How do you feel about the "two party" system in America?

[JanMichael]

Sure there are a few "alternative" parties but the reality is that there are TWO US political parties, period.

We have an institutionally protected two party monopoly. How "democratic" is that?

Is it even desirable as a concept? Can two parties possibly cover all points of view? Why is such a rigid system tolerated here when the opposite thrives in so many other "less democratic" places?

Who benefits from this lack of flexibility? The People? "Democracy"? "Equality"? "Community"?

Better yet...What/Who doesn't benefit from it?


PS~ I'm not a Green, I'm a registered Democrat, so leave that crap at the door.

[Silverhair]

1. We are stuck with it.

It is a natural result of a system in which a representative represents the population of a district.

[ikojo]

27. I'm sure there were folks who thought we were stuck with

the following at one time or another:

1. the more than 40 hour work week
2. child labor
3. The British
4. slavery
5. women and blacks not having the right to vote

People organized and worked to change all of the above. We can organize and work to change the perception and belief that a two party system is representative of almost 300 MILLION people. It is anachronistic and not representative of so many people.

WE are the people, why let a small elite define what we are "stuck" with?

Support Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation.

[pmbryant]

2. Inevitable given the current voting system

Virtually whenever one of the 2 major parties splits, they lose. (See Dems 1860, GOP 1912, Dems 1968, just amongst Presidential elections, and others of course).

Until the factions re-unite, they are no longer competitive. So re-uniting is a very strong tendency in the long run (short run, too, for that matter).

The only way more than 2 parties can survive is if we changed our voting system radically. Used instant runoff, or proportional representation, or something else along those lines.

With plurality voting, winner takes all, 2 major parties is just a fact of life.

--Peter

[durutti]

43. Disagree.

The UK and Canada both have similar systems, yet have more than two parties.

[brainshrub]

3. It sucks donkey balls.

And it's also one of the things that attracted me to Dean. He's on the record for supporting national run-off elections for president.

So, if you want to see the possibility if seeing a 3rd party rise in the United States, you should support Howard Dean.

[JanMichael]

7. "national run-off elections"? Is that the same as IRV?

Is that a pre-cursor to a coalition multiparty system?

[JanMichael]

8. Second response: Bwahahahaha! Yes, it suck donkey balls.

Big ugly donkey balls.

It should seem that way, really IT SUCKS, EVEN to the die-hards.

If they believe in democracy....

I suppose the smug happy benefactors of an undemocratic system would be perfectly pleased though. How do we appeal to them?

Hmmm. I doubt that I care at this point.

[camero]

17. That's not gonna solve the real problem

Mainly ballot access requirements and voting requirements to get matching funds and to participate in debate.

This is how the two party system keeps its stranglehold.

[Pobeka]

4. I think it sucks

How many people would prefer to cast their vote for another party, but can't because we have to play this game of trying to vote so our vote will have a realistic chance of affecting the outcome to at least marginally improve their lives?

I wonder how many people would actually vote green, as a first choice, if they knew that should the green candidate not win, their vote would then be applied to the dem candidate.

I'm not a Green either. It's just an example.

[solinvictus]

5. It's a monopoly on political power

At the highest level of government, there's little difference among most senators. They are all concerned with one thing and one thing only: corporate donors. I'm sorry, but the average American has not one bit of representation in this government. It's become an oligarchy and until we permanently remove the influence of all corporate money, nothing will change for the better. Most state restrictions make it next to impossible for a third party candidate to even get onto a ballot.

[jpgray]

20. Bullshit. Wellstone did a great job for me in the Senate

Sorry, there are plenty of progressive people in Congress. Including one Dennis Kucinich, who is currently running for president. If I lived in his neck of Cleveland, he'd be representing me quite handily.

[JanMichael]

40. Both are anomolies. Great ones too but ultimately one is dead...

...and the other (My candidate) is marginalized.

I disagree that there are "Plenty" of progressives in Congress. The House has perhaps a 15% progressive membership. 54 members of the Progressive Caucus gives us 12% and there might be another 20 or 30 that could be considered Progressive. The Senate? Much lower.

