Two party system

[tovaris]

Is a two party sistem truly a multy party sistem? Does such smal manevering space even alow for institutions and mekanisems of democracy to evolve and exist?

[FrostWraith]

Amazing spelling there. :P
The problem with having a system with more than two parties is that third parties (they've been introduced into the US several times with poor results) mostly just steal votes from the party that is closest to their views, letting the party that is farthest from their views win. Abraham Lincoln won as a Republican with only about 40% of the vote because the overwhelming Democratic majority (more favorable to slavery) was split among three different candidates. It seems like if you had more than two parties, they'd just morph together for mutual benefit, because otherwise they end up competing with similar parties and hurting that ideology.

[WaffleSingSong]

Amazing spelling there. :P
The problem with having a system with more than two parties is that third parties (they've been introduced into the US several times with poor results) mostly just steal votes from the party that is closest to their views, letting the party that is farthest from their views win. Abraham Lincoln won as a Republican with only about 40% of the vote because the overwhelming Democratic majority (more favorable to slavery) was split among three different candidates. It seems like if you had more than two parties, they'd just morph together for mutual benefit, because otherwise they end up competing with similar parties and hurting that ideology.

Political Coalitions and Blocs happen all the time outside of the USA. That have proven that parties that could not get some more unique points of view out alone could possibly do it with a coalition of similar minded parties.

Also, the U.S Libertarian Party is the fastest growing political party in the USA. All they need is 5% of the vote and next election they get federal funding and get to be on televised debates. They already got 1% last election with Obama/Romney, it would not surprise me if they got the required amount this coming election. Also, there somewhat different from the Republicans and Democrats, with people coming there with both sides.

Thats just one example. The Green Party is another one, its also quite different from the rest, even for the Democrats, who people generally associate them with.

It is not impossible for a political party to break a two party system. Look at UK's Labour Party, they slowly gained ground until they put the Liberals into 3rd place on the list. And again, I think that the Libertarian Party might do the same to either the Republican or Democratic parties, most likely the former, because there on a rockier road than the Democrats which are on a more smooth surface with the winning of the presidential election which Republicans thought that they would win easily.

[Cygnus]

Having only two parties is retarded, the US does not let any new and possibly beneficial ideas in if the two parties don't agree.

[Nellerin]

Is a two party sistem truly a multy party sistem? Does such smal manevering space even alow for institutions and mekanisems of democracy to evolve and exist?

To split anything right down the middle with no "in-between" can always end up with bad results, like we are currently seeing.

A lot of people like the two party system since it has been around in America for practically our entire existence, however, both Republicans and Democrats have issues right now.

I'm not sure if it is the idea of having two parties that is actually bad, but instead the issue right now is that someone that does not define themselves as Republican or Democrat has almost no chance of getting into Government which prevents a lot of potentially good leaders from making any change in the Country.

[Walter Powers]

So are you arguing in favor of more parties or only one party? My suspicion is the latter given your political affiliation.

[Hyper]

The short answer for me is no.

Now assuming for a moment that democracy works the way its supposed to work. Through compromise and negotiation between different social interests. How are 2 parties supposed to represent the majority of society?

Perhaps they do represent a majority, though a weak majority, what of the people that do not have their views reflected by this ''majority'' that often barely etches over 50% but almost never more than 60%~, exceptions in history usually being very extreme examples of totalitarian regimes or societies brought together in times of strife, do these peoples interests matter not?

How can a truly democratic society ignore a strong 1/3 of the societies interests? Don't tell me it doesn't happen, it definitely does, when is the last time any political agenda or law passed in your country without being steamrolled by the political party with the majority vote?

Life isn't black and white. And if politics and policy makers, politicians, are to shape society how can there be only ''LEFT'' and ''RIGHT'' or rather after winning the elections ''MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY''

How is there no UP, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT or lets turn the fuck around?

[tovaris]

So are you arguing in favor of more parties or only one party? My suspicion is the latter given your political affiliation.

My personal opinion is that a zero party sistem would be best, but second best is the „thousand” party posibility.
A two party sistem is not much better than a one pary sistem in my opinion. People need to have a choice.

[Stronk Serb]

So are you arguing in favor of more parties or only one party? My suspicion is the latter given your political affiliation.


