Can We Break the US Two-Party Monopoly?

k · Jan 16, 2006

It appears the two-party system is a myth because both exploit irrational fears of the American public to maintain the status-quo.

America is not so simple as Democratic or Republican, yet every Presidential election comes down to four white, wealthy, and connected men. How is this possible?

The real issues that Americans are concerned with, and face everyday, will never be addressed as long as we permit the Old Boy network to operate. Instead of allowing ourselves to be divided we should unite in our diversities and seek ways to have people elected who will represented the majority of Americans, not the minority.

The question is, how can this be done?

Balbatish · Jan 16, 2006

Well, I don't exactly place much importance in a canidate's race and wealth as you do, but I do agree, both parties need to busted down a bit. Both sides seem to become less involved on the issues and more about making the other side look bad.

k · Jan 16, 2006

Balbatish said:
Well, I don't exactly place much importance in a canidate's race and wealth as you do, but I do agree, both parties need to busted down a bit. Both sides seem to become less involved on the issues and more about making the other side look bad.

Maybe it is spelled out wrong in the OP, but I do NOT place "importance" on the candidates' race and wealth. I was simply pointing to an obvious pattern, and that is not the same as advocation.

Maybe we should focus on lifting others up instead of "busting" down the current parties? This just hit me, but by doing that, we would inherently be taking power away from the dems/reps.

Balbatish · Jan 16, 2006

Neverstop said:
Maybe it is spelled out wrong in the OP, but I do NOT place "importance" on the candidates' race and wealth. I was simply pointing to an obvious pattern, and that is not the same as advocation.

To be honest, you did say passivly, that rich white men will never solve the problems we face today.

Maybe we should focus on lifting others up instead of "busting" down the current parties? This just hit me, but by doing that, we would inherently be taking power away from the dems/reps.

I'd actually like to see both parties reduced. When millions of dollars are being pumped into a poltical party, people begin to loose sight of the issue and begin to see it as a buisness.

k · Jan 16, 2006

Balbatish said:
To be honest, you did say passivly, that rich white men will never solve the problems we face today.

That is a priori because we cannot expect rich white men to be omniscient.

I'd actually like to see both parties reduced. When millions of dollars are being pumped into a poltical party, people begin to loose sight of the issue and begin to see it as a buisness.

That's the point, they are about big business instead of a Republic.

Alarum · Jan 16, 2006

We cannot break the two-party system without a different method of voting. It's impossible. With a winner-take-all method of voting and no form of runoffs, smaller parties feel the need to throw their support behind bigger parties, in order to combine their vote. Two parties with 30% of the vote cannot beat one party with 40%, but if they combine their issues (both making compromises), and decide on a candidate, they easily win. Thus, the two-party system is an inevitability with this system of voting - if the democrats and republicans were abolished tomorrow, it would be less then two decades (and probably closer to one) before the two party system had reformed, with coalitions of smaller parties using their "party vote" functions to throw their support behind one individual.

k · Jan 16, 2006

Alarum said:
We cannot break the two-party system without a different method of voting. It's impossible. With a winner-take-all method of voting and no form of runoffs, smaller parties feel the need to throw their support behind bigger parties, in order to combine their vote. Two parties with 30% of the vote cannot beat one party with 40%, but if they combine their issues (both making compromises), and decide on a candidate, they easily win. Thus, the two-party system is an inevitability with this system of voting - if the democrats and republicans were abolished tomorrow, it would be less then two decades (and probably closer to one) before the two party system had reformed, with coalitions of smaller parties using their "party vote" functions to throw their support behind one individual.

EXCELLENT POINT!!! I've also thought about this in terms of the Caucuses...

Balbatish · Jan 16, 2006

Neverstop said:
That is a priori because we cannot expect rich white men to be omniscient.

Do you feel that Rich White men are the problem? I am just perplexed you would include this in your OP.

That's the point, they are about big business instead of a Republic.

Absolutely.

Erock83 · Jan 16, 2006

The problem I see is that no one (large majority) is willing take a chance and vote for alternative party. No matter how corrupt they see the system, they just pick jack-a**, or fat-a** and think that the lesser of to evils will be good. I often hear my peers tell me that they dont feel they have a choice, that is exactly what the powers at be want us to feel with out a choice. The sad fact is we do have a choice there are over 50 active(to some degree or another) political parties in the US alone, and many more in other countries. We must remove the myth that there is no choice when you step into the voting both, and voting reform would help that but I dont feel that it is completely necessary. Except in the care of the Presidential election process, the fact is we have always had a choice and we still have a choice and we need to start exercising that choice. People told me two years ago that by voting for Nadar I was voting for bush because Nadar was stealing votes from Kerry. That is the biggest lie I have ever I repeat ever have heard. VOTES ARE EARNED!!!! Period end of story if neither of the two major candidate is on your level or appeals to you dont sit back and figure out which one of them you like more, dont lie to your self and to your fellow American when you vote otherwise we will see more oppressive and more authoritarian policies out of Washington than we have for the past 6 years. If you have never heard or dont know enough about Americas third parties then go here.

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

If you are still a little lost because yes there is a lot of information on that page and still are not sure where you fit into things then Go here

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

This is a great political test that will show you at least a little where you fit in to politics on a (x,y) scale.

It is time that we started thinking for ourselves.

