General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoes the two-Party system help or hurt our country ??
It seems to me that the two-Party system has evolved to the point where it is nothing more than a way to divide people into camps, without regard to what is best for our country. It doesn't matter if one Party is right and one Party is wrong, the gridlock makes it impossible to accomplish anything for the people, no matter how much it is needed.
The majority of this nation would probably support Social Security and Medicare for our seniors. Also, they would probably support a reasonable and rational defense budget. And they would support helping our young people with their education. Just as they would support raising taxes and spending money on keeping our roads, bridges, and infrastructure in good shape.
But there are a lot of expenditures that they would not support with a wide consensus. These are areas for debate and cuts, if necessary.
However, it has now reached a point of partisan politics where it is difficult to get money for any type of program, including Social Security and Medicare. One Party is against all forms of taxes, no matter what they might be needed for. And they have the political power to gridlock the system and to create hardship for all of America. This is our present two-Party system.
Unless something is done, we are on the road to ruin. Somewhere, somehow, someone has to compromise.
.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)voluntarily allow the rich to buy our government, there is nothing that can be done. Until Americans wake up, there is no hope.
cbrer
(1,831 posts)You beat me to it.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)There has to be another option.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)If we wanted a reform to institute publicly funded elections in order to get the special interests out of Congress, that'll likely take a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-quarters of all state legislatures approving.
If we wanted a reform to transition to a multi-party system, such as requiring winning an election by majority vote as opposed to simple plurality, you would have to go through all 50 states and change the laws requiring that they hold an election in that fashion or pass a constitutional amendment overriding all 50 state laws and requiring such a change.
The problem is that rich interests are so heavily invested in the current power structure that convincing all those politicians to vote against the people who basically finance their political campaigns is truly a frighteningly formidable task. I would say it is next to impossible, unless you had 50 billion to spend on them all.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)there will have to be a way where neither of the present Parties can get a majority on anything without a coalition of some sort. There would need to be an enlightened Third Party, which doesn't have to be that large, that can dictate the direction our country should go. Preferably, it would be a progressive direction. In effect, they would make a minority Party out of both national Parties and force compromise.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)In systems of government that use single-member district plurality or SMDP voting, the mathematical odds tend to favor the emergence of just two viable parties. Maurice Duverger was the first to document this phenomenon. In order to avoid hitting this mathematical phenomenon, we would simply have to require that the winner of an election must win a simple majority of the votes, not just a plurality. Instant Run-off Voting or two-round voting as is done in France would avoid this problem altogether.
Having said that, I personally think the House would be better off being run on party-list proportional representation where people vote for the party they favor, and the Senate should be run on single-member district majority voting where people vote for the individual to represent them, as opposed to SMDP. This would mean that no one party in the House would likely ever gain an absolute majority in seats in the future thus forcing coalition building, and the Senate would quickly open up to third party or independent candidates after a few election cycles once people find out voting third party candidates won't put the total opposite candidate into office (ref., George W. Bush).
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Abolishing that is priority #1 and implementing Instant Runoff Voting is #2.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)the two Parties have managed to set up a political monopoly in this country. However, both Parties are disliked in enough places in this country that either of them could be defeated by a logical and rational candidate, in my opinion.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)getting the jr high football team to defeat the NY Giants.
You have to find the person.
They have to be sold to the public with no help from the media.
They would be subject to attack like Grayson, Kucinich, etc.
There would be unlimited money to smear them.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)...but I don't think it would be impossible with the present approval ratings of Congress sitting about 10%...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)how to fix it. They are bombarded daily with garbage from the Corp-Media. They might know something needs to happen but I have no confidence they agree with you and me as to what needs to be done to fix it.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)The Senate and House are full of millionaires and are supported by millionaires and billionaires who want certain laws enacted or repealed or modified. We haven't elected a scientist or an engineer or a doctor to the White House precisely because they don't have the resources or aren't supported by people with said resources to even mount a campaign. It essentially costs a billion dollars in campaign expenses just to win all the primaries and then a full-bore presidential campaign at the current rate. To win a Senate seat in a rural state could easily cost over two million in campaign expenses, and it'll cost even more in a heavily populated state.
Office isn't for ordinary people anymore. The rich essentially pushed the cost of playing out of reach of the everyman.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)as in, huge enough to pass one or more Constitutional amendments to abolish the electoral college and institute other things like instant runoff voting, the complaints are more or less a waste of time.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)...considering the present lack of education and ignorance of the issues. I think the present divisions are more or less permanent as the two-Party system is now set up.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)We would be better off with a multitude of parties, enough parties that forming coalitions would be the necessary to govern.
I look at European countries and see how they are faster at changing course when they have to, and their coalition based party systems looks to be much more responsive to the needs of the citizens than we have here.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)...as much as many of us do not like to think about such an option...