That is the most ignorant post I saw today. Communism is not about violating your freedom. Just because some tyrant claimed to be a communist does not mean he was a communist. I am in favor of the three or five party system. One party system cannot work. It can lead to tyranny.

[britishboy]

in britian there is 4 major parties

[Walter Powers]

That is the most ignorant post I saw today. Communism is not about violating your freedom. Just because some tyrant claimed to be a communist does not mean he was a communist. I am in favor of the three or five party system. One party system cannot work. It can lead to tyranny.

Communism is about stealing money from people who earned it. That doesn't sound very free to me.

[Stronk Serb]

Communism is about stealing money from people who earned it. That doesn't sound very free to me.

No, it is for the equality of the workers and their employers.

[britishboy]

No, it is for the equality of the workers and their employers.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3640/u3a4.jpg (http://img12.imageshack.us/i/u3a4.jpg/)

there is nothing stopping a guy in absolute poverty becoming a billionaire, thats the beauty of capitalism

[Stronk Serb]

image (http://img12.imageshack.us/i/u3a4.jpg/)

there is nothing stopping a guy in absolute poverty becoming a billionaire, thats the beauty of capitalism

So I work my ass off in a McDonald's every day, come home, sleep for 6 hours, barely am able to pay the bills for a tiny apartment. Why do I work my ass of while some handful of billionaires are celebrating with 300 year old wine, on 60 ton yachts with dozens of call girls? As I recall, I work for them while they have leisure jobs and meetings which are about making more money for them.

[britishboy]

So I work my ass off in a McDonald's every day, come home, sleep for 6 hours, barely am able to pay the bills for a tiny apartment. Why do I work my ass of while some handful of billionaires are celebrating with 300 year old wine, on 60 ton yachts with dozens of call girls? As I recall, I work for them while they have leisure jobs and meetings which are about making more money for them.

yep, its not slave labor your free to leave and they respect your workers right's. look at allen sugar, he was on welfare and lived in a house provided by the state

[Stronk Serb]

yep, its not slave labor your free to leave and they respect your workers right's. look at allen sugar, he was on welfare and lived in a house provided by the state

So what? I go to be a janitor or to work at Burger King for the same pay while some fatcats are swimming in my blood and sweat turned into money?

[britishboy]

So what? I go to be a janitor or to work at Burger King for the same pay while some fatcats are swimming in my blood and sweat turned into money?

ok, your not giving then that money and were all born equal and the owners of this big business work very hard, against the stereotype, trusts me I know and do you think of rich people like this?
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5277/zfws.png (http://img443.imageshack.us/i/zfws.png/)

[Stronk Serb]

ok, your not giving then that money and were all born equal and the owners of this big business work very hard, against the stereotype, trusts me I know and do you think of rich people like this?
image (http://img443.imageshack.us/i/zfws.png/)

Define equal. Not literally like that, since they would get torpedoed instantly. What I mean is, someone working at the counter in McDonalds for 9-10 hours is not making 1% of the money the CEO makes. He works harder, and deserves equal share. If the CEO wants to earn more money, make more transactions.

[britishboy]

Define equal. Not literally like that, since they would get torpedoed instantly. What I mean is, someone working at the counter in McDonalds for 9-10 hours is not making 1% of the money the CEO makes. He works harder, and deserves equal share. If the CEO wants to earn more money, make more transactions.

you dont have a clue how hard being a CEO or how few good ones there are, and what they do most people wouldnt understand or manage

[Walter Powers]

Define equal. Not literally like that, since they would get torpedoed instantly. What I mean is, someone working at the counter in McDonalds for 9-10 hours is not making 1% of the money the CEO makes. He works harder, and deserves equal share. If the CEO wants to earn more money, make more transactions.

So the person working at McDonalds has gone to college and studied hard and got a MBA like the CEO? Probably not. So I would say, no, he didn't work harder and didn't take the risks the CEO took and thus doesn't desearve to make the same amount of money!

[Hyper]

ok, your not giving then that money and were all born equal and the owners of this big business work very hard, against the stereotype, trusts me I know and do you think of rich people like this?
image (http://img443.imageshack.us/i/zfws.png/)

People ARE NOT BORN EQUAL

Not by genetics and neither by environment.

