Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Avatar Samantha Ai

In defense of our two-party system

Two-party system   13 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you favor the two-party system?

    • Yes
      2
    • No
      10
    • Other
      1
  2. 2. Do you desire change of our two party system?

    • We should keep it.
      1
    • I favor a single-party system.
      0
    • I favor a three-party system with the third being true moderate.
      1
    • I favor a three-party system with the third being more libertarian and/or to the right.
      0
    • I favor a three-party system with the third being more progressive and/or to the left.
      0
    • I favor a multi-party system.
      9
    • Other
      2

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

23 posts in this topic

Lately on these forums there has been a rising attack on our two-party system. It is being widely discussed but that discussion is disseminated across various threads as to make that dialogue incoherrnt. It deserves a topic of its own so here we are.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a two-party system.

What are the advantages and disadvantates of other systems?

Which do you favor, why, and are you able to recognize both advantage and disadvantages in these various systems you have an opinion or? Or are you more of a dualist (which I find dualism be an illusion) where your favorite is all good and what you oppose is all bad?

Are you being represented by any party now? What is your dream party? Do you prefer compromise or competition with those who disagree with you on some issues but could agree with you on others or at least meet in the middle?

Both progressives and liberals tend to be associated with the Democratic Party. However, that is due to the “big tent” philosophy, which seeks to unify members of a diverse electorate, representing various view points. For instance, progressives and liberals tend to associate with Democrats. So do advocates for gay rights and advocates for the environment.On the other hand, the Republican Party tends to bring fiscal conservatives, the Christian right, and corporate interests under its own big tent.Despite these alliances of convenience, progressives nevertheless remain a distinct and unique political group.Liberalism and progressivism may share similar “values and policy prescriptions but they are not exactly the same in substance, emphasis, or origin.

Progressivism 101: The differences between progressivism and liberalism

I favor the green party but ultimately recognize progress is not about speed but direction and that our democracy allows the mechanisms to bargain with the other side, so that we get some of what we want, they get some of what they want, all a bit at a time, but in the end compromise and cooperation is best for all. So toss my chips in under the "big tent" philosopy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted and then thought perhaps I should keep out of this because I live in the UK? I have general views on voting ........

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a system that guarantees that no party will be able to do anything thanks to squabbling and petty spitefulness, with whichever Party is not in office vowing to simply block anything that the one that is in office tries to do, purely out of vindictiveness, then it's the best of all possible systems. About the one thing to be said for it is that it's a reasonable guarantee against dictatorialness, since it makes it pretty much impossible for anyone to actually do anything.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really like it if everyone just grew up and acted like the age their driving license indicates.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Libertarian party 2016 :tsu:

But anyways on topic. Most other countries have more then two parties. I think it gets more veiws out their and stops group think more.

Edited by spartan max2
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted and then thought perhaps I should keep out of this because I live in the UK? I have general views on voting ........

All views are welcomed, including yours.

If you want a system that guarantees that no party will be able to do anything thanks to squabbling and petty spitefulness, with whichever Party is not in office vowing to simply block anything that the one that is in office tries to do, purely out of vindictiveness, then it's the best of all possible systems. About the one thing to be said for it is that it's a reasonable guarantee against dictatorialness, since it makes it pretty much impossible for anyone to actually do anything.

A fair point and looking into the history of obstructionism could be a worthwhile endeavor just to satisfy curiosity of if things have always been this way. I have a feeling that obstructionism is not perpetual or inherent to our system per se but comes and goes in waves.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never understood our two party system, since I can't agree with 100 percent of either party's tenets, or any other independent party's either. I wish our politicians were able to freely vote on individual issues with being influenced by party demands or being bought off by who has the most money.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've never understood our two party system, since I can't agree with 100 percent of either party's tenets, or any other independent party's either. I wish our politicians were able to freely vote on individual issues with being influenced by party demands or being bought off by who has the most money.

This a la carte method of voting instead of picking a package deal sounds great! Can we do something like that with cable television too? I only watch a few channels and don't view them all...

If we could just outright have referendums and vote directly on issues ourselves. Maybe skipping the middle man would be to our benefit? ¡Hasta la vista politicians!

Edited by Leave Britney alone!
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are more parties than the democrat and republican party they just never seem to have the money to get media attention or in the debates. I wish more parties were allowed in the debates. That would make them worth watching. Let the fur fly.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in the two party system primarily because it is the only system in which the people *MUST* play a major role. In anything other than a two party system and the people are not that important. In a single party system, it is the Ruling Elite that controls the power. In a multi party system, no one party can usually control a majority and thus must resort to the backroom deal with other parties to build a majority coalition. At that point, the people become unimportant because their party ceases to represent them in favor of the coalition. In both the single and multiple, the people become assets of the government to be controlled and manipulated.

In the two party system, the art of compromise is vital toward achieving goals. The party out of power is the party of obstruction. That is the way it is suppose to work. But compromise only works between two groups with like mind but have differences. There can be no compromise with Socialism because the ideology of Socialism is fundamentally opposed to that of Republic. Republic seeks limited government and Socialism seeks total government.

Currently in our system, most of the people are of “low information” and renege on their responsibility. They are coerced on the false premise that the government can take care of them. Citizenship is no longer an *in* vocation. Much of our problems are because of the Ignorance and Apathy of the electorate and because of that, we get the government we deserve.

The history of party in this country, when the party system fails, two new parties form. And perhaps that is what we need. A change to the 6th party system. But that will be difficult with Socialism as entrenched as it is. Socialism is a *greedy algorithm* and will not cease until it becomes a single party system.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Much of our problems are because of the Ignorance and Apathy of the electorate and because of that, we get the government we deserve.

It's hard to care for an election when none of the candidates stand for what you believe.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to care for an election when none of the candidates stand for what you believe.

Very true. And whose fault is that? It’s the people’s fault. We need to learn how to be good citizens again. The strategy should be to vote out the incumbent for the next few cycles. Even for the few that are doing their job. That shake up will put the Ruling Elite on notice.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never understood our two party system, since I can't agree with 100 percent of either party's tenets, or any other independent party's either. I wish our politicians were able to freely vote on individual issues with being influenced by party demands or being bought off by who has the most money.

that's exactly the problem, yes. Very often you'll find one or two ideas that one lot comes up with seem good ideas to you, but on the other hand there may be others that you might be absolutely horrified by. What do you do? A vote for the policies you agree with would also be a vote for policies that horrify you. Do you just go for the one with the fewer policies that horrify you? That, after 240 or so years of development (in the U.S., and pretty much the same in the Uk as well, since Parliamentary "Democracy" only really began to be at all representative from the 19th c.), is the best we can hope for?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in a multiparty nation.

And not a once has anyone other then the major parties formed government. We incredibly rare get a "minority" government which is formed by someone who didn't win the election outright but who wiggled an alliance with one of the minor parties (such as the state of play here now - with the Labor government (lefties supposedly) ruling because of an alliance with a trio of Independents (merchant bankers the three of them) and the Green (really left wing, they want to ban the sale of meat) and if ONE seat falls to the opposition it'll be a hung parliament).

It works for us, but I don't think it'd work for the US unless you make voting mandatory or change the process of election in some way.

That's the downside.

The upside is you get something like the Monster Raving Loony Party led by a man called Vermin Supreme. Which is all shades of nuts and awesome and everyone gets to vote for someone who does genuinely reflects your opinions and beliefs rather then Bill or Ben both of whom say the same thing but with different words.

Incidentally, I've voted in nearly a dozen elections now, and not a once has anyone I voted for or their party be elected. It's an odd feeling of moral superiority (standing by one's beliefs) and emotional weariness (because you know nothing you support will happen).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Previous posters have pointed out all the pitfalls of 'party' politics: no single party is going to represent all the issues you want it to and may represent some you're definitely against *cue hollow laughter*.

