2 Party System Vs. 3+ Party System

[Groo the Wanderer]

the current 2 potty system

[img]http://coachjoeenglish.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/two_potties.jpg[/img]

[dairygirl4u2c]

plus in a way even if we don't have a three or mor eeparty system per se, we still have an array to pick from. at every primary election, there's an array of people, be they more on the conservative side or more liberal. within that framework, it's easy to argue we have at least a three party system.
the only real problem is when politicians feel the need to adhere themself to party line to get backing, when we have only two artificial contemporary party lines.
but all said and done, we have plenty of choice at the primaries.
i used to be a big advocate of three plus parties but then realized we already had soemthing close enough.

[Ed Normile]

We have never had a inherent 2 party system of politics in America. There are tons of other parties, but the majority of this we elect to represent us belong to one of the two major parties due to many reasons including funding and the old one hand washes the other practises in politics. Third parties such as the green party, Ralph Nader being the most memorable member, the Constitution Party, Bob Smith being the most memorable and a Roman catholic, The Libertarian party perhaps the most notable member being Ron Paul, and they can claim to be the third largest party in America, yet they have never held a house or senate seat, and only in 1972 did they ever get an electorial college vote. We as Americans live in a Republic, not a democracy and as a Republic we elect representatives to vote as we hope they will to represent us. This vote is swayed by promises and moreso by money, which always goes to the parties with the most power, which is afterall the parties of those we elect.

In short, how has it come down to a two party system, that is what we as Americans have voted for.

ed

Edited September 16, 2012 by Ed Normile

[Anomaly]

We don't have a third party on the national level because most voters don't care enough. In today's world you don't start off with a national party from nothing. The Tea Party could become a legitimate party, but it lacks clear focus, unifying personality, and has to overcome negative media spin because it tends to be more conservative the the mAjority media opinion.

[Norseman82]

Another thing to keep in mind is National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:

[url="http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php"]http://www.nationalp...explanation.php[/url]

In summary, when the states that sign on reach a total of 270 electoral votes among themselves, they agree to award all their electors to the winner of teh national popular vote. I don't think this will help third party causes, because it would only increase the whole winner-take-all scenario and make people more sensitive to splitting their vote against the opposition (as opposed to now, where someone in California, New York, Illinois, Texas, or Idaho may decide that their state is so overwhelmingly in favor of one party that they can cast a protest vote without it affecting the general election).

Personally, I'm more in favor of runoff elections when nobody wins an outright majority of the popular vote. That way, if my candidate from the third party I voted for gets second place but the first place major party candidate does not get the majority, he/she will face the major party candidate; if my candidate does not make it among the top two, I can go with my second choice. This system would reduce the fear of "splitting the vote" against someone you detest. If this system had been in place in 1992 (all votes staying the same), there would have been a runoff election in all but two states, because Clinton only won a majority in Arkansas and D.C.; Bush won an outright majority in none; Perot would have been in a runoff against Clinton in Maine and against Bush in Utah; and in the rest of the states there would have been a Clinton-Bush runoff.

(Figures from www.uselectionatlas.org).

I know that Georgia does that (Coverdell beat Fowler in a runoff election for U.S. Senate a few weeks after the general election in 1992).

Edited September 18, 2012 by Norseman82

[filius_angelorum]

Well, there are dangers in every system. One of the problems with a proportional-vote system, such as what many European countries have, is that the majority will generally swing in favor of those who are the most popular, which generally translates into those who spend the most money. Moreover it gives the Congress and the individuals elected a sense that they have been given a mandate from the people, when in fact the mandate has been given to the party platform, not the individuals.

So, while I favor a multiple party system over a two-party system, it seems better to me to minimize the effect of parties at all by balancing representative government with direct democracy and local interests with national ones.

For example, why not simply eliminate the House of Representatives and have only a Senate with members appointed by the State Governors. Laws would have to be proposed by the Senate and passed by a General Referendum. The President would be elected by the Senate and hold office until kicked out by the Senate or a referendum. That would keep things business-like and the interest on the part of the Senate would be in keeping local Governments happy (subsidiarity) rather than national-issue voters. It would also pretty quickly eliminate very effective national parties, since each state would be a party unto itself.

