View Full Version : Two-party system workable?
04-22-2004, 12:05 AM
Ralph Nader came to speak here yesterday so I've been thinking about our government. In just about any other country, Nader would be a great guy and have a legit shot on the White House... but here, nope, he doesn't have a chance.
Does a two-party system work just fine, or would a multiple-party system be better? The way it is now, it's just one team beating up on the other team with no new ideas.
In Europe, it seems like there's a lot more bickering and fanangling... but that's an okay tradeoff I think if we can push more ideas to center stage.
And with a multi-party system, it's almost impossible for one party to gain majority control... which is dangerous, and is basically what we have now in the US. If we weren't as big on states rights, it'd be just one set of ideas guiding all the decisions in the entire country.
Before I go on too long and get a case of qwerty-face... what do you all think?
04-22-2004, 09:30 AM
I think a multiparty system is definately what we need. Their should be no such thing as senate and house majority leaders, whips, etc. That is not who is supposed to dictate the legislative process. The founding fathers warned about partisan politics and the problems with the party system. I think most people have views and opinions that overlap between the parties. However you are in a sense forced to prioritize these opinions when voting for an official if you only have two parties, say if you are pro-choice, but conservative on gun control. Having multiple parties facilitates holding its members more responsible for their actions and promotes reputation based on performance, rather than party politics.
04-22-2004, 10:43 AM
We have a multi-party system. None of the other parties have raised enough money or brought forth a good enough candidate to be President. They win other offices, however.
04-22-2004, 11:58 AM
The problem is not that other parties don't have members, its just that often times the candidates who would join these parties end up going to one of the big two because they don't want to commit political suicide. A lot of people feel that voting for a third party candidate is throwing their vote away even if they think he or she is the best candidate. In essence we have a multi-party system as in anyone can run, but it is dominated, manipulated, and organized by the democrats and republicans. Not until campaign reform, public outcry, and nationalized organization will another party emerge as a true contender for major offices. Elected third party officials are too few and far between to have much influence as a whole on political agendas.
04-23-2004, 05:48 PM
Political theorists speak of a multiparty system as one in which there are 3 or more major parties and all of them hold a significant number of seats to make a difference nationally... that's what I would like to see.
None of the other parties have raised enough money because people don't know enough about them to give them money because they haven't raised enough money to get people to know enough about them. Or, they haven't raised enough money because people don't feel they have the ability to make a big difference because they haven't the money to do so.
I think many 3rd-party candidates are good enough to be President. I most likely would've voted for Nader in 2000. But the way our system works, "success" isn't defined by making a difference necessarily, as Nader certainly has, but by holding a high office. To do that, therefore, you've got to be a democrat or a republican. Since most politicians subscribe to that version of success, unfortunately, that's what our legislature is made up of.
So many people think that if you're on the left of the spectrum you're a democrat and if you're on the right you're a republican. Well, what if you're on the way far right or in the middle of the left? That's a far cry from being right next to center on the right or on the far side of the left. It's not like the only decision here is how much control government should have. We have so many issues today that it's impossible that everyone will have either this view or that view. Other countries realize this.
And it's not like with three or four or five major parties, everyone has to have different views either. Shock! - sometimes different parties can agree with each other on certain issues and work together to get things passed. I think this would be much easier to do in a multi-party system... if you offend one other party, so what? There's still plenty out there that don't hate you. With 2-parties, it's a constant, rigid, never-changing fight for control.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.