What do you think of the two-party system ?

[kentuck]

And which two Parties would you prefer? Do you like the present two-Party system where we are closer to two-corporate Parties or would you prefer a two-Party system that was closer to the socialism model in Europe? Ralph Nader said there was not a dime's worth of difference between them. He was wrong. There is about a quarter's worth of difference between them, as they now stand.

Do we really need a Republican Party like the one that presently exists. They exist to support the corporate structure and the fallacy of free-market economics. All of it is at the expense of the majority of the people. Make no mistake, without their followers who have bought into their philosophy of "free enterprise", they would be a minority Party without the political power to even survive as a political Party.

Even if we accept the need for a two-Party system, why do we have to accept the two-Party system that we presently have? They no longer function for the common good, it is obvious. The healthcare debate is really all the proof that we need. However, the bailout of the big banks was another prime example. There was no debate when they needed a trillion dollars to bail out the big banks. What does that say about out system of government and our two-Party system?

The present Democratic Party has the base to become a Party that represents the will of the people. But they have become or perhaps they have always been, just another arm of the corporate Republican Party when all the marbles are in the game. Can we really and truly dispute that?

What is the best way to create a two-Party system that works for the people. If we educate the people and if we can transform the present Democratic Party into a more representative and "democratic" Party, then the Republican Party will disappear. It cannot survive the truth or the light of day. It exists by deception and lies. Once that is exposed, they will cease to exist.

[havocmom]

1. It'd probably work better with two parties

[mdmc]

32. agreed

it would be better then the current one corporate party system that we now have.

[Saxon]

2. 2 party system

I love the 2 party system.

Wish we had 2 parties.

[ccharles000]

6. +1

[pleah]

11. +2

[YOY]

12. Damn skippy.

We have the center-right party and the screaming kooky so right-wing they don't need facts party.

[timeforpeace]

3. It's done OK for a long time. Neither can be always right or always in power which means the people

can be, over time and on average. Our control will wane someday, especially if we keep escalating wars around the world.

[Xicano]

4. Political parties sould be outlawed.

They cause tribalism and division based purely on tribalism. No parties would mean a greater focus on the issues instead of party tribalism.

IMO

[Cleita]

5. It sucks.

We need a parliamentary system with various parties across the spectrum that have to form coalitions to get business done. At either extreme are the ideologues. If we had such a system, the RW nutjobs would be a very small party on the fringe. The Blue Dog Dems wouldn't be Democrats but some kind of party that caters to business like Republicans do. Then the majority of us liberals will probably fall into a category of social democrats and if really lefty just socialists. At the far left would be the communists who also would form a tiny caucus of their own.

Not only that two parties are divisive. Right now liberals have targets on their asses like an enemy because the RW fringe looney tunes have declared war on us.

[caraher]

7. It's a mess

Stability at the cost of a voice for non-corporate interests.

Sadly, I'm skeptical that the system is going anywhere in my lifetime...

[asdjrocky]

8. And the discussion continues. Hey Kentuck.

I'm not sure if either one of the current mainstream parties can be reformed, and I think that is our fault because we are too willfully stupid as a population.

The problem is it's a web and they all work together weather they realize it or not. The politicians work with the corporations who own the media to stifle or trivialize any real liberal decent. Just look at the coverage of the Iraq war protests and the coverage of the townhall meetings. Even the "liberal" shows spend more time talking about the "protests" at townhalls than they did about 100's of thousands of people in the street protesting Bushs war policies. Need I say more?

Maybe this delicate set up they have is too big to fail.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Parties are vehicles, not destinations. People need to vote issues, not party or politicians.

[create.peace]

10. oh good, a fantasy thread! nt

[laylah]

13. oh good..