Meaning some people are smarter than others. Some are physically stronger, some healthier and so on.

Some are born in garbage cans. Some are born in war zones some are born in middle class families and some are born into wealth.

Ignorance must be blissful...

[britishboy]

People ARE NOT BORN EQUAL

Not by genetics and neither by environment.

Meaning some people are smarter than others. Some are physically stronger, some healthier and so on.

Some are born in garbage cans. Some are born in war zones some are born in middle class families and some are born into wealth.

Ignorance must be blissful...

what I mean is, the poor should stop hating the rich and try them selves to get rich

[Zach4110]

what I mean is, the poor should stop hating the rich and try them selves to get rich

This.

[Stronk Serb]

So the person working at McDonalds has gone to college and studied hard and got a MBA like the CEO? Probably not. So I would say, no, he didn't work harder and didn't take the risks the CEO took and thus doesn't desearve to make the same amount of money!

Yet that guy who works in a McDonald's has more working days and hours, assuming both him and the CEO got promoted the same week when that worker got hired for the job, so yeah that worker deserves the same, especially in the US where 100 million people cannot afford healthcare because they cannot afford insurance. Many people who work in McDonald's and other corporations in the US are some of those 100 million people.

This.

How when they cannot even afford college/universitiy?

[Jean Poutine]

So the person working at McDonalds has gone to college and studied hard and got a MBA like the CEO? Probably not. So I would say, no, he didn't work harder and didn't take the risks the CEO took and thus doesn't desearve to make the same amount of money!

Everybody in my department has a college diploma, present company included (although it's only an Associate's for now). The job's minimum qualification is the equivalent of a GED.

I won't dispute that CEOs work hard, but so do the cooks, the cashiers and even the janitor. A CEO deserves to live more richly than his employees, as he does (probably) have a higher level of education and being a CEO in the first place is indicative of his talent, but there is no valable reason that his employees should need one or two other jobs to make ends meet with shitty social coverage while said CEO lives in a mansion and drives a Lexus.

Doesn't it seem disgusting to you that companies like Wal-Mart apparently have so much money to throw around that they can afford dead peasant life insurance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate-owned_life_insurance) on many low-level employees like cashiers in a disgusting attempt to make a quick buck on the death of somebody, but apparently not enough to pay them a decent wage, extend health insurance coverage to people working less than 30hr/week (which, at least around my area, is very common, there are next to no full-timers at Wally World) or just outright treat the people working for them decently?

CEOs are needed, but so are janitors, garbagemen and cashiers. Why should one win so much more than the other? He should win more, but not the completely stupid ratios we've been seeing lately.

what I mean is, the poor should stop hating the rich and try them selves to get rich

Easy to say.

The rich have all the opportunities and connections. They and their offspring already have a huge head start. Not many poor folks at Ivy League universities, is there? Not to mention that the poor are deliberately kept lazy and stupid by the rich. Look at what's on TV, what's on the news. It's Caesar and his bread and games all over again. There are fucking conferences out there about how to keep the wealth in the oligarchy. The rich emphatically do not want the wealth to spread around. The game of capitalism is rigged, man. This is made abundantly clear in Jamie Johnson's documentary The One Percent.

I attend a pretty prestigious law faculty and I am one of the very few there to come from a family of humble means. It's gotten to the point where I can't even make friends in my major because they pretty much all look at me like I'm shit, since I'm neither in a lawyerly dynasty nor rich. It can be done, it's just disproportionately hard. It's like asking a team of dunces and fatasses to win a baseball game when the score is already 15-0 in favor of a team of Eastern European roided superathletes and it's the 9th inning.

And that is why we're here : not everyone is born equal, but that doesn't mean that we can't level the playing field.

[Taryn98]

Personally, I don't think any person should be labeled or affiliated with any party whatsoever. Anyone who runs for office has to explain their views and win over voters based on their positions on specific issues. Then informed voters can make a legitimate decision on who to vote for.
Too many people just see the political party and vote for whoever's name is on that party without actually knowing what they truely believe.
That's a big reason why we have terrible politicians...lazy, uninformed voters!

[tovaris]

How could a discusion about political parties leed to people disagreing on the equalety of Hommo Sapiens Sapiesnes?
Im puzled...

