The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Two Party System
Richard_Dastardly
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I'll begin by acknowledging that our Republic has pretty much had a two-party system since her infancy. However, I believe that it's entirely detrimental to Democracy to have only two parties, to whom their respective members profess loyalty, govern our nation. Allow me to explain.
1) As with our corporate controlled media, the dominant factions in each party choose which ideas and positions their respective party presents to the public. This leads to a tyranny of the majority, where both the minority factions of the major parties and the minor political parties find it extremely difficult to have their ideas heard. For example, social conservatives and evangelicals dominate the Republican party. This means the socially liberal, homosexual and state's rights Republicans have no power to shape policy. This tyranny also leads many politicians to vote with their respective parties rather than with their conscience or their constituencies.
2) With only two parties espousing diametric ideologies, our nation is split along a great ideological divide. One must choose a side to remain politically relevant. It doesn't matter if you're an economically conservative Democrat, you're still on the left and you'd better vote as you're told.
3) When one party dominates the presidency and both houses, it enacts policies while facing very little opposition. When one party controls the presidency while another controls one or both houses, then very little might get done. Having more than two parties would drastically reduce the chance of a one-party rule.
4) With only two major candidates in any given election, lobbyists rule while those with neither wealth nor clout are marginalized. Unions, corporations, pro-Israeli groups, Christian groups, etc help shape both a candidate's and a party's policies. Were multiple candidates to be seriously considered in elections, then lobbyists would have to spread their money across multiple fronts, thus reducing their effectiveness.
Personally, I want to see other parties represented in the debates... namely Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney of the Libertarian and Green parties respectively. Even if they have no chance to actually win the election, they might at least help to shape the national dialogue and thus domestic and foreign policy.
Oh yeah, and my apologies if this has been discussed before. I did a quick search but didn't come up with any threads of this specific nature.
1) As with our corporate controlled media, the dominant factions in each party choose which ideas and positions their respective party presents to the public. This leads to a tyranny of the majority, where both the minority factions of the major parties and the minor political parties find it extremely difficult to have their ideas heard. For example, social conservatives and evangelicals dominate the Republican party. This means the socially liberal, homosexual and state's rights Republicans have no power to shape policy. This tyranny also leads many politicians to vote with their respective parties rather than with their conscience or their constituencies.
2) With only two parties espousing diametric ideologies, our nation is split along a great ideological divide. One must choose a side to remain politically relevant. It doesn't matter if you're an economically conservative Democrat, you're still on the left and you'd better vote as you're told.
3) When one party dominates the presidency and both houses, it enacts policies while facing very little opposition. When one party controls the presidency while another controls one or both houses, then very little might get done. Having more than two parties would drastically reduce the chance of a one-party rule.
4) With only two major candidates in any given election, lobbyists rule while those with neither wealth nor clout are marginalized. Unions, corporations, pro-Israeli groups, Christian groups, etc help shape both a candidate's and a party's policies. Were multiple candidates to be seriously considered in elections, then lobbyists would have to spread their money across multiple fronts, thus reducing their effectiveness.
Personally, I want to see other parties represented in the debates... namely Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney of the Libertarian and Green parties respectively. Even if they have no chance to actually win the election, they might at least help to shape the national dialogue and thus domestic and foreign policy.
Oh yeah, and my apologies if this has been discussed before. I did a quick search but didn't come up with any threads of this specific nature.
Richard_Dastardly on
0
Posts
To respond to your post
1. Voting along party lines is an issue in Canada also. It's become popular to state that representatives are encouraged to vote with their conscience and will not suffer any political backlash from voting against party lines on a Bill, but it is hard to say how true to their word they really are.
2. Ideological divides will exist even with a greater number of political parties. If the state your voting in is not contested it hardly matters if your voting for one of two parties or a third party, I agree that perhaps total votes should hold more sway, such that your votes matter regardless of where you cast them.
3. More political parties does shake things up a bit. Us against Them is not a good mentality for political discussion and getting bills passed, either you force it through or nothing happens. With more political parties you will find a middle ground.
4. Lobby and political contributions are already on the table for reform or have been reformed. More political parties doesn't really fix this, you need better regulations, which hopefully you will get.
right now im in favor of making sure than neither party can get anything done.
democratic run government is gonna suck just as much as the republican run one.
