|
31 Dec 00 - 06:54 PM (#366469) Subject: BS: America's 2-party system From: MichaelAnthony What are Mudcatter's thoughts on the advantages and disadvantages of America's 2-party system? Any strategies for improvement? It troubles me daily that so many of us feel the need to identity ourselves as democrats or republicans...is there some advantage to this that I'm overlooking? Here in Georgia, a different party senatorial candidate who supposedly was invited to a debate was beaten and jailed by police. He arrived to find only two podiums, and merely announced that he also was running. I suppose if the debate was organized and funded by the two dominant parties, they may have some right to stem any possible disruption. But this doesn't sit well with me, even though I may not like the candidate. Little Hawk, thanks for your comments on this in the other thread...thought I'd start a new thread about it. |
|
31 Dec 00 - 06:57 PM (#366471) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: Matt_R ZZZ! |
|
31 Dec 00 - 07:19 PM (#366480) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: John Hindsill I think the strength of the United States' party system---most notably as a two party system---is that it allows for evolutionary change in American society, unlike monarchies, theocracies and the '-isims' governments which periodically end in revolution. One can argue that Elephants and Asses are really the same political animal, but they aren't; the tension between their core philosophies occasionally goosed by a third party or movement keeps us changing most often for good, one hopes. The real trick nowadays is finding politicians who are also statesmen. --- John |
|
31 Dec 00 - 07:25 PM (#366486) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: catspaw49 Well, I guess two parties is about all we can afford, what with the decorations and sending out the invites, buying the food and booze, entertainment, not to mention all the cleanup. I'm surprised at times we can afford more than one. Spaw |
|
31 Dec 00 - 07:57 PM (#366510) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: Allan C. Thanks, Spaw. I really wanted to say that but saved it for you. |
|
31 Dec 00 - 08:00 PM (#366511) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: catspaw49 You're a good man Allan. Thank you. And Happy New Year. We're just trying to stay warm here!! Spaw |
|
01 Jan 01 - 11:47 AM (#366718) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: Uncle_DaveO John Hindsill said it, but I'm going to paraphrase and amplify. Since there's a large uncommitted vote, neither of the parties can just go the way it wants to; it must appeal to some degree to the whole electorate. Thus it can't take the strong stands it would like in its heart of hearts, and it must adapt itself to the ideas it sees as popular or going-to-be-popular. This is the reason the two parties look a lot alike. It's also the reason that a third party historically stands no chance: As soon as a third party looks like it has what might be a popular program, the major parties steal the issue and leave the newcomer sucking its thumb. Thus each of the two big parties has quite a variety of camps within it. The real struggle for hearts-and-minds is not between parties, as in other countries, but between what I'll call sub-parties, internally. The genius of this system is that neither of the two major parties, being a hybrid, is [nor can it be] absolute and high-handed in its approach, because each is in itself a coalition. This is also why the U.S. is able to pass power peacefully from one party's administration to the opposing party's administration. Dave Oesterreich |
|
01 Jan 01 - 02:25 PM (#366784) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: MichaelAnthony Thanks for the excellent posts. Any comments on the disadvantages, and strategies to overcome these? |
|
01 Jan 01 - 02:42 PM (#366788) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: GUEST Parliamentary systems allow for numerous parties and the leader of the party gaining the most seats in parliament becomes the national leader...this works well in many countries..as for monarchies..those that work well understand something that republics, especially America, dosen't..it is always a good idea, in a democracy, to separate power from glory. I think countries , especially democratic ones, adapt systems that suit their cultural needs. A look at America would seem to suggest that a third party might be a very good idea. |
|
01 Jan 01 - 05:06 PM (#366834) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: Uncle_DaveO We've got a system that works, "the Devil we know". Yes, there's faults with it, but it has served us fairly well for over two hundred years. I don't see a third party becoming viable for the reasons referred to in my earlier post. Especially since we don't have the parliamentary system, I wouldn't want any party to become powerful that didn't depend upon an appeal to all parts of the electorate, and a third party is almost sure to be a narrowly based special interest party, which scares me all to hell. Dave Oesterreich |
|
01 Jan 01 - 06:22 PM (#366860) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: Richard Bridge Hmm, didn't a geezer called Roosevelt try to start something called "the progressive party", and wouldn't it ahve been a ratehr good idea? Here in the UK we have had the appalling experience of sleg=dgehammer majorities, but still haave trouble getting a third party up to any decent size. THe advantage here is that you can stand as a communist or "the British Party" (Neo-Nazi) and you won't get shot. THis is not an invitation to start another gun thread. THer are other issues in politics besides guns. Back to sledgehammer majorities - once either party gets such a majority, then the whips get to work, and the internal majority sets out to eliminate dissent - and if you (an MP) refuse(s) to vote with the whip, the whip is withdrawn and his seat is lost at the next election. SO the self policing described above does not work. I suspect that it doesn't work in the USA either. |
