Partisan Politics in America

[New Augustgrad]

Do you think the two-party system has proven beneficial to American politics? If not, what do you think should be changed?

I'm interested to see where people stand. Please elaborate no matter where you stand if you can.

(This is my first debate thread on 10KI, so please let me know if the OP is weak and needs to be revised)

[New Augustgrad]

I'm of the opinion that the two-party system has misguided American politics. On the one hand you have the Democrats, who would sacrifice our political liberties for our civil liberties, and on the other you have Republicans, who would do exactly the opposite. Essentially I think that by choosing one or the other Americans are left with a false choice - civil liberty or political liberty - which, in my view is one of the things that's polarizing the nation. The two should coexist together as much as possible. At this point I think a non-partisan system would benefit American politics, though I admit it'll likely never happen or at least not any time soon.

[Cerb]

Well, there is always the option (increasingly popular choice) of running as an independant.

I guess in my mind the party system is neither here or there, so long as your representative does what the people tell him to do.

I am conservative by nature, however I currently have a democratic member of the house. The health care reform was strongly opposed by my state and he did what he was told to do. He voted against the health care reform. In that sense he has earned my respect by doing what he is supposed to.

Now the tough situation will be in November, when most Americans will be using the vote as a refferendum. This will probably bring more balance to the house, but I think it's actually going to have the compass swing wildly back from the way it came.

I think a lot of people saw the current incumbents as more moderate than they turned out to be.

Overall though I think the extreme polarization is a direct reflection of the populace at large.

I also think that this is entirely by design.

And no, I don't think the black helicopters over my house are spying on me.

They are spying on my neighbour, I'm sure of it.

[Dragon Heirs]

I think the two party system was once beneficial, but no longer is. I'll expand my thoughts when I have more time.

[The Theban Legion]

I think that since the major parties will adopt anything into their ever growing platforms that as long as you have a guiding and popular vision you can create your own party within the existing party platform.

[Klington]

it sucks

[Harperians]

If it sucks near as bad as in the UK, I do agree.

[Silvermain]

I'd have to agree with New Augustgrad, having two parties makes for a very polarized populace. The problem is that any number of parties would have the same sort of effect, but then there would be more groups of people to disagree with.

Sadly, it would be quite difficult to move to a non partisan government. So we'll just have to stick with what we've got now. If the latest presidential elections mean anything, then at least our parties seem to becoming more moderate.

[Cerb]

The parties seem to be far less moderate than I expected. I believe that they were elected by moderates, but they aren't acting moderate - on either side of the house.

[Estayland]

It worked so well for Ralph Nader and Ross Perot.

[Silvermain]

California (USA) has a proposition right now that might start the state moving toward a... less partisan system.

Here's a link to some information about Proposition 14: ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_14,_Top_Two_Primaries_Act_%28June_2010%29

Basically, if this proposition passes, primary elections in California will be changed so that instead of Democrats getting one ballot and Republicans getting another with people from their parties on it, there would be one universal ballot with people from all parties. The old system takes the candidate with the most votes from each the Democratic and Republican ballots and runs them against all of the third party candidates in the next election. But this new system would have everyone voting for people from all parties, and taking the top two candidates (regardless of party affiliation) and having those be the only two choices in the end of the year election. So it's possible that a Democrat could be running against a Democrat, for example.

What do you guys think?

[Jusyr]

Prop 14 seems to be f**king retarded, even worse than the current system. My reasoning is in the post above me.

[imaginacion]

Having only two parties in a country leaves one with too few options. It is as if there was only black and white, good and bad... Nothing in between... That doesn't work like that, one can't always agree on everything the democrats come up with or the vice-versa. Not saying that one necessarily would agree with policies of any party even if there were 10 of them, but still a bit more choice there...

Politics generally sucks though...

[Silvermain]

May 28, 2010 16:56:44 GMT -5 Jusyr said:

Prop 14 seems to be f**king retarded, even worse than the current system. My reasoning is in the post above me.

I would love to take your opinion seriously, but that's hard when you don't explain your thoughts. Trolling really isn't something I look for when I want to have an actual debate.

[Jusyr]

May 28, 2010 18:41:49 GMT -5 Silvermain said:

May 28, 2010 16:56:44 GMT -5 Jusyr said:

Prop 14 seems to be f**king retarded, even worse than the current system. My reasoning is in the post above me.

I would love to take your opinion seriously, but that's hard when you don't explain your thoughts. Trolling really isn't something I look for when I want to have an actual debate.

I believe I did.

Oh well, you didn't get the point. Nevamind. -_-

[British Kuwait]

Well in my opinion, it doesn't. There were never supposed to be political parties like we have now in the first place. As proven during recent years, it slows progress. Theres always some kind of back and forth struggle for power with them.

[Estayland]

May 28, 2010 16:13:35 GMT -5 Silvermain said:

California (USA) has a proposition right now that might start the state moving toward a... less partisan system.

Here's a link to some information about Proposition 14: ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_14,_Top_Two_Primaries_Act_%28June_2010%29

Basically, if this proposition passes, primary elections in California will be changed so that instead of Democrats getting one ballot and Republicans getting another with people from their parties on it, there would be one universal ballot with people from all parties. The old system takes the candidate with the most votes from each the Democratic and Republican ballots and runs them against all of the third party candidates in the next election. But this new system would have everyone voting for people from all parties, and taking the top two candidates (regardless of party affiliation) and having those be the only two choices in the end of the year election. So it's possible that a Democrat could be running against a Democrat, for example.

What do you guys think?

That's what they do in Louisiana.

[Guy]

Personally, I think it's a pretty f**ked up idea. It's trying to provide a partial solution to a problem, but instead, it will only enlarge it. People will start voting for the other party's weakest candidate.

[iswa]

well... I am not quite sure on my veiw of the whole thing. I personally think we need like 30 parties, and that would still be generalizing quite a bit

[Enigmatic]

The thing with politics is you don't want too few parties (I would say 2 is too few), but you also don't want too many. 30 would be too many. You want enough to represent a variety of positions, but not too many otherwise things don't get done. Part of the problem in Germany before the rise of the Third Reich was too many parties each shouting each other down. No majority could be reached and government devolved. I think somewhere in the 3 to 5 range would suffice.

[Cerb]

I think the two party system is there to prevent just that type of anarchy. I think we see frequent situations where people cross party lines to vote, and that is exactly how it should be.

In my current state we had a massive to do because the GOP candidate got beaten out of the primary. This is a demonstration that the establishment is not so secure.

I think, in essence people address themselves to this question at present because the country (the US specifically) is in a very polarized state.

We can say this this is caused by the two party system, but I am not sure it is. You can argue that Obama was elected by the moderates, who were expecting (I think) a moderate president. I think a lot of people were expecting that he would carry through on the promise of working with both sides of the house to bring his campaign promises to reality.

In the current state though, it looks like bi-partisan co-operation has broken down to almost nil and the question is whether that is something that can be blamed on one side, or the other, or both.

I am reminded of a point prior to the health care reform act even hitting the house when, if I remember correctly, the speaker of the house stated something along the lines of "We can do what we want and we don't need their support".


Now, I am sure that this attitude was promulgated by the Republicans being obstinate during talks, but the impression this gave to me, as a public comment, was that about 50% of the country's opinion could go hang.

I think this kind of situation is going to cause both sides of the house to become less inclined to work together. If you have someone bold enough to stand up and say that they simply don't care what your opinion is, then it hardly can cause good feeling.

I think it may have set the stage for a swing back the other way where we end up with a President who can't achieve much in his last two years because the house and senate will both be held nominally "red".


I don't think multiple parties would solve this.

My personal concern is bound more around campaign financing than those who are running for office.

I dislike that corporations can donate to a party. I dislike that people can be bombarded by advertising. It feels like "the one who spends most wins".

Rather than seeing more parties, I'd rather see caps on spending and no corporate financing. Oh, and a non partisan media.