We manage that, and the Republicans and Democrats will just join forces once again in some sort of uber-party.
Prepare yourself for more feel good legislation then. Hey, at least the Left and Right can agree that we need to attach electronic dog collars to sex offenders or that we believe the children are the future, so we'll just pass laws to treat them well and let them lead the way.
It'll be Liebermans all the way down...
I'm more in favor of the Bull-Moose party.
I am also in favor of a Bull-Moose party so that the Democrats can win every time.
I'm partially playing devil's advocate here, but why should two parties who, according to their showings in pretty much every election, represent the views of a tiny sliver of the American voting public be allowed access to nationally televised debates to "shape the national dialogue"?
Also, I think third parties would have a lot more success if they focused on the local and state levels first, rather than grasping for the brass ring of the Presidency.
but they're listening to every word I say
feel good legislation would happen regardless.
1) Ron Paul didn't have much trouble getting his ideas heard. Neither did Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich. The primary system might not be the best way to do things, but it does a better job than you're giving it credit for.
2) You have to choose a side anyway. There are socially and economically conservative democrats, and socially liberal republicans. They're in Congress right now. As most legislative decisions are yes/no anyway, two sided coalitions are going to form under any system.
3) Again, true in any governmental system. When one faction gets a broad public mandate, shit starts moving. The american system does a better job of slowing this process than most.
4) I haven't looked into this at all, but I suspect that in a multi-party election, you'd increase the influence of money, not decrease it. If there are five candidates competing for oxygen instead of two, the power of money to buy attention is amplified.
The libertarian and green candidates deserve to be heard from, and they are. I'd even be in favor of including them in the debates (or maybe, just one debate.) But it's pretty silly to put a fringe candidate on equal footing with a candidate with broad public support.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
As far as number 2 goes, I realize that there are socially conservative Democrats, etc in both houses. However, when pertaining to big issues, how many vote with their party and against their core values?
I also don't think McKinney's ideas are fringe... the Green Party's core beliefs are stuff pretty much anyone can get behind. Of course, the whole notion of non-violence would kill her chances at election anyway.
So then every single person who considers themselves to be a Presidential candidate should be included in nationally televised debates?
Sure it would be nice to have more options and more parties to choose from, but with the current method of voting, its not going to happen
Well, no. But that'd be interesting.
You have to get yourself on the ballot first. So, how about this: every candidate who can at least get on the ballot in at least 45 states will have a place in the debates.
This is interesting. Do you know of any studies on this that would make sense to the layman?
The point I was making is that Ron Paul had the same shot any other candidate has, and he built enough of a campaign that he could get his views out there. Honestly if a wacky conservative can do that, anyone can. Dean did it in 2004; until like, summer of 2003 no one knew who the shit he was. American political history is shot through with these sorts of candidates (see: McCarthy, Gene, see: Wallace, George.)
I am in full support of IRV voting, and if I were to design the way run elections in a vaccum it would look almost nothing like the current system. But people who are big into third parties don't give it enough credit. Just because fringe candidates (candidates) are heard from and dismissed, doesn't make the system bad.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Candidates like Paul and Kucinich only have an equal chance in some ideal world where at least most of the voting populace is well informed, and where they think critically and truly make their own decisions. That's not the political landscape in the States. Unfortunately, the media play a very large role. When they show Obama 5 times as much in the debates as Kucinich, it makes Obama automatically seem more viable. If McCain gets a question like "What's the best part of being a war hero" and Paul gets a question like "Are you running for the wrong party", that also shapes things in the minds of the voters.
At least during the primaries, candidates need to be given equal coverage so that the people can decide, and the media needs to stop arbitrarily declaring front runners and longshots, since they aren't even right a lot of the time (Giuliani was supposed to be a front runner, but he was behind supposed longshot Ron Paul in all but one state). They should also hold every primary on a single day so that everyone in every state can choose from the entire pool of candidates. The only reason to do otherwise is TV ratings, and that's a bad reason to fuck up a country.
Here in Canada, though only two parties have formed the government, the others don't just "play spoilers". In the 90s, both the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party formed the official opposition, while the Conservatives (one of the two who've formed the government) fell to 5th. That's what happens when you do shit the people don't like, and they have alternatives.