Personally, I don't think any person should be labeled or affiliated with any party whatsoever. Anyone who runs for office has to explain their views and win over voters based on their positions on specific issues. Then informed voters can make a legitimate decision on who to vote for.
Too many people just see the political party and vote for whoever's name is on that party without actually knowing what they truely believe.
That's a big reason why we have terrible politicians...lazy, uninformed voters!

What do you think about the zero party posibility?


Merged Double Post. -Steven/StoppingTime

[Taryn98]

What do you think about the zero party posibility?

I wish we didn't have parties, but I know in the real world it won't happen. When the system has been built so big and strong for so long, it's not realistic to think it will change. Unless of course, something on the scale of a revolution or civil war was fought and the governement was destroyed and built again from the ground up. Nobody really wants that to happen either.

[tovaris]

I wish we didn't have parties, but I know in the real world it won't happen. When the system has been built so big and strong for so long, it's not realistic to think it will change. Unless of course, something on the scale of a revolution or civil war was fought and the governement was destroyed and built again from the ground up. Nobody really wants that to happen either.

Fewdalosem fall... monarchies fall... etc. Even this sistem wil be replaced on all grounds.

[Harry Smith]

what I mean is, the poor should stop hating the rich and try them selves to get rich

Such compassion. You make it sound like poorer people don't work hard and they spend their whole day doing fuck all which is completely wrong

[Walter Powers]

Yet that guy who works in a McDonald's has more working days and hours, assuming both him and the CEO got promoted the same week when that worker got hired for the job, so yeah that worker deserves the same, especially in the US where 100 million people cannot afford healthcare because they cannot afford insurance. Many people who work in McDonald's and other corporations in the US are some of those 100 million people.



How when they cannot even afford college/universitiy?


In the US we have tons and tons of scholarship programs, public and private, for those who cannot afford university. The vast majority of people get some financle assistance of some sort.

What kind of person expects to be able to have healthcare for there family working at McDonalds? COME ON! A minimum wage job at McDonalds is not intended to be a career. Their food is cheap for a reason.

And, like I said the CEO attended a lot more schooling, likely worked harder, and took more risks, so he desearves a bigger paycheck. Let me ask you this: If I'll make the same amount of money being CEO or being the cashier, what's my incentive to do well in high school and attend college so I can be CEO?

And did I mention the extra stress a CEO has on himself?

Everybody in my department has a college diploma, present company included (although it's only an Associate's for now). The job's minimum qualification is the equivalent of a GED.

I won't dispute that CEOs work hard, but so do the cooks, the cashiers and even the janitor. A CEO deserves to live more richly than his employees, as he does (probably) have a higher level of education and being a CEO in the first place is indicative of his talent, but there is no valable reason that his employees should need one or two other jobs to make ends meet with shitty social coverage while said CEO lives in a mansion and drives a Lexus.

Doesn't it seem disgusting to you that companies like Wal-Mart apparently have so much money to throw around that they can afford dead peasant life insurance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate-owned_life_insurance) on many low-level employees like cashiers in a disgusting attempt to make a quick buck on the death of somebody, but apparently not enough to pay them a decent wage, extend health insurance coverage to people working less than 30hr/week (which, at least around my area, is very common, there are next to no full-timers at Wally World) or just outright treat the people working for them decently?

CEOs are needed, but so are janitors, garbagemen and cashiers. Why should one win so much more than the other? He should win more, but not the completely stupid ratios we've been seeing lately.



Easy to say.

The rich have all the opportunities and connections. They and their offspring already have a huge head start. Not many poor folks at Ivy League universities, is there? Not to mention that the poor are deliberately kept lazy and stupid by the rich. Look at what's on TV, what's on the news. It's Caesar and his bread and games all over again. There are fucking conferences out there about how to keep the wealth in the oligarchy. The rich emphatically do not want the wealth to spread around. The game of capitalism is rigged, man. This is made abundantly clear in Jamie Johnson's documentary The One Percent.