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)A two-party system fosters and encourages binary thinking, as if there are only two sides to a question or issue. Sometimes that's the case, but when there are a multiplicity of options to choose from, the party that doesn't settle on just one option loses the debate/argument/issue, because the other party will indeed (particularly if it appeals to a top-down, authoritarian mindset) settle on just one option.
So, we get nonsense like "No drugs should be legalized" fighting against "No drugs should be prohibited." If you're looking for nuance and a carefully-weighed solution, both sides will savage you as a sell-out. The only alternative to going to war in this binary system is doing nothing, confusing "pacifism" with being "passive." So, off to war we go! Again and again. Carefully considered solutions lose out to instant, insistent position-taking.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)A very enlightened response.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)We currently have a Democratic Party that includes a few progressives and a lot of centrists or conservatives heavily influenced by Corp-America, and we have a wacko party. So if we break out the progressives and start a new party, we would end up with a small progressive party and a huge centrist party and a wacko party. How will that help us? How would the Senate break down? The new progressive party would have 2 or 3 members.
msongs
(67,381 posts)kentuck
(111,069 posts)in its present state.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)They didn't like parties and thought that by excluding parties from having any role in government that they would have little or no influence; that people would decide on principle rather than on party. In fact, all that happened was that they ensured that there would be only 2 parties and that their influence would be even greater than what they had in European style parliamentary governments.
Their intent was good; the result was horrific. Now there is no way to fix it. None whatsoever, short of a constitutional amendment. Can you imagine the rhetoric the Republican Party would use to counter such a proposed amendment? That we want to turn the US into a socialist government just like the European socialist countries, etc, ad nauseum. It will never happen unless, by some miracle, the RW decides it is to their advantage and we grab the opportunity. Even then, the Republican Party will rein them in with all their money and might.
There are many more liberal-leaning people than there are RWers, especially on social issues. We could get so much more done if we could form coalitions and even call for votes of no confidence on occasion.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)And 11 of the parties are called Democrats.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)We are now at the point where the parties can swap policy and the partisans will pretend that away and jump on the on the other horse. The TeaPubliKlans are quick to do it wholesale at breakneck speed, they can turn on a fucking dime without a debate. For Democrats it isn't as fluid and complete because some of us believe as we do until the facts change rather than with whatever poll but it still happens because it is functionally impossible to hold our politicians accountable because the opposition is devoted to plumbing new depths of their depravity with each day and the other ever actively seeking to meet the other guys "somewhere in the middle".
Cleita
(75,480 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If you have three or more candidates winning electoral votes, getting to 270 becomes impossible very quickly. That results in an election being thrown into the House of Representatives. Who controls that? Of course, the two major parties. Without the chance to win the Presidency, any support of a third party will be limited.
Reality is, a multiparty government in the US would result in frequent center left, center right coalitions so put me down in the camp that doesnt believe that third parties would make a lot of difference. You would get a lot of centrist legislation.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)The electoral college doesn't work for modern America.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)The key to changing the politics is to have a sensible coalition Party in the House. That is where laws are made.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and when I say support I mean enough to win more than one or two house seats, will be difficult.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)....and there would not have to be a huge number for a coalition, so long as they prevented either of the other parties from being a majority. The Tea Party had an opportunity but they blew it by falling prey to the Republican propaganda machine. We need a similar coalition that would vote with a progressive agenda.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)college is the first thing that has to go. If you cannot get rid of the electoral college, this whole discussion is moot.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)the ideas of a coalition of Democrats and "others" in the House of Representatives. I would favor doing away with the electoral college but it would really have nothing to do with breaking the present stalemate in the Congress.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)if you believe that supporting certain positions will lose you the ability to get 50% +1 vote in the next national election, you still will not support those positions. And your concern as President and head of your party isnt just your office, it is whether if you tilt too far to one side whether you doom congressional candidates on your general philosophical side from winning their seats too. That is all your responsibility.