The NDP have also made some very key additions to the political climate and discussion in this country, in spite of never having formed the federal government (though they have formed several provincial governments).
The majority of Americans want 3rd party candidates in the debates. If it's limited to something reasonable, like having to be on the ballot in enough states (maybe enough to hypothetically form an electoral majority, maybe 45 like someone else said, anything like that), you'd only be adding two, maybe three candidates. Even if they don't get elected, they can move the discourse in the right direction.
Presidential primaries are staggered because it gives smaller-time candidates a chance to compete. A singular, nationwide primary would be decided almost entirely by fundraising prowess, with candidates like Paul relegated to the same status third parties now have in general elections.
There's plenty of reason to criticize the media, but when a candidate, for whatever reason, is far enough outside of what is "electable" (either through mathmatical elimination or a poor campaign), why should anyone be obligated to prop them up and give them a bully pulpit? Also, I don't think the "people are too dumb to pay attention to them" argument really holds any water.
Like I said, the primaries provide underdog candidates with plenty of opportunity to win, and to influence the dialogue. Dean made opposing the Iraq war a viable position; Ron Paul had a lot of ideas that people at least listened to. McCarthy basically dethroned a sitting president as a result of his primary performance. It happens.
Yeah, this is because you have a parlimentary system, as opposed to the U.S. presidential system.
I question whether the majority of americans actually want this or not. If they liked third parties all that much, more people would vote for them, or would vote for equivalent candidates in primaries.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
As for people being stupid, do you really think any sane person would've voted for Romney if the media hadn't been so biased in his favor? He basically supported sidestepping the constitution to nuke everything in the middle east that wasn't Israel.
The problem is that the only people who actually listen to them are the people who are already thinking critically. The media spends a lot of energy making them look non-viable, and trying to make them look crazy even if they're making good points. A lot of people blindly listen to the media. If they're told a candidate is crazy, they'll buy it. I also don't think Dean is in that tier. He was the frontrunner until the whole 'Dean Scream' thing.
Yeah, this is because you have a parlimentary system, as opposed to the U.S. presidential system.[/quote]
I think the Liberals could easily accuse the NDP of being spoilers, since a lot of NDP seats would probably go Liberal if the NDP weren't around. You still need a plurality or majority of the seats to form the government.
I don't see how allowing people alternatives in an election has anything to do with whether you have a Parliamentary or Republic system.
I think there are a lot of people who support the Democrat or Republican who'd like another voice or two in there to keep them on the important topics and away from mudslinging. There're also probably a lot of voters who'd consider a 3rd party candidate, but would want to first see how they handle themselves in a presidential debate, or maybe they're undecided and want more options to choose from.
I'm reading between the lines a little bit, but it seems like your basic issue is that the american voter is uninformed and intellectually lazy, and that the media do a poor job of fixing this.
I believe this is a fair assessment of the problem, but it's not a problem you can fix by changing the electoral system. If voters are disinclined to pay attention to candidates that will require them to think critically, it will be just as much of an issue under any system you want to devise. The frontrunner argument gets back to the media sucking, but your argument is sort of self-defeating. Despite his media annointing, Guiliani crashed and burned, and Ron Paul had a relatively successful campaign (such as it was) in the primaries.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
What I'm saying with Giuliani is that sometimes the media can't push a candidate on the people no matter how hard they try. They succeeded with candidates like Romney and McCain though.
The problem is that most voters aren't lazy so much as they've been brought up to believe;
1) The media isn't going to be biased.
2) There are only two legitimate parties.
If the media simply reported on any party and their candidate who were on the ballot in enough states to hypothetically form an electoral majority, and did an unbiased job, the candidates themselves would be forced to stick more to the issues. Instead, they know the people are easily led, and they play to that.
How about something as simple as candidates getting equal time in primary debates? That doesn't seem unreasonable. Some may say "But I don't want to hear from such-and-such guy, he's crazy". I thought Romney was a walking pile of crazy, but he still got plenty of coverage.
When Obama and Clinton are getting about 25 minutes each in a debate while someone like Kucinich is getting about 5 minutes, is it really surprising that some people marginalize his importance after that, regardless of what he's saying?