I attend a pretty prestigious law faculty and I am one of the very few there to come from a family of humble means. It's gotten to the point where I can't even make friends in my major because they pretty much all look at me like I'm shit, since I'm neither in a lawyerly dynasty nor rich. It can be done, it's just disproportionately hard. It's like asking a team of dunces and fatasses to win a baseball game when the score is already 15-0 in favor of a team of Eastern European roided superathletes and it's the 9th inning.

And that is why we're here : not everyone is born equal, but that doesn't mean that we can't level the playing field.


Like I said to the other guy, when I get a minimum wage job next summer, I don't expect it to give me health coverage! I expect $8 an hour for my low level services, and that's it. The people who are trying to "make ends meet" with multiple jobs almost always made some other big mistake, such as not going to college and yet still having kids.

I have no idea what goes on in Wal Mart, but if the insurance companies will sell them life insurance for there employees, I really don't think it's a problem, unless of course they are murdering their employees to get the money.

Poor kids also get not so great of grades; that's why not as many go to Ivy League schools. This certainly is a huge problem, and I think the answer lies in fundamentally changing our education system.

Yeah, lawyers tend to be a pretty arrogant bunch. I hate them too. I'll say that they generally make the worst politicians (cough, Obama, cough). They're always pushing for more laws and regulation and government control. I wonder why?

Okay, so you want to level the playing field. What do you propose should be done to accomplish that? I say improve the schools so more poor kids (and kids in general) graduate. That is by far the best way to combat poverty.

[Polansek]

It ks my opimion thag a two party sistem is nit all that much better than a one party one, it only leeds to truble.
In fact imterests of political parties often leed to truble that is why people should be able to cshoce theyr representative directly.

[FrostWraith]

What do you think about the zero party posibility?

It's not possible. If there are no parties, people will need to pool their money and support behind a given candidate, and those pools of people become the new political parties. You need a ton of money and advertising to campaign on a national scale.

It ks my opimion thag a two party sistem is nit all that much better than a one party one, it only leeds to truble.
In fact imterests of political parties often leed to truble that is why people should be able to cshoce theyr representative directly.

A two party system is far better than a one party one. There is no check on a one party system; it can do whatever it wants without fear of being booted out of office. If one party in a two party system does something unpopular, the populace can put the other party in power fairly quickly. Because they compete for the popularity of the people, two parties will fulfill the public's needs much more efficiently than one party.

[Sogeking]

Amazing spelling there. :P
The problem with having a system with more than two parties is that third parties (they've been introduced into the US several times with poor results) mostly just steal votes from the party that is closest to their views, letting the party that is farthest from their views win. Abraham Lincoln won as a Republican with only about 40% of the vote because the overwhelming Democratic majority (more favorable to slavery) was split among three different candidates. It seems like if you had more than two parties, they'd just morph together for mutual benefit, because otherwise they end up competing with similar parties and hurting that ideology.

Ahh, the spoiler effect :rolleyes:

But really now, voting for either party nowadays doesn't really change anything in Washington. Whenever either party is in power, debt continues to rise, inflation continues to rise, the military expands it's influence, civil liberties continue to decline, government increases in size etc, etc. So imho, getting more people to vote for minor parties breaks the duopoly both parties have in america. Parties who have better intentions, better plans for this country, and best of all, better representation of their constituents, not polarizing the country into two halves and claiming to be polar opposites.

Which is why I hate the first past the post system in the US, why must the minority in a state be subjected to the decisions of the majority. If all the states switched to proportional representation,(which means that instead of the state gaining all electoral votes for one candidate, the electoral votes are proportional to the percentage of votes the candidate received in that state) more people will become represented, more would be inclined to vote (because then they would feel that their vote actually mattered). And it would give third parties a fighting chance. And, overall bring changes to the American government, changes it so desperately needs.

[tovaris]

It's not possible. If there are no parties, people will need to pool their money and support behind a given candidate, and those pools of people become the new political parties. You need a ton of money and advertising to campaign on a national scale.


Afcors its posible.
...
In a better world, preferably with no curency.

[britishboy]

Afcors its posible.
...
In a better world, preferably with no curency.

true equality is impossible, get rid of money but there would still be indifference

[tovaris]

true equality is impossible, get rid of money but there would still be indifference

People are not cast in molds so afcors they would live their equaly funded, equaly provided for, etc... lives diferently.

But back to the sublect at hand. Two party sistem and why is it bad.