I LOVE pizza! Welcome, btw, enjoy while you reap the benefits of the fine minds here :evilgrin:

[create.peace]

34. do i know you? not sure how to take your comment! welcome, because i don't have 1000+

i was on here early on, was a smirking chimpster till the s the climate changed there, it was a great discussion board. i really think that unless someone has just a handful of posts, assuming she is a newby is silly. if i have taken your comment the wrong way, 1000+ apologies. i am actually an advocate of at least a half dozen parties, then maybe i could find one more fitting my lefty, environmental activist leanings. fine minds....some are.

[jotsy]

14. I promote the notion that bi-partisan politics are not in the best interest of the citizenry.

For reasons too long to list without a whole other thread, but I'll list what I feel are the more systematic ones.

1. If you're in the minority, the job is to trip up the majority so they don't retain that as a status. If you're in the majority, you claim the minority is undermining the effort for progress.

While both sides insist that they're the party more in tune with what the public wants, the real desire of being in the majority is to be the party the lobbyists spoil with more enthusiasm.

Note: you and I don't factor in here in any way.

2. According to Thom Hartmann, the founding fathers warned against political alliances, period. Pretty much because the gridlock that we know know as contemporary government was what they anticipated.

3. To limit a group as diverse as Americans to two choices, often neither of which or pieces of both is where the bulk of us may dwell politically.

My solution? I wonder if something as simple as a traffic light might be the quickest route to some oversight and transparency.

Since all reps in the senate and the house have such great medical insurance, I say we ask them to undergo a little procedure. Let's have forehead sized, horizontal, lack of truth detecting little traffic lights installed on them. Then we'll know when ever they speak, what the truth is as to who they work for. I think we've taken their word for it long enough. If we can find a way for them to prove it, we should use it, shouldn't we?

:shrug:

[FatDave]

15. Don't like it personally.

However, here's how I think it may play out in the not too distant future.

We're witnessing the death throes of the republican party. They currently represent only the extremest of the extreme right. The democratic party now encompasses everything from the moderate right to the liberal left, which is why we have so much trouble getting even just democrats to agree on anything. Consider that Arlen Specter is now a democrat.

There are still a few moderate right individuals who are sticking with the republican party out of loyalty to ideals they once stood for or simply out of tradition. I think of people like Colin Powell and Olympia Snowe, but there are more among the general public. These people will continue to vote with and for democrats.

As the republican party shrinks and becomes more and more of a fringe party (and even if we disregard political miscalculations and radicalization, this will still happen due to pure demographics) and the democratic party encompasses ever more of the political spectrum, the democratic party will eventually split into two separate parties. The blue dogs and corporatists will make one party and the traditional, more liberal democrats will make up the other. Who knows what they will be called, and maybe there'll be a fight over the Democratic Party name. The Cantors and Romneys of the world will join the new moderate right party, marginalizing the republican party to the point of inconsequence.

I could be dead wrong about this, but it's a possible scenario that I consider likely if current trajectories are maintained. It represents a substantial shift of the country leftward, and therefore I welcome it. Perhaps most significantly, it will mark the end of evangelical political power.

(edited for grammar)

[MrScorpio]

16. The After Party is the one you want to attend n/t

[abumbyanyothername]

17. At this point I am thinking that opt out is the better approach

Just opt out of the manipulative economy and politics to the extent possible. I am also dreaming of a free exchange, perhaps using the internet somehow -- You know, I post that I am willing to provide so many hours of my service to anyone who needs it . . . for free. Someone else posts their goods or services, etc.

But that's just me.

[dfgrbac]

18. Parties serve only one purpose - to divide the people!

It is ridiculous to believe there are only two sides to an issue. It is even more ridiculous to believe that all issues can be placed on one of these side or the other. Opinions about issues and how to solve them are plentiful. Often an open discussion without categorizing it into a side can produce solutions acceptable to everyone.


We Americans need to learn to cooperate for the common good. Only open democratic discussions can can do that. Every locality across the country should have open town hall meetings regularly to discuss not only local issues, but also important state and national ones.

And we need to bring important issues to the ballot for everyone to have a say, not just the politicians.