Before the election the candidates are falling over themselves to impress upon you how well they will represent you. As soon a s the election is over, the voters and their needs and wishes are forgotten. There are no men or women of a high enough moral calibre to truly oversee the running of a country(or even a city, if it comes to that), for the benefit of all the citizens.

I would like to see voting on specific ISSUES. This would require careful wording on the ballot paper, with all angles catered for. I believe that citizens would think more carefully about issues and would actually be bothered to vote if they knew their vote really counted. Some policies would vary from county to county, so there would have to be some local balloting as well as national.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is pure democracy @ ouija ouija, and many besides politicans would be threatened by it.

All those in cities would have more of a say than those in the country. Minorities in certain areas where they form minority-majorities would clearly vote in ways that displease others.

Many from those in the right-wing would be the first to oppose this. The John Birsch society would likely label such democracy as mobocracy and socialism.

In either case, just something to think about, I personally favor democracy and allowing us to decide issues through referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In either case, just something to think about, I personally favor democracy and allowing us to decide issues through referendum.

And how often do you have a referendum?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is, I think, reasonable to observe that one basic flaw of Democracy, even if it was applied in a perfect form, is that what the majority wants is by no means necessarily what would in fact be best for the nation as a whole in the long term; how easily the Masses can be persuaded to vote for a particular idea or party through the power of the Media, or "Propaganda" as it used to be called in more honest times. Not to mention how it could easily lead to oppression of any group that the Majority saw as being different, or a potential threat, to them. This is why I don't really believe that, even if it was applied in a pure & perfect form, without all the Party squabbling, Democracy is necessarily the best system of government.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how often do you have a referendum?

Not often enough!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not often enough!

Exactly!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is, I think, reasonable to observe that one basic flaw of Democracy, even if it was applied in a perfect form, is that what the majority wants is by no means necessarily what would in fact be best for the nation as a whole in the long term; how easily the Masses can be persuaded to vote for a particular idea or party through the power of the Media, or "Propaganda" as it used to be called in more honest times. Not to mention how it could easily lead to oppression of any group that the Majority saw as being different, or a potential threat, to them. This is why I don't really believe that, even if it was applied in a pure & perfect form, without all the Party squabbling, Democracy is necessarily the best system of government.

I believe that if people were voting for an individual issue, they would involve themselves more in the entire process. More people would make more of an effort to discuss the issue at work and with friends and family, and also take the trouble to look for information on the subject so that they could have an informed opinion before voting. If people were voting for a policy rather than a group of individuals who have no interest in them(apart from getting them voted into government), I believe it would be less likely that they would be inluenced by 'propaganda'.

As for 'what the majority wants is not necessarily what would in fact be best for the nation as a whole in the long term': who is to say what is 'best'? Various governments over the years have made the most appalling mistakes but luckily for them, they were not affected ..... it's the 'man in the street' who has always borne the brunt of national mistakes.

Regarding 'oppression of minorities who appear different or a threat', same thing applies: who is to say they won't be a threat? The media and governments have always whipped up bad feeling against certain groups when it has suited their purpose. I believe this would be minimised or even disappear altogether, if people were voting for a single issue at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is, I think, reasonable to observe that one basic flaw of Democracy, even if it was applied in a perfect form, is that what the majority wants is by no means necessarily what would in fact be best for the nation as a whole in the long term; how easily the Masses can be persuaded to vote for a particular idea or party through the power of the Media, or "Propaganda" as it used to be called in more honest times. Not to mention how it could easily lead to oppression of any group that the Majority saw as being different, or a potential threat, to them. This is why I don't really believe that, even if it was applied in a pure & perfect form, without all the Party squabbling, Democracy is necessarily the best system of government.

This is what is known as the extremes of Democracy and the Founding Fathers warned us of. We are not a Democracy but a Republic. We utilize Democratic principles but you won’t find the term Democracy in the Founding Documents.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfsheep.jpg
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.