One Love.

k · Jan 16, 2006

Balbatish said:
Do you feel that Rich White men are the problem? I am just perplexed you would include this in your OP.

Perplexed that I would point out ostensible present and historical patterns about elected officials of the highest office?

To answer the question, one is either part of the problem or part of the solution. It's a case by case basis.

Uphill Battle · Jan 16, 2006

do you really WANT that? take a look at Canada's electoral system. We have 5 parties to choose from, that make the official ballots (Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloq qebecois, green party) as well as any number of liberals. What you get is a mishmash of issues without any real division of policies. Even if there are more than two parties, there are always two "giants" with the rest as spoiler parties. I don't see how it is really better.

k · Jan 16, 2006

Uphill Battle said:
do you really WANT that? take a look at Canada's electoral system. We have 5 parties to choose from, that make the official ballots (Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloq qebecois, green party) as well as any number of liberals. What you get is a mishmash of issues without any real division of policies. Even if there are more than two parties, there are always two "giants" with the rest as spoiler parties. I don't see how it is really better.

It is better because the two-party system suppresses many issues that require attention and correction.

OhhJim · Jan 16, 2006

I always vote third party in a Presidential election. Hasn't seemed to make a difference, but as Ghandi or some other chappie said, there are things you do that won't matter, but it's very important that you do them.

quantumspirit · Jan 17, 2006

As much as I would like for there to be a viable third party, they seem to shoot themselves in the foot. Ralph Nader, although I think he has a very good grasp on reforms that need to be made, he publicly criticized Kerry yet said nothing about Bush. It makes many people think he's actually a secret republican. Then in Minnesota, we had Jesse Ventura, a bull in a china shop. The 2004 Constitution party candidate for president seemed very racist. The last good third party candidate for anything I recall was Ross Perot.

Rygel · Jan 17, 2006

America is not so simple as Democratic or Republican, yet every Presidential election comes down to four white, wealthy, and connected men. How is this possible?

Well, running for office ain't cheap.

JVD · Jan 17, 2006

The best way to break the system is with preferntial voting.

This is like having an automatic runoff.

You first have to make a rule that the winner has to take over 50% of the total vote.

Then instead of voting for only one person on the ballot you vote for all of them. But instead of putting a checkmark, you number them 1-5 or 1- however many there are on the ballot.

Then if no one gets more than 50% on the first round, the lowest vote getter is eliminated and all his votes are counted again, with the number 2's on his/her ballot counted for the respective candidates. If needed, this can be repeated until finally someone has more than 50%.

This is much less expensive and much faster than a runoff, and would make many people (me included) much more comfortable about voting for 3rd parties because I would know my vote wasn't wasted.

This system is currently used in many local elections, and I believe something like it is used in Australia????

Rize · Jan 17, 2006

Unless there is a major upset, then what will happen is a third party like libertarians (largest one so far) will gain significant ground, then then one of the existing parties will adopt part of the libertarian platform to pull in some lib voters. I'd like to see that upset, but baring that, partial platform adoption would be nice.

So vote for a third party if you want, we don't need a majority to win, we just need enough votes to cause some pain.

TheReasoner · Jan 17, 2006

Uphill Battle said:
do you really WANT that? take a look at Canada's electoral system. We have 5 parties to choose from, that make the official ballots (Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloq qebecois, green party) as well as any number of liberals. What you get is a mishmash of issues without any real division of policies. Even if there are more than two parties, there are always two "giants" with the rest as spoiler parties. I don't see how it is really better.

They should redefine their system. Here, there are usually more than one party in charge, together with others. The multiple parties ensure that more of the populations´ views are reflected in politics. It also gives the voters a real choice of politics. It makes it a bit harder for the corporations to buy off all the politicians, and furthermore, it adds a lot of depth to a political system to have more than two parties. A two party system is onlya wee bit away from a one party system which isn´t democratic at all. And the two American parties are as similar as identical twins; Practically identical, but with slightly different fingerprints.
No, they need more diversity

Can it be done? Yep. it can. Will it be easy to increase the amount of parties in a nation the size of the USA with the long history of a two-party system?
No...

But it can - and IMHO should be done.

ballfan · Jan 17, 2006

Neverstop said:
It appears the two-party system is a myth because both exploit irrational fears of the American public to maintain the status-quo.

America is not so simple as Democratic or Republican, yet every Presidential election comes down to four white, wealthy, and connected men. How is this possible?

The real issues that Americans are concerned with, and face everyday, will never be addressed as long as we permit the Old Boy network to operate. Instead of allowing ourselves to be divided we should unite in our diversities and seek ways to have people elected who will represented the majority of Americans, not the minority.

The question is, how can this be done?

It can only be broken by a viable third party with viable ideas that is there for good reasons. That kind of eliminates the Libertarian Party and some others.

Doctrine1st · Jan 17, 2006

Take the money out of politics and the two party system which is actually a one party system, those with money, will goe away. Elections should be publically funded.

Can We Break the US Two-Party Monopoly?

reset

Active Member

reset

Active Member

reset

Well-Known Member

reset

Active Member

Well-Known Member

reset

Well-Known Member

reset

Often wrong, but never in doubt

evangelical humanist

Rygel

Guest

JVD

Guest

Well-Known Member

Former christian, current teapot agnostic.

Well-Known Member

Official nitwit

Similar threads