[lucidmadman]

6. It's funny (kinda)...

...I was just thinking about proportional representation. "Normal" countries have it. "The chocolate producing" countries. You know?, "old Europe". Maybe they know something. You think?

[DBoon]

9. I will be able to form a position

When we have an effective, principled opposition party in this country. The existing Democratic Party has the courage of the cowardly lion in The Wizard of Oz.

[Cleita]

10. I lived in a country with a multiple party system and

frankly nothing gets done. It creates gridlock and often the President has to invoke executive orders in order to overide the system and get things done. This was the undoing of the Weimar Republic of Germany, which made it easy for Hitler to step in and finish the process of creating a dictatorship.

Two party is flawed but preferable to me anyway.

[lucidmadman]

12. Maybe the 'nothing getting done' is...

...preferable to what is being done here. Kinda a 'Zen' thing. Maybe it would be best if what FDR, JFK and LBJ did isn't jettisoned by ruling class stooges like GWB...

[ShimokitaJer]

11. It's the single largest detriment to true progress in American society

It is the reason a fanatic like Bush is able to take the reins of government and turn back fifty years of progress. A large number of Republicans are as apalled as we are at Bush's policies, but they are forced to toe the line for the sake of party loyalty. As a result, we get fringe policies that neither party would willingly advocate pushed into the mainstream.

My vote has gone and will always go to the campaign which has the best chance of overturning this two-party status quo. In 2000, that meant giving my vote to Nader, and now it means supporting Dean for his grassroots movement.

[flaminbats]

13. I also leave that crap at the door...

my state has no party registration, I am a democrat..but this is not a loyalty to a party or an ideology. This is my means of voting for all candidates who will do the least harm to our nation.

I normally vote for the names I see on the ballot, but I sometimes write-in names for unopposed politicians or against DINOs like Zell Miller or Ed Koch. Some may see this as bullshit, I see it as the alternative to being forced to eat it!

Two parties will never cover all points of view, but neither shall three or four! A true democrat always looks at the big picture over any ideology. And in a two-party system, the minority party is always influenced by the ideology promoted by the majority party. Winning the majority means more power for a Congressman, but to the average Joe it is always an opportunity for a new beginning.

[PeakOil2008]

14. The Two Party System should be ABOLISHED

Seriously. The winner-take-all system, by its very nature, is largely responsible for the corruption of American politics. Think of it as high-stakes team sports, and you will understand perfectly what I mean. As it stands right now, a party headed by a few truly dishonorable individuals will do whatever its leaders deem necessary in order to win (case in point: Bush, Rove and the GOP, November 2000).

A representative/Parliamentary-style system would serve America far better in a number of ways. For one thing, it would force "representative honesty" upon the existing two parties. By that, I simply mean that the parties would most likely split apart along their internal coalition fault lines, and each faction would form its own independent party. For instance, the Democrats would probably split into Labor Democrats (center left) and Liberal Democrats (far left). You might also see the emergence of smaller parties from within the old Democratic party, such as Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, as well as parties that may specifically represent Minorities, Women, and Gays.

As for the "Grand Old Party" I think a representative system would be quite effective in exposing the unholy alliance between the Religious Right, Big Business and Neo-Conservative "ex-Liberals", by forcing the Republicans to split into their core factions. It also might be helpful in allowing the Classic Conservatives (think Eisenhower) to re-assert themselves by claiming their own piece of the GOP. I think the Republicans would primarily break up into (Classic) Conservative Republicans (center right) and "Christian" Republicans (far right), with the pro-business/laissez-faire economists finding a home within the Conservative Republicans, and Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell heading up the Christian Republicans. This would effectively end today's GOP requirement for Tom DeLay style "business & bible" politicians. As with the Dems, you would probably also see other internal factions, such as the NRA/Pro-gun lobby, form its own independent party.

Presently existing, but marginalized parties, such as the Greens (extreme Left) and Libertarians (center right to far right) that tend to hang around the edges of the current Repubs and Dems would be free to assert themselves as independent parties, and would likely finally gain the political stature long denied of them. Other "third" parties such as the Constitutionalists, Naturalists, Progressives, etc. would also emerge to take their spot along the political spectrum. Additionally, it's very likely that extremist groups -- like those Idaho millitias and the Klan -- would form their own parties on the extreme right and left of the spectrum. Disturbing, perhaps, but it would be a small price to pay for more political DIVERSITY.

To summarize, a representative system would break up the existing two parties into smaller, single issue parties. At this point, the key to winning would not be to win at all cost, per se, but rather, to form coalitions with the other parties in order to form a broad, representative government. This leaves the inter-faction coalitions out in the open for people to see and to scrutinize far more closely. It also allows people to be more honest in their own decisions as to which party they most identify with. (e.g. I may be a laissez-faire businessman who wants nothing to do with religion in government, and in fact, believes strongly in the seperation of church and state. Yet, if I vote GOP right now, my vote will go towards a party inclined to blur the state/church lines because of its evangelical christian constituency.)

That's my take on the matter, though I realize that a total Constitutional overhaul to create this system is unlikely at this point, or at any point in the forseeable future. Far more likely, however, is an Amendment or law that would institute Free Money and Runoff Elections, which would have the effect of encouraging a much broader range of candidates both from within the existing two parties, as well as independent candidates and candidates from existing minor parties. With these reforms in place, it is very possible that other alternative parties to the Republicans and Democrats may emerge, and even supplant them.

[xxqqqzme]

15. U need a second constitutional

convention & the establishment of a parlimentary democracy, where a 'government' is formed around a coalition. As long as our elections R winner take all, we're stuck w/ 2 parties.

[DieboldMustDie]

16. I think it would be better...

than the 1½ party system we have currently.

[Dirk39]

18. Since Wesley Clark has become a democrat....

it's not confusing me anymore. Before I was really confused. I'm german anyway and I don't understand America. Two parties were just too much for me. But now I start to understand. It's just one party. The rest is just advertising. It's just about, what washing powder is more repblican than the other one. So at least, there is just one party. Even a german can understand this. Two parties, one agenda, one agenda, two parties.
I will vote for the one with the real gun, the killer, the one with four stars. Not the would-be-cowboy with his lame attack against Iraq. I want real wars. I want torture. I want Wesley Clark. He looks so nice in the pictures. The words heroic and patriot on a black background. This is what I call having style. Free me from this lame Bush. Give me Clark.
I'm liberated.
Dirk

[SeveneightyWhoa]

23. Riiiiight.

You're lame. Very lame.

[Elidor]

19. I think it's a great idea!

I forget who I stole that line from.

[burrowowl]

21. What 2 party system?

To paraphrase Gore Vidal: America has 2 right wings.
E.g., bring your finger close to your eyes and you see the same finger twice, back your finger away from your eyes and you see 1 finger. I don't know what has made America cross-eyed.

[Doomsayer13]

22. Plurality victories and district oriented elections

These two things lend themselves to a two party system. Instant Runoff is a good idea, and I would support it, but as long as our electoral system is structured this way, there's no way to get around it.

[Junkdrawer]

26. Yep. "Winner takes all" precludes minority representation...

Third parties generally only harms the "loyal opposition".

[JanMichael]

33. Sure enough.

There need to be some serious changes but with the iron grip that the two parties share on state politics I don't see it happening tomorrow.

[Gore1FL]

24. The only difference in 2 party and multi-party

is the coalitions are built after the election with multiparty instead of before the election as with a 2party system.

I'd rather know what I was voting for than take a stab at what an after-the-vote coalition would come up with.

Multi-party is not the panacea that everyone seems to think it is.

[JanMichael]

31. I never said it was the end all. In regard to your point we might as...

...have One Party State, that we'd be damned sure what we'd be voting for.

[MadHound]

25. We have a two party system? Wow!

Couldn't tell that from how the Dems are acting these days.

