Why do we have a two party system?

[MorkandMindy]

In a one party state there is no dodging responsibility, with two parties you can keep passing the buck back and forth forever,

and the group that is out of power and annoyed thinks: 'just wait 4 years and then it's our turn'

as though that's going to make much difference, but they will spend their turn of four years trying to justify a claim that it did.

And all that means nothing ever gets changed and the existing corruption, call it profiteering, continues unaffected year after year.

 

[timothyu]

Right.. so go three party.

 

[trunks2k]

We have a two party system because that is what the way we vote and our government is set up naturally breaks down to.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Keeping the number of parties small helps restrict the number of options available, and helps ensure a good option is never available.

Apologizing in advance for picking Joe Biden the DNC said 'we are not picking the best candidate, but the one most likely to defeat Trump' I seem to recall them saying, well that's certainly what they did.

And translating that into simple English: 'we aren't going to pick a good candidate but one with lots of rich backers'.

Those rich backers know they will get back often a thousand times more than they put in, so the candidate has to feed lots of money to corporations and very rich people.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We have a two party system because that is what the way we vote and our government is set up naturally breaks down to.

To be more specific:

Nearly all offices we vote for are single seats held by a single person. If your political coalition doesn't win the seat, you don't have any direct political power. Fragmentation of the coalitions leads to the largest sub-majority coalition electing their person, so the losers group together so that collectively they can win. This leads naturally to a long-term equilibrium of two parties. In our country those coalitions form *before* the election, because afterward is too late.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Right.. so go three party.

I kind of think he has (US-Others) and is complaining about it.

 

[Ophiolite]

While not necessarily disputing your critique of a two party system, I see nothing in what you have said in favour of a one party system. Other than the fact that one could dispense with voting entirely.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The best candidate in the 2020 Primaries was Andrew Yang, but he specifically stated he would not be starting pointless wars, so there goes one big source of revenue, Hillary with her war starting initiatives got that money, plus the banks and so she could spend almost twice as much as Donald in the 2016 Election.

But without connections with lobbyists and handing out big contracts, no candidate is going to get anywhere. Somehow I'm not convinced Andrew is going to tell the banks 'I'm your man' or at every opportunity vote for war, both of which Hillary did.

 

[MorkandMindy]

While not necessarily disputing your critique of a two party system, I see nothing in what you have said in favour of a one party system. Other than the fact that one could dispense with voting entirely.

Should a person be held responsible for what they do?

Or if this country had a system where two partners were doing the same job, as with two parties in government, then you could pass the blame back and forth forever?

Assuming this could be applied at an individual level the way it is at a national level?

 

[MorkandMindy]

I'm a registered Democrat but when I put that on my info the Republicans just argued against anything I said even when it was a current Republican policy, and at that time I couldn't clear my info but only change it to US-Others.

And then the Democrat Party did the dirty and put up far right candidate Hillary so I abandoned them but an amazing number of people said she was on the left because she's a Democrat. Even after taking off the Genghis Khan fur hat she still looked far right to me, I was amazed how gullible people are.

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you think you should be held responsible for what you do? Or if this country had a system where two partners were one, as it were, then you could pass the blame back and forth forever?

If you have a single party system you cannot vote them out and they can ignore the blame. Forever.

 

[timothyu]

Those rich backers know they will get back often a thousand times more than they put in, so the candidate has to feed lots of money to corporations and very rich people.

Or in this case back the US segment of the global Great Reset. It won't work with a government that is nationalistic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The best candidate in the 2020 Primaries was Andrew Yang,

Ummm. No.

I (like most Americans) actually prefer candidates (especially at the highest level) that have some experience in government. Government isn't a business, etc., etc., etc.

There were a lot of things I liked about Yang and he had some interesting ideas. I would hope that President-elect Biden can find a place for him, probably in one of those external advisory boards the WH has.

 

[MorkandMindy]

If you have a single party system you cannot vote them out and they can ignore the blame. Forever.

Just vote 'no'... But I don't know what to do after that, because a one party system is like the devil or the deep blue sea, hard to know how to make a simple transition.

I think for one thing we have to go to single transferable votes, transferring until one candidate gets a majority, I think that would work best, or maybe do what some other countries do and let the parties negotiate until they form a coalition with majority support.

Or in this case back the US segment of the global Great Reset. It won't work with a government that is nationalistic.

Have you opened a thread on 'The Great Reset'? If it involves thinking then it will go straight to Dave Jone's Locker but if you can patch it together out of cliche's it could do very well.

 

[timothyu]

Have you opened a thread on 'The Great Reset'?

Yep.. people tend to not bite at what they are afraid to learn of.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Ummm. No.

I (like most Americans) actually prefer candidates (especially at the highest level) that have some experience in government. Government isn't a business, etc., etc., etc.

...

One problem is you end up with senile geriatrics for Presidents, and if they need 40 years in politics to build up a voting record the problem is all those votes were for situations that existed up to 40 years ago.

We are already in the 4th Industrial Revolution and we need to plan for the future and not for the past.

Or we could practice saying 'the British are coming, the British are coming', or saying 'America is number one, America is number one'.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm beginning to think I'm not crazy enough for this thread...

 

[timothyu]

We are already in the 4th Industrial Revolution and we need to plan for the future and not for the past.

Actually in some cases it is better to reverse trends rather than putting all eggs and rule into one basket.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Actually in some cases it is better to reverse trends rather than putting all eggs and rule into one basket.

Then I'm your candidate, I think we need to go back to when America was a rising nation, doing all the stuff we were doing 50 years ago. Just vote me in and I'll spend four years flying around in Air Force One and looking busy.

I'm beginning to think I'm not crazy enough for this thread...

Then develop your crazy side. Most of the threads in this forum are mainly red v blue, and the topics themselves tend to be unimportant stuff raised in the media to keep the public involved in heated argument. Just open any thread on election fraud and you've lit a rocket.

The important stuff is the things those who run the country obviously don't want anyone talking about.

Like - don't bust out of the mold by commenting that both candidates were crap.
And therefore which old perv we got doesn't matter much, except we are getting a bit worried by Trump it's true to say. He destroyed his own chances, Biden never won anything, Biden never could win anything.

As for throwing out the only candidate who talked about the future, Andrew Yang, that doesn't matter anymore because by doing that we now don't have much of a future.

 

[timothyu]

Then I'm your candidate, I think we need to go back to when America was a rising nation, doing all the stuff we were doing 50 years ago.

You mean when there was opportunity and growth at the bottom of the pyramid before it became corporate and disappeared? Where a greater number of people got to share in the wealth rather than be dictated to by it? Where rural areas of nations thrived (without smart phones)??