I have some concerns in a multiparty system that far right candidates would win more seats than far left candidates. Certainly if you look at parts of the south and midwest and mountain states, they seem much redder than parts of the northeast and california seem blue. Consider a four party system where the partys are Fascist Party, Republican party, Democratic Party and Socialists/Greens. I think the Fascists would win more than the Socialist/Greens. Its conjecture, but again, I think large swaths of the red states have districts that are THAT red.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)..in my opinion, with the present propaganda system and with the money involved in elections, I think far right candidates will defeat a "far-left" candidate almost every time. Therein lies the key to defeating the right-wingers. One doesn't have to be against popular programs like Social Security and Medicare to defeat Republicans. One only has to address them as programs that the majority of Americans want and are willing to pay for. Even education and a sensible defense budget are popular with the majority of Democrats and Republicans. People want their roads and bridges fixed, no matter what Party they belong to. These are the sensible issues that will defeat a lot of this right-wing Republicans. In my opinion, we just need to be smarter. It doesn't matter what we call ourselves - it only matters what we stand for.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Reagan fooled people into believing this whole supply-side Randian economics thing works. The improved economy of the mid to late 80's had nothing to do with that as I noted in my below video, but people really believe that supply side economics works and keynsian is the devil.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)Social Security, Medicare, roads and bridges, a rational defense budget, assistance for education, a tax rate that is needed for our nations necessities?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)that we have today will remain. Bush and McCain each got over 45% of the vote each time they ran. Right Wing candidates will win a minimum of 40% of the seats in both houses and sometimes much more than that. You are still not going to get progressive legislation passed with the only change being third party participation alone.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)Social Security, Medicare, a rational defense budget, are things that can be sold to both Democrats and Republicans and Independents as a more rational policy than anything the present Republican Party is putting out... We do not close our minds to spending cuts but we are willing to vote for what the country needs, even if that means more taxes on the wealthy. Most Americans will buy that argument, in my opinion. In doing so, would replace the present number of Repubs with a more sensible and rational coalition, that would favor progressive ends. No one really wants to destroy Social Security or Medicare and the Repubs are crazy for suggesting such an idea and the Democrats are cowardly for even entertaining such thoughts...
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)that selling them any kind of the things you are talking about is impossible for the forseeable future.
They do not want any kind of healthcare system, they do not want defense cuts. I think the right is pretty intractable at this point. We have to keep fighting the fight, but we are done as far as any major positive changes for a generation IMHO.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)...but I am not ready to say it is impossible or that we are doomed. We have to think outside the "partisan" box if we are going to change the two-party system, in my opinion. That does not mean you sell out your progressive ideas, it only means that you present them in a more moderate way and be open to cuts that are not necessary. That would show that you are open to compromise but that you are willing to fight for the things that America cares about. I think it would be a winning message.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Its the issues themselves that the GOP has successfully demagogued and will continue to do so.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)Surely they can compete with these radical, right-wing, anti-government, throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater folks??
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)out and giving their best shot at convincing people. Kucinich has been on Fox talking directly to the GOP base as has Clinton as have I. We've all taken our best shot at changing minds. Have we changed some? Sure, but not nearly enough to move the needle.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)Also, there are pockets in this country, like San Francisco, that already have it. I think everyone will have to work on getting it local until it spreads across the country.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)we have to get honest, progressives to run. This is not easy. And when we do manage to get progressives in office, they are easily handled by the oligarchy, like Kucinich, Grayson, Spitzer, Wellstone, Siegelman, etc.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
guitar man
(15,996 posts)We should go back to using it again 
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)To fix those things suggested above requires a functioning system. The system is broken. How are you going to convince the oligarchy to reform? We have no leverage. They can spend unlimited money. They can redistrict. They can ruin any candidate they want. They can throw elections. They can get as rough as they need to. Occupy recognizes this.
What I see happening is that we are going to continue to spiral downward until the American public gets totally fed up. Then they will look to a authoritarian leader that will push nationalism and promise Die Welt, if we only blame ___________ [China, Iran, Hispanics, the French, gays, women using birth control, poor people, etc.(pick a couple)]
kentuck
(111,069 posts)But I am not ready to say that many of these present Repubs cannot be defeated with a rational and moderate explanation of the issues. One does not have to give up Social Security and Medicare or a reasonable defense budget to compete with these folks, in my opinion.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)what the f happened in 2004 has been fixed.
meow2u3
(24,761 posts)The Democratic party for those liberal on both economic and social issues; The Republican Party for social and economic conservatives; a moderate version of the Libertarian Party for economic conservatives and social liberals (DLC and moderate Republican defectors); and a populist party for economic liberals and social conservatives.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)as long as the two parties are Democratic and Green, with the repukes banned the way the Nazis are in Germany.
Under that scenario, I'm your basic middle-of-the-road swing voter.
Initech
(100,054 posts)"We have the Republicans - a party of bad ideas. And we have the Democrats - a party of no ideas. And the way our system works is a Republican will stand up in Congress and shout I HAVE A REALLY BAD IDEA!!! And the Democrats will respond WELL I CAN MAKE IT SHITTIER AND SHITTIER!!!!"
I'm starting to think he was right.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, they've done a helluva good job of convincing people that voting for one or the other wings of capitalist party is valuable.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)It is tougher to force change from inside, but more rewarding and meaningful. It is easy to throw rocks from the outside, but ultimately amounts to nothing.
GeorgeGist
(25,315 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)So I guess the two-party system does not really apply here in CT.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)