OT 2 party political system

[Narrew]

I didn't want to de-rail the Iraq thread, but I was interested in talking about the 2 party system.

I do not know all the answers, but I think the 2 part system here in the U.S. has driven a wedge in our nation. It has divided us so much, that we work against each other, perhaps that is human nature. I don't remember where I read it, but supposably George Washington warned against going to a 2 party system.

I think other than the far right/left most americans (maybe 80%) are down the middle, at least close enough that they can compromise with someone on the other side of that 80%. The way our system is set up, I don't ever see that happening, but I can wonder about it.

Just a thought.

[Erax]

Just some questions (from a non-American) : the 2-party system is a matter of custom, correct ? People are used to having 2 parties so that's why there are 2 parties ?

Is there anything to prevent the rise of local 'other' parties ? parties that have their own candidates at the state level but support other parties at the national level ?

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Chief Engineer Erax:
Just some questions (from a non-American) : the 2-party system is a matter of custom, correct ? People are used to having 2 parties so that's why there are 2 parties ?

Essentially. Leagally, parties have nothing to do with the US election system. However, practically, people polarize between two.

Originally posted by Chief Engineer Erax:

Is there anything to prevent the rise of local 'other' parties ? parties that have their own candidates at the state level but support other parties at the national level ?

It has happened a few times in the past, but inertia usually keeps it from happening - people believe that other parties don't have a chance, and then, rather than "waste" (as they think) their vote on candidates that don't have a chance, they pick a candidate from one of the two big parties so that they have influence. Such thinking is what causes the difficulties of getting another group in.

[jimbob]

Well, there is a distinct disadvantage to having many small parties, as has been common in countries like Italy. The down side is that you can only get a ruling party when you get a composite party, but these are notoriously unstable because if splinter party X doesn't get their way, they'll pull out and force a new election. That's why Italy has an election every 20 minutes or so... and if Isreal wasn't so challenged by the Palestinian bombings, it would likely have this problem too. As a result of this sort of instability, the country ends up with the inability to have a long term international policy, trade agreements, etc.

The disadvantage of having the "2 party system", even thought there really is nothing blocking more parties, is that it doesn't keep the politicians honest.

In Canada we have a multi party system, but only with 4 major parties and a fifth that serves a social policy role (the NDP, and it is quite respected) even though it will never rule. The biggest problem is that one of the parties, the Liberals, have figured out that the majority of people are in the middle - and so they've become the "middle party", giving them election after election. It has evolved into a one-party political system, where one party is no longer responsible or inovative - because they don't need to be! I'd take your divisive, polarized system over the stagnant system because at least you have some degree of accountability to the electorate. The frequency of American elections is obviously annoying, but also serves a pretty good role in giving voters instant input into their representatives = instant accounting on the part of the politicians.

Though in theory I'm in favor of the American system becoming multi-party (three would be good), I'm just afraid that the third party would become the "middle party" and turn the US into the dictocracy that is Canada.

Just my thoughts, obviously many Canadians will disagree with me. (Edit: and for those of you not from Canada/not familiar with the anxiety built up around regionalism, it would be interesting to compare/contrast my views with those of people in other regions of Canada. I'm a westerner, and probably have a different view of this than say someone from central Canada (ie Ontario, perhaps Quebec) or eastern Canada (esp. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland)).

[ May 29, 2003, 19:31: Message edited by: jimbob ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

I have a number of complaints about the two-party system, but the biggest has to do with the way committee chairmanships are granted in the Senate and House of Representatives. The party that has the majority gets the chairmanships, thus getting even more power. If I vote for an Arizona Democrat because I like their politics (yes, it has happened), and that person's election swings the majority in the House or Senate, that contributes to the power of some people whom I REALLY don't like politically. This almost forces me to vote Republican for my national representatives, no matter what I think of the individual. If chairmanships were granted in proportion to the number of representatives from each party, it would be much easier to cross party lines. It would also let smaller parties with one or two members have a crack at chairmanships. I'm not sure what the best way to distribute the chairmanships would be, but there must be a better way than all to the majority.

[jimbob]

yes, but at least you have more than one house! In Canada we only have one (power holding) house, and it's chairperson equivalent (Speaker of the House) is voted in by the rest of the house = the ruling party chooses a candidate, and baring a miracle, they get both the majority and the Speaker of the House.

[PvK]

The two-party system is basically tyranny by gang, in my opinion.

I think that with computers available to process votes, voters should be able to vote for as many candidates as they want for any position, and many people should be able to run.

That way, if the two big-party candidates are Hitler and Stalin, and the independents include someone likeable but no one thinks an independent can win, voters can vote for their big-party "lesser of two evils" as well as the likable independents, so the likable independents could win if they are in fact more liked than the two party evils, without people having to give up their choice of lesser big-party evil.

Of course, the two big parties are currently kept in power by this system, are perhaps in the pocket of megacorporate media, and the two party system is conventionally unquestioned. So, it may be a long road to reform.

There are however already some organizations trying to promote electoral reform more or less as I suggested.

PvK

[Wanderer]

Obligatory Simpsons' quotes:

Kent Brockman: Senator Dole, why should people vote for you instead of President Clinton?

Kodos (as Bob Dole): It makes no difference which one of us you vote for. Either way your planet is doomed....DOOMED!

Kent: Well, a refreshingly frank response there from Senator Bob Dole!

...

Kang: It's true! We are aliens! But what are you going to do about it? It's a two party system! You have to vote for one of us!

Man in Crowd: Well, I'm just going to vote for a third party!

Kang: Go ahead! Throw your vote away!! HA HA HA HA!!!

[Fyron]

I don't remember where I read it, but supposably George Washington warned against going to a 2 party system.

It was in his farewell speech at the end of his term. He actually warned against the formation of political parties (factions, as he put them) period, not just a 2 party system. Most of the "founding fathers" warned against such things.

[Phoenix-D]

PvK, what exactly are you suggestion there? Variable votes? If someone doesn't come out on top, the votes for the losers are re-counted using the second selection?

Ex, there are four candiates A, B, C, and D.

Voter 1 picks, in this order:
A
C
D
B

His vote is first counted for A. If A doesn't have enough votes to win, Voter 1's vote becomes a vote for C. If C doesn't, D.