25 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBecause it is a republic, we don't believe in democracy. 😛
Clearly, a multi-party system is more democratic? Why is this not a political issue?
Edit: title too long, it seems. It should say "why is there so little opposition against the two-party system in the US?"
25 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI started a thread on this called "Proportional House." It is currently languishing on page 3 due to an apparent lack of interest.
Clearly, a multi-party system is more democratic? Why is this not a political issue?
Edit: title too long, it seems. It should say "why is there so little opposition against the two-party system in the US?"
25 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think FD Roosevelt presided over a coalition.
Clearly, a multi-party system is more democratic? Why is this not a political issue?
Edit: title too long, it seems. It should say "why is there so little opposition against the two-party system in the US?"
But basically, money.
26 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraTo what extent is there actually a "two-party system" in place in the US, beyond the choices made by voters? For example, can Independent, Green, Libertarian etc. party candidates not gain seats in the House and Senate if they win their electorates?
Clearly, a multi-party system is more democratic? Why is this not a political issue?
Edit: title too long, it seems. It should say "why is there so little opposition against the two-party system in the US?"
I realise there are some obstacles to this, and they should be addressed, but part of the problem is simply that swing voters typically either vote Democrat or Republican. Only a small group of activists are loyal to any other party. This results in both Democrats and Republicans being constrained to mainstream social norms because they want to attract swing voters; that's why you don't hear mainstream candidates questioning whether 9/11 was (in part) an inside job, for example. Just think of how many seats the Democrats would suddenly lose in Congress if they started talking about something like that.
Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura is an example of an Independent candidate who succeeded in becoming governor. He considered running for the Senate but decided against it due to the stress it might put on his family.
One example of an alternative system would be Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), whereby minority parties would get a proportion of seats in Congress based on how much of the popular vote they attained. This would require adding extra seats to Congress over and above those seats that currently exist based on State.
26 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraActually the reason is the fiercely competive American nature and the culture that "winning isn't everything; it's the only thing." I've pointed out before that politics is not like sport in the US -- politics IS sport. You don't have a match between 3 teams. That just means there would be more losers.
Clearly, a multi-party system is more democratic? Why is this not a political issue?
Edit: title too long, it seems. It should say "why is there so little opposition against the two-party system in the US?"
Ralph Nader is not admired as a man who stands up for what he believes in. He is reviled as the 'loser' who dragged down Gore. He wasn't a "team player" (what an insult!)
No, given how Americans view contests and the importance of winning, there is no way to have more than 2 serious major parties.
26 Nov 08
Originally posted by karnachzTheir voters aren't really interested in knowing the truth about things? How shocking! 😲
you don't hear mainstream candidates questioning whether 9/11 was (in part) an inside job, for example. Just think of how many seats the Democrats would suddenly lose in Congress if they started talking about something like that.
26 Nov 08
Originally posted by karnachzThere is a two-party system because the electoral system is such that any minority party will never have any real influence. Sure, Greens may replace, say, Democrats (don't see it happening any time soon, but suppose it does), but then you just get another two-party system with Greens and Republicans. When is the last time an independent Congressman was decisive over some important legislation?
To what extent is there actually a "two-party system" in place in the US, beyond the choices made by voters? For example, can Independent, Green, Libertarian etc. party candidates not gain seats in the House and Senate if they win their electorates?
I realise there are some obstacles to this, and they should be addressed, but part of the problem is simp ...[text shortened]... ding extra seats to Congress over and above those seats that currently exist based on State.
26 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358And the price for the most embarrassing post of the year goes to... [drumroll]
Actually the reason is the fiercely competive American nature and the culture that "winning isn't everything; it's the only thing." I've pointed out before that politics is not like sport in the US -- politics IS sport. You don't have a match between 3 teams. That just means there would be more losers.
Ralph Nader is not admired as a man who s the importance of winning, there is no way to have more than 2 serious major parties.
Lying, cheating, manipulating and obfuscating the truth is your idea of a
good sports game? 'Cause that's what politics is, you know?
What's this nonsense about sports having only one loser? Many good
sports have more than one loser: Skiiing, cykling, formula 1,
Golf (though this one is questionable as a sport 😕) and so on.
Given your notion that USA:ans feel that winning is everything, here's
an idea: 1 party system. It just wouldn't lose. EVER. Am I great, or what? 😀
27 Nov 08
Originally posted by JigtieCommie!
And the price for the most embarrassing post of the year goes to... [drumroll]
Lying, cheating, manipulating and obfuscating the truth is your idea of a
good sports game? 'Cause that's what politics is, you know?
What's this nonsense about sports having only one loser? Many good
sports have more than one loser: Skiiing, cykling, formula 1,
Golf (t ...[text shortened]... ing, here's
an idea: 1 party system. It just wouldn't lose. EVER. Am I great, or what? 😀
28 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think America will become a multiparty country in time. It's just a matter of when.😏
Clearly, a multi-party system is more democratic? Why is this not a political issue?
Edit: title too long, it seems. It should say "why is there so little opposition against the two-party system in the US?"
28 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI look at multiparty systems in some places, and it seems like the leader never has any support because he only has like 1/7 of the parliament on his side. Leaders get bounced out with votes of no confidence and it just seems like the government isn't stable or getting much accomplished because they're trying to oust people or solidify their own base. No matter how much crap is inundating us about candidates, election day is election day. The rest of the time if you don't accomplish anything other than whining, you don't have to worry about getting re-elected.
Clearly, a multi-party system is more democratic? Why is this not a political issue?
Edit: title too long, it seems. It should say "why is there so little opposition against the two-party system in the US?"
edit: ...but I'm willing to see examples of stable governments that are multiparty governments...