QUICK POINT
The electoral system doesn't need to be changed in any major way so much as they just need to be less exclusionary. Hell, they're not even subtle about their motives. When a 3rd candidate came in and actually had a shot at various points back in 1992, they added more obstacles for 3rd parties right afterwards.
This is a reference to what is known as Duverger's law, although it has a key limitation in that regional politics may limit this tendency (Riker). The basic principles of this are easy to understand:
In essence, it is tactically inadvisable to vote for a third party - I direct you to Nader as an example, and to the accusation that voting for a third-party is equivalent to voting for the opposition of that party's views. The trend operating here stems simply from denying all representation to those who do not win the election.
In terms of local support, were a third party to be voted for by, say, ten percent of the population evenly across the country, it would have no immediate influence. In contrast, if this support was concentrated in a single area, it has the potential to have rather impressive influence, due to winning actual seats.
This can potentially be resolved by some form of proportional representation, although if constituencies were to be retained then instant-runoff would eliminate the issue Duverger mentions above - I could list my first choice, for instance, as the Green party, without jeopardising my second.
The Wikipedia article outlines it reasonably well, and links to this page, from which I have quoted above.
You think your Democrats are leftists? Try looking at it from an international perspective. Sweden has seven parties in the parliament, and the US Democrats are probably just a bit to the left of our Moderates, which is the rightmost party.
edit: though I should mention that our seven parties are split into two blocks.
the problem is that the system is set up for 2 parties and always has been.
in order to change it you would need to amend the constitution which would mean that both parties would need to agree to basically add more competition.
IRV can cause some very, VERY odd outcomes. I prefer any voting method which completes the Condorcet criterion, when electing a single individual.
It will be interesting to see how the Australian Greens are affected by the recent change in the balance of power in the Senate. Will they seek to become more of an active party in government (not necessarily a coalition partner, but at least taking a stronger role in shaping government outcomes) or retreat towards their base as a protest party?
I think you're confusing what comes to a vote as what the decision actually was. Each party is going to predict the likely outcome, quite accurately, before every calling a vote. When something comes to a vote its likely that over 90% of the voters have already decided. Do you really think a senator who's been in office for over 20 years is going to have to ponder their stance on an issue up until the last minute? And since they're obviously not going to very often, don't you think everyone else can predict their vote relatively accurately?
Things only come to a vote for 2 reasons, I would think. 1) to make a political point (campaign using the vote as evidence of support or opposition to a specific issue). 2) to actually pass laws. Very rarely is the outcome of the vote unknown before it starts.
What if we eliminated primaries and replaced them with run-off or multiple-round voting? Say, start with a huge pool of nominees, then reduce it to a handful and eventually to two for the general election? I don't know how many rounds of voting the American public has the attention span for, but I would guess at least three.
Then you can have politically relevant candidates from all walks of life, whose only qualification is getting people to care about their message.
Extend Antitrust laws to political parties, making them essentially an illegal cartel. As in, move from a two-party system to a no-party system, but keep the rest of our electoral process intact.
We don't allow cartels, because they lead to a group amassing market power, in order to enrich themselves at the expense of society. Arguably, political parties are similar. They are associations to amass power to the insiders at the expense of outsiders, and politically enrich participants at the expense of society.
I was under the impression that everything was originally set up to be non-partisan in your system.
I'm referring to members of Congress who might face political retribution if they don't vote alone party-lines.
That's true. George Washington himself was actually against having formal political parties, because he felt it would eventually lead to a 2 party system and divide the nation.
There's nothing about political parties in the Constitution of the United States.
[edit] and here's some more things that are not in the Constitution-
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#pparty
When did I say there was? I didn't mention the constitution. It was a personal opinion Washington had.
Edit: I just realized that that probably wasn't directed at me. Sorry.
Read the whole quote tree. Hint- Dunadan019
Yeah, I caught that when I re-read.
Sorry about the misunderstanding man.
just becuase the document did not state political parties does not mean that it didnt determine the number of political parties we have.
12th amendment
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
so if we had 3 parties, you can either have 2 that are tied and one that is far below (which is the same as the parties are today). one that is far ahead and above 50 percent (a one party system). or they are all tied and the senate votes for one regardless of what the people actually want.
2 parties is the sensible option under the current constitution and it would need to be amended to make a 3 or more party system viable.