[abercius24]

There is also the myth (be it true of false) that the two party system has always been there to distract and control the voters. Having two parties allows for two diametrically opposed positions on any hot button issue (abortion, illegal immigration, entitlements, etc.). With two diametrically opposed positions in the public debate, politicians can get the public absorbed with demonizing members of the opposing position generating fear in their constituencies and a subsequence dependance on the politicians to "save them from the enemy", in a sense. Then, when both party leaders find things they agree on that are not in the interests of their constituencies, the public is too busy fighting each other to realize that both parties are working together against the voters behind the scenes!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='abercius24' timestamp='1348784493' post='2487399']
There is also the myth (be it true of false) that the two party system has always been there to distract and control the voters. Having two parties allows for two diametrically opposed positions on any hot button issue (abortion, illegal immigration, entitlements, etc.). With two diametrically opposed positions in the public debate, politicians can get the public absorbed with demonizing members of the opposing position generating fear in their constituencies and a subsequence dependance on the politicians to "save them from the enemy", in a sense. Then, when both party leaders find things they agree on that are not in the interests of their constituencies, the public is too busy fighting each other to realize that both parties are working together against the voters behind the scenes!
[/quote]

You mean politics is a giant, rigged game that is designed to distract, manipulate, and hoodwink the average person?? God help us all!

[abercius24]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1348784753' post='2487401']
You mean politics is a giant, rigged game that is designed to distract, manipulate, and hoodwink the average person?? God help us all!
[/quote]

ROFL, CM!

It's only a useful "rigging" if the people allow themselves to be distracted! Otherwise, its just a game played by both parties, including the people who ignore the distractions and make their decisions based on intelligent consideration. It's all about who has the power and who has the dependance. If the people maintain the power and enforce dependance on the politicians, its not necessarily a useful rigging!

[penguin31]

In a multi-party system, politicians actually have to occasionally cooperate, talk to one another, and compromise in order to actually properly run the country. I'd gladly take it over the current system any day of the week.

[Winchester]

None. They're all poo.

[PhuturePriest]

Sorry, Winchester, but without a common law there can't be any sort of order. Unfortunately not everyone is a devout Catholic and has the Bible and the Church to go by on what to do and what not to do.

[kujo]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1348811466' post='2487524']
Unfortunately not everyone is a devout Catholic and has the Bible and the Church to go by on what to do and what not to do.
[/quote]

Right, because Christians of all stripes [i]never[/i] have disagreements about law, ethics and morality...

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1348812834' post='2487529']
Right, because Christians of all stripes [i]never[/i] have disagreements about law, ethics and morality...
[/quote]

Of course not. Why ever on earth do you think we're having this very conversation?

[kujo]

How do we define "works best" anyway? If you are talking about efficiency, it would probably be best to have only 1 party. On the other hand, if your goal is to create a legislative branch that is most representative of the enormous diversity of political, social, religious, ethical and economic opinions within this and nearly every other country in the world, I'd say having lots of parties, each earning their commensurate proportion of seats in the legislative branches would be a most desirable.

Oh, and the reason we have allowed our political system to become shackled by the two-party system is because our entire electoral philosophy is predicated on the FPTP (first past the post) mentality and what's called the single-member district plurality. Explaining the former is easy: it's like Ricky Bobby said, "you're either first, or you're last!" As to the latter, there's no proportionalism, just a simple mathematical concept--there is only 1 thing to win (the office being voted upon), and the person with the most votes receives the entirety of that office, not a portion of it based on a percentage of the votes he or she has. Again, it's a zero-sum relationship that encourages (coerces???) a dichotomous political system, one which the Founding Fathers--in all their infinite, unimpeachable wisdom and foresight-- probably didn't foresee, and probably wouldn't endorse.

Edited September 28, 2012 by kujo