Quite frankly I almost alway refer to it as the two party/same corporate master system of governance. With well over forty corporations giving $100,000 to each party every election cycle(in '00 Phillip Morris topped the list with over two million to each party), all that is being insured is that the corporate agenda is priority one, no matter who is in office.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself this question. Would an honest, unifluenced Dem actually pass welfarte "reform", media monopolization, soft money contributions, or NAFTA and other subsequent "free" trade agreements?

I don't think so.

And then there is the whole matter of the "opposition" party bending over for Bushco. You know, the Patriot Act, IWR, Medicare "reform", tax cuts, etc. Are those the actions of an opposition party?

No they're not.

We need real change in this country, and that is why I'm pushing so hard for the Greens. They take no corporate cash, hence they are only beholden to us, their constituents. And that is a refreshing idea that we can all get behind.

[JanMichael]

32. As long as it's a "Winner Takes All" Electoral system the Greens are...

...screwed.

Unless of course they supplant the Dems in a seismic shift. But then they'd just be that flip side of the Corpo Party Coin that they hate...It's systemic.

[Lexingtonian]

28. I just don't get it.

I look around DU. Then I look at this query.

The first convinces me that we're at war. Then this post says 'forget about the big picture; what does your selfish little heart crave, and isn't it *really* more important? Isn't this mud awful, haven't you done enough for The Cause already? You know, AWOL is just a label for people with more important stuff to do than win this stinkin' little war.'

There are three political parties at the moment. Us, Them, and draft dodgers or deserters that get shot or put to hard labor when apprehended. (Ask any Green.)

It's nice to keep our idealisms in mind- for peacetime. Which ain't arriving for another couple of years. Sure, the present is organizationally rigid. But most of us probably think that is a price preferable to rigor mortis of the ideals we stand for in the public arena for a generation or more.

[Iverson]

29. Vanilla, French Vanilla

To even think about wanting other ice cream is heresy! Madness! I hate the Rocky Roadites with all my passion. Only a complete idiot fails to understand that you can't get 100% of what you want, and they should be proudly eating French Vanilla so that one day in the far future their utopian Rocky Road might be possible, maybe.

They may call themselves Rocky Road, but they're really just Vanilla-enablers, and to defend our precious French Vanilla I will join hands with the Vanillas to smite the intransigent naive purist so-called Rocky Road so that we can get back to saving the world from Vanilla.

Otherwise, we'll writhe in the eternal torment of a Vanilla inferno which will be ALL THEIR FAULT.

You mean something like that?

[KG]

30. heh

:)

[JanMichael]

35. But, but, but...I WANT STRAWBERRY!

It's sort of red you know.

Great post by the way.

[ulysses]

41. that's "Freedom Vanilla" to you, bub.

;-)

[moondust]

34. Corruption.

The fewer the parties/candidates/alternatives the easier it is to game the system, buy off the opposition, marginalize the best ideas, lobby/manipulate policy, focus overwhelming energy on attacking one opposing candidate rather than articulating an independent vision and addressing the issues, etc.

A three-legged table is more solid than a two-legged one. Four legs is even better. There's room for five. Six will help distribute the weight. I think Europe, for example, has learned through experience that having more alternatives, though messy at times, ultimately amounts to better representation, less corruption, and more stability.

[drdigi420]

36. seems to me that we have 2 versions of the same party

but only because of the likes of Lieberman and the DLC

I believe that the pandering to the 'center' is going to spell defeat by alienating the base.

It's time to stop being the 'us-too-just-not-as-much' party and get back to the Democratic ideals that used to be part of the Democrat Party

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Too true.

For the most part, we have a rightwing (republican) party, and a conservative/moderate party (democrat).

Past time for a change.

[proud patriot]

37. I think it stifles our Democratic Republic

to the point of suffocation

[Terwilliger]

38. That would be a nice idea

for now, we have the super-corporate party with some ideological adversaries

[durutti]

42. Two party system?

And here I thought we had two factions of one business party.