|
02 Jan 01 - 01:16 PM (#367124) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: LR Mole Right, right...to abet Dave O. (and be suffocatingly obvious), the problem becomes not that we like ( or don't) puppies and/or kitties, open fields, oil wells, orchids, or ordure. The rub is that these tiny single-interest groups can be too easily subverted and controlled.Best intentions, etc. Sorry if I offend. |
|
02 Jan 01 - 01:40 PM (#367142) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: Fortunato Our 2-party system is like dental floss. It beats gum surgery. chance
|
|
02 Jan 01 - 05:19 PM (#367278) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: northfolk/al cholger Just a cpouple brief observations. Contrary to Spaw's comments about not being able to afford more than two parties, it isn't a problem, because corporate america pays for both...we just pay the consequences. "third" parties function to polarize issues, or with nurturing, to replace an atrophied party...guess we need two third parties by that last description... |
|
02 Jan 01 - 06:34 PM (#367337) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: Little Hawk Spaw - Whaddya mean, you can't afford more than 2 parties? Canada has always (in my lifetime) had at least 3, if not more parties, and we spend proportionately way less than you do on elections...mainly because our elections are only allowed by law to run for 6 weeks!!! I've gotta accuse you of lazy thinking on this one. BTW, it's a whole lot more fun with 3 or more parties...sometimes you get a "minority" government in power, and they usually pass better, more balanced legislation than majority governemnts, because they are forced to seek compromises. Everybody - There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why we should have ANY political parties. Civic elections are done without parties, and it would be entirely possible to do national elections without them as well. Parties are like unions, churches, and other such organizations...they seek to accumulate wealth and power, and they generally become corrupted in the process. Why not just vote for individual people? That's what the Romans and Greeks did, as far as I recall, and they had democracy, until Julius Caesar took over. Matt - WAKE UP!!! Time for breakfast. - LH |
|
02 Jan 01 - 08:34 PM (#367422) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: NightWing DaveO wrote:
[I]t [the two-party system] has served us fairly well for over two hundred years. I don't see a third party becoming viable for the reasons referred to in my earlier post. which were:
It's also the reason that a third party historically stands no chance: As soon as a third party looks like it has what might be a popular program, the major parties steal the issue and leave the newcomer sucking its thumb. Hmm, unless I'm DEEPLY mistaken, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans existed at the time of the founding of the US. Doesn't that imply that ... they started out as third-parties? And that ... this implies that third-parties most definitely DO have a chance? Perhaps for a third-party to have a chance one would have to have a level playing field. IMO (I don't have humble ones), the idea that 'third-parties don't have a chance' is an implicit admission that the political field here in the States is most distinctly NOT level. Note northfolk/al cholger's comments a couple of posts back.
BB, |
|
02 Jan 01 - 11:33 PM (#367508) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: John Hindsill NightWing--You are right, neither the Democrat Party nor the Republicans existed at the founding of the country. If I remember my American History aright (and it has been close to 40 years since I was in school)the original party was the Federalist Party...it had the first two presidents; Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican, Andy Jackson a Democrat four presidents later. Long before Jackson was elected, the Federalist Party ceased to exist. When the Republican Party formed, it filled the void left by the demise of the Whig Party, which had virtually ceased being a national party by 1858, and did not nominate a presidential candidate in 1860. So, the race that year was a two party race, and we all know [at least all United Statesians should know] who won that election. So, until Mr. Perot worked his mischief in the 1990s, the only important 3rd party was the Progressive Party which did get significant votes, but never enough to best even one of the majors. |
|
03 Jan 01 - 09:04 AM (#367722) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: Irish sergeant Actually, we do have several parties in this country. It is a shame that some of them don't get a shot. The United States has never been a two party country. We just happen to have two extremely large well entrenched parties that basically control the political process. HAving said that the system does work. I don't agree with whom was elected this time but there aren't gun battles and civil unrest in the streets and I can still (At least this week) voice my opinion. The Demecratic-Republicans of the Jeffersonian era became today's democratic party. By the way if you're looking for a third party that influenced politics in the UNited States without holding substantial power let's not forget the NAtivist party. Better known as the know nothing party they were an influence on American politics in the years preceding the Civil War. Kindest reguards, Neil |
|
03 Jan 01 - 11:11 AM (#367787) Subject: RE: BS: America's 2-party system From: Uncle_DaveO The Romans sure did have parties. They were called the Blues and the Greens, and at one time much earlier there were also the Reds and the Whites. They were, seeing them from here and now, sort of a hybrid political party and sports association. They ran chariot race teams and other sports teams, and had great political power. If the current Emperor was Blue and you were Green, there was just about zilch chance of being a civil servant or doing business with the State. Dave Oesterreich |