Vote for the National Initiative for Democracy! This is the only way we can beat the corporate power that controls us today!

With issues on the ballot, political parties will become irrelevant.

[asdjrocky]

20. No. Fucking. Way.

Either you don't realize this is a right wing trick or you do. Which is it?

[Poiuyt]

19. We should have some sort of Instant Runoff Voting

Then we could have more parties without fear of damaging any of the candidates we like.

[dysfunctional press]

21. i wish we had a two party system...but that doesn't work in an oligarchy like ours.

[southerncrone]

22. I love parties. The more the merrier.

We need about a dozen different parties. That will get rid of the polarizing, divisive nature of the 2-party system.

We would end up with more variety of personalities & agendas which would be better for our country in the long run. Corporations would have to spend loads of cash to get all in their pockets, instead of just buying off 2.

(My opinion applies to both the fun type :party: & the political type :patriot: parties.)

[Juche]

23. multi party system with instant runoff voting

Get 4-5 parties and vote the ones you actually support. I'd rather vote for a green or labor party than a dem party, but I don't like how in our current system if I do that I make it easier for the GOP to win.

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. I know how you feel. I'd support any number of ranked, approval, or fusion voting scenarios. But

without a new Fairness Doctrine and mandatory across the board publicly funded elections, a change in the voting and party system will probably only be effective up unto a point.

[saltpoint]

24. There've been a few third party efforts that made a bit of a go of it

and did reasonably well, given the odds they fought against, but there is no sustaining apparatus for building those parties.

I thought John Anderson ran as impressive a third party campaign as could be run, again given the limits of money and physical organization. I'm not hogwild about John Anderson per se but I thought he did far better with what little he had to work with than Ross Perot did with considerably more money and media attention.

I'll be voting Democratic in coming elections. I think the difference is far greater than a quarter kentuck.

[kentuck]

25. John Anderson was a Republican running on 3rd Party ticket...

I still think to this day his plan was to take votes away from the Democrat and assure a Republican victory. But that's just me.

[saltpoint]

26. That's possible, but the Democratic ticket that year was not

enthusiastically received, even by many Democrats, witness the results.

Carter got crushed. It feels to me that he would have gotten crushed whether Anderson and Barry Commoner were in the race or not.

I think there remains a good chance for a successful third party, but not unless they can construct a sustainable apparatus.

[kentuck]

28. We know that now, after the fact...

But we did not that at the time.

[saltpoint]

29. Well, we certainly had the sense that Carter would lose.

After the first debate, he never really regained balance. Reagan was perceived differently, having won over the people who'd heard he was a kook. Many, many Democrats were not satisfied. The Iran hostage crisis was eroding Carter's support hourly.

I think we pretty well knew Carter was not going to pull it out.

In the days just before the election, Carter's chief pollster, Pat Caddell, sat with the president and told him the results of his findings, coast to coast. "The numbers aren't there, Mr. President," meaning the residual support from key constituencies. Carter himself knew the likely outcome of the election days before it was held.

Reagan's pollsters, meanwhile, mapped a mounting trend of support. Their figures turned out to be the accurate ones.

http://www.nytimes.com/1980/11/05/politics/05REAG.html

[Toasterlad]

30. I Think It's a Myth.

I think this country's only had one party for about 40 years.

[dgibby]

31. Are you talking about the Democans and the Republicrats? n/t

[mmonk]

33. From what I remember, it was ok.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

35. It's a one party system

... whose controlling elements are millionaires, lobbyists, fund-raisers, careerist apparatchiks, consultants, and corporate lawyers; that has stood by prostrate and helpless (when not actively collaborating) in the face of stolen elections, illegal wars, torture, CIA concentration camps, lies as state policy, and one assault on the Bill of Rights after the next.

[spanone]

36. it's a ruse.

[omega minimo]

37. It would be an improvement.

[Mnemosyne]

38. ...

:puke::puke::puke: