US Politics: Are TWO Parties Enough to Represent the Complexities Found in our Nation

[iNow]

The question is fairly well captured in the thread title. There is an ever evolving dynamic in our nation, and across the globe. There are subtleties and complexities tied to every decision and action we take, every law we pass, and every debate we have. I fear that some of these subtleties and complexities get missed when we continually try to paint them with the broad brushes of "democrat" and "republican."

 

I would love to hear from both citizens within the US and SFN members from other areas on the globe who may have some insight and perspective on this topic from their own governments.

 

 

Is the two-party dynamic adequate for dealing with the subtlies and complexiites of our national discourse and evolving needs?

 

What are the plusses/minuses of two party control?

 

If we were to move away from a two-party system, how might we do that, and what might be the benefits/costs?

 

 

As I debate more with each of you, and read more articles and journals about international politics, I'm personally beginning to lean more and more toward the idea of greater party diversity and power. This becomes apparent to me when we start marginalizing people with new and different ideas simply because they are outliers and not in lock step with their party ticket. I think we are missing a lot by trying to fit all of our individuality into two little (yet enormously powerful) buckets, and I'm curious to hear what others think.

 

 

Discuss.

[npts2020]

IMO a two party system will not represent the interests of a significant number of citizens. The problem in America is that the winner-take-all system is not conducive to having more than two parties. It has been my obsevation that as soon as a third party begins to become viable, one of the big two co-opts the main parts of the platform (anti-war, no taxes, etc.) or is taken over by the third party (think Republicans and Whigs circa mid 1850's). What I find hilarious is that the parties are far more the same than they are different, yet each one calls the other "radical".

[jackson33]

First the US is much more than a two party system. Second, States have full authority on how a party or individual gets on their ballot. Third and best answer, funding required...

 

Party Affiliations in the 2008 Presidential Election...

 

Republican

Democratic

Boston Tea

Constitutional

Green

America's Independent (Allen Keys)

Independent Ecology (Ralph Nadar)

Libertarian (Bob Barr)

Socialism & Liberation

Prohibition

Reform

Socialist

Socialist Workers

 

Plus six individual 'Independent Candidates, that were on at least one State Ballot.

 

When Washington was chose President, there were many names the State Electorates had to chose from, as was when John Adams was chose. Jefferson was chose after 50+ ballots, taking out a dozen plus others, which debate and balloting took the election process well into February.

[bascule]

I feel like no party represents me. I'm a liberaltarian and feel the Green Party is too authoritarian while the Libertarian party is too conservative.

 

People of my political disposition seem to be pragmatists who would rather just side with the Democrats than try to form a party of their own. That and there don't seem to be too many of us...

[Sisyphus]

Our system might have more than two parties, but it only has two parties with any national power, and that's a direct consequence of our electoral system, which makes the utter dominance of two roughly balanced parties the only stabile status quo. These two particular parties are, furthermore, informally entrenched to a pretty extreme degree. The entire Washington machine is built on Democrats and Republicans, to the point where it's accurate to say that practically speaking, they are the government. This isn't a conscious conspiracy between, them, mind you. (I'm sure most members of each party would like to completely dominate the other.) It's built into the institutions themselves.

 

I do believe that more diverse representation in government would benefit all of us, for reasons which I don't have time to go into now, but which most of you probably already agree with. So, the question is, what to do about it?

 

Well, actually, what needs to be done is pretty straightforward. Change the electoral system (and therefore the Constitution) to one that doesn't inevitably marginalize all but the two biggest parties. Many such systems exist. How to go about doing this is a lot harder, though, since it would have to be accomplished by the very people who have the most interest in preventing it, namely elected Democrats and Republicans...

[jackson33]

I feel like no party represents me. I'm a liberaltarian and feel the Green Party is too authoritarian while the Libertarian party is too conservative.

 

People of my political disposition seem to be pragmatists who would rather just side with the Democrats than try to form a party of their own. That and there don't seem to be too many of us...

 

The unique thing about the 'Primary/Caucus' system used by those two major parties, is the people running can have a different message. Last year, in addition to the 15 Party Affiliations, we had 20 somewhat to extremely different ways of approaching various issues.

 

Funny thing, as a Conservative (Fiscal/Government...not religious), I also find the Libertarian too conservative, but then I found none of the 20 D/R candidates conservative enough for me. Was their one, you preferred?

 

Sisyphus; The system is built for diversity, practice however is control. I doubt much would ever be accomplished w/o control, but it does limit debate.

Freshmen Congress people are herded into a group and given the rules, both parties.

 

Short of choosing a leader for 50 very different States and four territories, by pure popular vote, I don't know how you could change things. If you go pure popular vote, third parties could never get off the ground or even influence an election. Populations and demographics (adding States/migration west) have always changed, but eligibility for voting have dramatically changed in the past 50 years (Voter Rights/Ages/Women Suffrage). Aside from this, the electoral system, only determines the President/VP, not Congress.

[john5746]

I think the President should be elected by popular vote using some type of instant runoff system. That way, every person's vote is counted and no one would feel that their vote is being thrown away by voting for an alternative candidate.

[Pangloss]

My general feeling is that two parties are sufficient, and most of the problems we face occur when both parties get too out of touch with the people in general.

 

I think the problem of feeling unrepresented stems mainly from one of three things:

1) A partisan focus on specific issues

2) A lack of respect for current politicians

3) An erroneous conviction that the two parties represent specific over-arching ideologies that never change

 

In the case of the first type, such voters probably shouldn't be represented at all, in my view. In the case of the second type, adding a third party without solving the underlying problems that are causing existing politicians to become so disrespected doesn't seem logical. And in the third case type, those so concerned should probably just adopt a longer view.

 

And underlying the entire argument is the premise that one has to match one's ideology to a political party in the first place. Also understandable, but perhaps not very pragmatic. Even if you ignore the fact that there are always going to be more issues than parties, you can't even rely on a perfect match in the ideology department. No party in the history of this country has ever had an ideology so perfect that it instantly mandated the absolute best policy position on every single issue that the party ever faced.

 

And the proof is in the pudding -- I don't know anybody who says they only vote Republican or only vote Democrat, and would never consider voting for the opposite. Which is interesting, because I've read many times over the years (anybody got a link for this?) that polls historically suggest that 80% of the country always votes for the same party. Which seems to suggest that people see permanent party affiliation as closed-minded and anti-democratic, even though most people do it anyway.

[DrDNA]

Citizen here.

The 2 party system has failed us, and is currently failing us miserably.

 

What are the plusses/minuses of two party control?

Few pluses except perhaps ease of choice.

For example, in the old days, our grandparents only had Corn Flakes and Frosted Flakes to choose from.

The choice was easy.....frosted or not frosted

Then came Cheerios, Fruit Loops, Lucky Charms, Life, the granolas, etc.

Now things are so complicated that many people spend a half hour or more in the cereal isle and still can't decide.

So, if we increased the number of political parties to say.....10 or more and gave everyone only 30 seconds to make a choice in the booth, that should eliminate a large percentage of uniformed voters.

So, that would be a plus.

 

If we were to move away from a two-party system, how might we do that, and what might be the benefits/costs?

1. Would need to increase the mean IQ of the voting public by at least 20 points.

2. Then we would have to become unselfish.....care about something besides our own personal and immediate gratification.

3. We would have to ween ourselves off the 30 second sound bite.

4. Run all the lobbyists out of town on a rail.

5. Impose strict term limits.

6. Life imprisonment or execution for anyone that knowingly and willingly lies in the performance of their duties as a public servant and for citizens that knowingly and willingly lie in the printed press or on the airwaves.

7. And finally, somehow get people to care.

 

Conclusion.

Probably ain't gonna happen.

Edited February 17, 2009 by DrDNA

[YT2095]

Are TWO Parties Enough to Represent the Complexities Found in our Nation

 

No.

[ecoli]

maybe not, but the good part about a two party system is that its easier to come to a consensus.

 

I know in the Israeli parliament, movements that would split Jerusalem in two (as would be required for a two state solution) are always blocked by a small, but vocal, ultra conservative (in the religious sense) party.

 

Whether this is a problem specifically in the Israeli system or in parliamentary systems in general, I'm not sure.

[bascule]

Funny thing, as a Conservative (Fiscal/Government...not religious), I also find the Libertarian too conservative, but then I found none of the 20 D/R candidates conservative enough for me. Was their one, you preferred?

 

I like Kucinich even though his chances of getting elected president are pretty much nil

[Pangloss]

How many would be the correct number of parties?

[iNow]

I wonder if zero is the best answer to that question. Let every representative be who they are, standing up for their constituents, and do so without any affiliation whatsoever.

 

So, how about it? Is zero viable? Just a bunch of representatives where it doesn't matter what color jersey they have on?

[bascule]

How many would be the correct number of parties?

 

I believe 3 is the most common among democratic societies, but maybe that's just a rumor I'm shamelessly repeating.

 

Is zero viable?

 

Short answer: no

[jackson33]

I like Kucinich even though his chances of getting elected president are pretty much nil

 

Interesting; I found Huckabee and Kucinich the most honest two of the total, not only during but validated after the primary, followed by Ms. Clinton whom I may have voted for. It is a trait not often displayed...

 

iNow; Washington would have agreed....He worried, party affiliation would trump 'National Interest' and was he so correct....

[DrDNA]

Anybody have an idea how many different political parties the Romans had?

[Pangloss]

Anybody have an idea how many different political parties the Romans had?

 

None. The concept didn't exist yet. But at the time of Caesar there were basically two factions, generally labelled the "populares" (Caesar et al) and the "optimates". The former is typically labelled progressive (due to popular appeal, promises of reform, etc) and the latter conservative (protectionists of aristocracy, traditional ways, etc).

 

I believe 3 is the most common among democratic societies, but maybe that's just a rumor I'm shamelessly repeating.

 

Okay. What goals would having three parties actually accomplish?

[bascule]

Okay. What goals would having three parties actually accomplish?

 

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, to get anything done in this country we have to get the seal of approval of a bunch of science-hating bible thumping homophobes who think any government they aren't in firm control of is hell bent on destroying America, while they in fact are doing exactly that (so long as they have the power to do so). I mean, look at the country, it's a freaking mess, and it's the Republicans' fault, period. But more to the point, it's not just Republicans, but crazy Republicans, the PNAC types who have been administering the country for the past 8 years. They've been dead wrong about practically everything and have left the country in an absolutely deplorable state.

 

I'd like a moderate party who isn't so crazy and consistently wrong about everything. Then maybe the Democrats can capitulate with them, as opposed to bending over backwards to give them what they want only to be snubbed. All the right-wing nutjobs can go off and form their own party, endorsing Palin as their presidential candidate! Woohoo!

 

Maybe that'd undo the horrible logjam that is the US Congress.

 

I can see the present-day Republican party splitting into something like that... perhaps all the crazy neocons can go off and form their own party, leaving a saner body of moderate paleocons to actually get things done.

[iNow]

I definitely agree. In fact, many of the (I'll call them) classic Republicans are already advocating a split from the (I'll call them) insane religiot republicans. Newt Gingrich himself began doing this after the election, and I commend him for it. It's time they stop worrying about opposing stem cell research or shooting abortion doctors, and come back to the actual values which represent conservatism in the fiscal sense.

 

 

Back to the thread, I'm not looking for an exact number that works best. I'm simply trying to explore some ideas, to hash out where we seem to be consistently failing, and to work with each other to posit ideas that can make things better for all of us.

[Pangloss]

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, to get anything done in this country we have to get the seal of approval of a bunch of science-hating bible thumping homophobes who think any government they aren't in firm control of is hell bent on destroying America, while they in fact are doing exactly that (so long as they have the power to do so). I mean, look at the country, it's a freaking mess, and it's the Republicans' fault, period. But more to the point, it's not just Republicans, but crazy Republicans, the PNAC types who have been administering the country for the past 8 years. They've been dead wrong about practically everything and have left the country in an absolutely deplorable state.

 

How is any of that resolved by adding a third party? How will that create an environment that reduces corruption and detrimental influence, as opposed to simply creating a third opportunity for the same?

 

And adding one more party to the mix isn't going to magically create a situation in which you are suddenly represented by the political process (assuming you weren't before).

 

You're not ranting against Republican ideology, you're ranting against specific Republicans. And I don't think you would disagree with me on that point, which suggests that you'd be willing to support some Republican(s) in the future, depending on their specific platform. Which suggests that you don't really need a party that "represents you" (as you requested in post #4). You're just fine the way things are -- when certain politicians (in this case mainly Republicans) acted like idiots, you opposed them, voting for their opponents where possible.

 

So what need is going unfulfilled here, if it's no longer the aforementioned "representation"?

 

 

I'd like a moderate party who isn't so crazy and consistently wrong about everything.

 

I just wanted to point out how vague the above statement is. Do you feel that this desire of yours, when applied to specific issues, will precisely match approximately one-third of the country's electorate?

 

And if not, then I return to my question: What will adding one additional party actually accomplish? Won't it instead simply raise your personal frustration level -- by 33%?

 

And if one more is insufficient, then how many are required?

 

 

I'm not looking for an exact number that works best. I'm simply trying to explore some ideas, to hash out where we seem to be consistently failing, and to work with each other to posit ideas that can make things better for all of us.

 

I think it's going very well. Nice idea for a thread.

 

Let's take a look at something Sisyphus brought up in post #5:

 

Change the electoral system (and therefore the Constitution) to one that doesn't inevitably marginalize all but the two biggest parties. Many such systems exist. How to go about doing this is a lot harder, though, since it would have to be accomplished by the very people who have the most interest in preventing it, namely elected Democrats and Republicans...

 

I agree with the statement in the first sentence (though I don't share his preference). There is some uneven terrain that could probably be addressed. But I don't think that's what stops significant third parties from arising. I think that's more of a public perception issue than a "fair fight" issue. But I would agree with some depowering of the parties. Of course, that does raise an interesting question -- Who gets to wield that power?

 

=---------=

 

For discussion: Political parties should arise around ideological concepts, not attempts to represent large swaths of the population across many ideological boundaries.

 

Your thoughts?

[bascule]

How is any of that resolved by adding a third party?

 

Well, starting with the first sentence of my statement:

 

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, to get anything done in this country we have to get the seal of approval of a bunch of science-hating bible thumping homophobes

 

I would like these people removed from the political discourse. Right now these sort of types hold tremendous sway over more moderate Republicans. I forsee a number of party line votes in the future where people who do not match the above description are influenced by those who do.

[npts2020]

I kind of like the no-party solution. It would force politicians to come up with their own ideas. It might also reduce the amount of money spent on elections. I agree with Pangloss that parties should reflect uniting underlying principles, unfortunately, that is not the case in America today. Today the only reason to be in a political (rep or dem anyway) party is to get elected. There is no one thing that would distinguish a person as being in one party or the other. This is actually fairly (dis)ingenious, since that means parties can be both for and against the same issues and can be used to dupe an uninformed public into percieving whatever is desired.

[Sisyphus]

Don't really have time right now to sort through all the different arguments, but I will pose the general question (that I don't have a real answer to) in response to Pangloss' distinction between dissatisfaction with political parties and with particular politicians. Could it not be the case, that many (or even most) of the things that frustrate us about so many individual politicians are able to happen only because of the structure and protection of their political parties? Could not the fact that there are specifically two, and therefore a necessary focus among politicians of defeating one specific adversary, also contribute?

[JohnB]

From the POV of an outsider who is still trying to understand he system you have;

2 parties is not enough. As to how many there should be, as many as form.

 

However I don't think you can have more parties while holding to the First Past the Post voting system. The current two parties control too much of the vote under this system for smaller parties to have a chance. I've always thought FPTP is the most undemocratic system in a multi party electorate.

I think the President should be elected by popular vote using some type of instant runoff system. That way, every person's vote is counted and no one would feel that their vote is being thrown away by voting for an alternative candidate.

Why just the President? We use it for all elections and the smaller parties get a fair shot. The downside is that a small party can then control the balance of power in a Parliment which can have complications. TBH though, it hasn't been too much of a problem, if they make too much of a nuisance of themselves, they don't last long.

 

bascule, a plus of the system is that bible thumping homophobes will believe in the "RIGHTNESS OF THEIR CAUSE" (you know what they're like:rolleyes:) so much that they will happily split from the major parties of their own accord to form their own little party. (Firmly convinced that they will be swept into power at the next election) Everybody now knows who they are and they tend to dwindle away into obscurity and die.

 

Just my 2c