Mischief made me do it.

Originally posted by RANT
We should definiately return to our founding fathers intent of a ONE PARTY system where the heir apparent, then King George, runs unopposed as long as he likes repaying loyalty with copious quantities of alcohol until ready to pass the gauntlet to the next guy he chooses.

Revolution for the sake of revolution!

Who said that?

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by RANT
We should definiately return to our founding fathers intent of a ONE PARTY system where the heir apparent, then King George, runs unopposed as long as he likes repaying loyalty with copious quantities of alcohol until ready to pass the gauntlet to the next guy he chooses.

Revolution for the sake of revolution!

Who said that?

Me. As per Originally posted by RANT. But I wasn't serious.

Originally posted by Amuk
Are you saying that every question has only TWO possible answers?

Would that be a yes or no question?

Here I am serious. There's always a third choice even in a black and white situation. The decision not to choose, participate or play the rigged game. Take that how you will.

I actually am a staunch supporter of mischief and mayhem (as MA may be as well). But in this particular exhibition season, I've about poked the Republicans all the Zoo union will allow. So I toss grapes once in a while at the Libertarian pen. I assure you no ill will. It's just in my nature.