• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are you happy with the current two party system?

C

Cultureshock

New member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
If not, what type of system would you implement?
 
I would prefer a parliamentary system with multiple pass voting.

I would like to see a lot of smaller, more narrowly focused parties having to negotiate to form a government, I believe this would more closely represent the interests of the citizenry.
 
No, I'm not very happy with it. I would prefer to see more third parties having a voice in the government, since I often feel they represent my interests better than the two main parties do. That isn't going to happen though until we change our election system
 
Cultureshock said:
If not, what type of system would you implement?
Click to expand...

We really don't have a two-party system. It just works out that way. The backwoods parties just don't have an opportunity to make a meaningful difference. You've got your McDonald's...your Subways...and the also-rans. Don't know how that could change.

Oh, wait, I do know.

McCain spent $335 Million on his presidential campaign.
Obama spent $650 Million on his presidential campaign.

Give any minority parties that kind of cash, and things would change.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
I would prefer a parliamentary system with multiple pass voting.

I would like to see a lot of smaller, more narrowly focused parties having to negotiate to form a government, I believe this would more closely represent the interests of the citizenry.
Click to expand...
clap2.gif Excellent idea.

The two party system will eventually do one of two things: Destroy the country or implode leading to a multi-party system.
 
I am not happy with the two party monopoly. Sadly parties in various states have worked to screw 3rd parties,so even if you wanted to vote for a 3rd party candidate you are unable to unless your state allows write ins. The media aids in keeping this two party monopoly by blatantly ignoring 3rd party candidates,so many people are not even aware they exist which results in there being no name recognition with the 3rd parties. Seeing how we have the 1st amendment we can't ban broadcasters from showing political ads nor can we force them to show everybody.We could offer tax incentives to give equal air time to all candidates which would help with name recognition. I think primary should be held on the same day all across the country, so that if a candidate drops out it is because he or she lost, not because a handful of states didn't pick them.

I would also like a open primary where everybody regardless of party runs and the candidates with the two candidates with the highest amount of votes goes to a run off election with a none of the above option, unless of course there is a candidate with already 51% of the votes.


Ballots should never have the candidate's political affiliation, What ballots should include is a list of primary issues the candidate is for and against as well as what the actually voted for. Polling places should include additional information on all the candidates like other issues they support and have voted for not included in the ballot. These things would stop idiots from voting for some one based merely on party and allow all voters to make informed decisions on the spot. And election day should be a national holiday.


These things would help eliminate the two party monopoly.
 
I don't mind the idea of parliamentary voting. We have to start with abolishing any hints of the ridiculous electoral college either way. No third party can gain traction when you have every state giving all or nothing votes. I also think finance reform is necessary.

I think our government was designed beautifully. I think the concept was near perfect ... at the time. But it was a reactionary design based on the problems the world faced in the 18th and early 19th centuries. No current government has truly adapted to concepts like the internet, live news broadcasting, global markets, etc.

I think more power (through choice) should be given to the people. I think government should be scaled back severely and try to guide instead of dominate. I feel that having two parties battling only each other for more power is causing all kinds of havoc and isn't helping the big government issue.
 
I like our existing system. I do not want to see a President elected with only 34% of the vote. I don't want to see all future elections won based on plurality and not majorities. At the end of the day you can change the system but unless people actually take the time to truly study the candidates and then vote accordingly, you will still have a process that guarantees garbage in, garbage out.
 
Thunder said:
I hate seeing our President elected while losing the popular vote.
Click to expand...

I would normally agree unless the guy's name is Gore and the point spead was a rounding error. :mrgreen:
 
conservativeguy said:
I like our existing system. I do not want to see a President elected with only 34% of the vote. I don't want to see all future elections won based on plurality and not majorities. At the end of the day you can change the system but unless people actually take the time to truly study the candidates and then vote accordingly, you will still have a process that guarantees garbage in, garbage out.
Click to expand...

This is a fair point about a fundamental difference in our structure and parliament. Our President has more power than a prime minister does. However, I don't believe a two party system represents the majority any better than a plurality system. Too many people are voting for the lesser of evils or against the other candidate. You still get the same thing, more people want this than want the other options.
 
I am definitely NOT happy with the system. Given an option I would make all political parties and political action committees illegal. I would also make several changes to the financial system for campaigns....

1. Only parties who can vote for a particular candidate can donate to that candidate. The removes all foreign money, all corporate money, and all institutional money from the political spectrum.

2. Each voter can only give $100 per office per year, and only to one candidate per office. ie.... Over the 6 years of a Senator's term, each voter could donate a total of $600 (max) to people running for that office, but each year they could only donate to the Incumbent or ONE of that incumbent's opponents.

3. 90 days before an election, all candidates for office MUST provide (in writing) their voting records and personal policy platforms to the registarts of voters of every city and town in their districts to be made available at every Town Hall, Library, and Post Office inside that district.
 
Thunder said:
so you would want the POTUS to win by popular vote, unless the winner is a liberal?
Click to expand...

I think I made that pretty clear ...... I never claimed to be objective or consistent. :cool:
 
This assumes that there is a two party system. There isn't. Other parties are just pissed that nobody likes them. When was the last time anybody here considered voting for the Constitutionalists?
 
Keridan said:
This is a fair point about a fundamental difference in our structure and parliament. Our President has more power than a prime minister does. However, I don't believe a two party system represents the majority any better than a plurality system. Too many people are voting for the lesser of evils or against the other candidate. You still get the same thing, more people want this than want the other options.
Click to expand...

I understand that and don't find any fault in that opinion. I simply dread the thought of elections being won when 66% of the voters didn't support the winner.
 
Hatuey said:
This assumes that there is a two party system. There isn't. Other parties are just pissed that nobody likes them. When was the last time anybody here considered voting for the Constitutionalists?
Click to expand...

I am still waiting for the anti-federalist party to form. :lamo
 
Hatuey said:
This assumes that there is a two party system. There isn't. Other parties are just pissed that nobody likes them. When was the last time anybody here considered voting for the Constitutionalists?
Click to expand...

I have been eligible to vote in FIVE Presidential elections. Here's how my votes break down:

Republican - 2
Democrat - 0
Independent - 2 (Perot '92; Baldwin '08)
Did Not Vote - 1 ('04)
 
conservativeguy said:
I am still waiting for the anti-federalist party to form. :lamo
Click to expand...

It's ridiculous. All this bitching about how other parties don't "have their voices heard" or candidates who are isolated. The American people like their politics simple. Nobody is going to vote for the Communist party anymore than they're going to vote for the Constitutional party for the same reason nobody votes for Kucinich or Paul in any meaningful way. It's because they don't represent the mainstream. Republicans and Democrats represent the immediate interests of both their demographics. Nobody really gives a **** if you want to strike down the 14th or audit the Fed.
 
Tigger said:
I am definitely NOT happy with the system. Given an option I would make all political parties and political action committees illegal. I would also make several changes to the financial system for campaigns....

1. Only parties who can vote for a particular candidate can donate to that candidate. The removes all foreign money, all corporate money, and all institutional money from the political spectrum.

2. Each voter can only give $100 per office per year, and only to one candidate per office. ie.... Over the 6 years of a Senator's term, each voter could donate a total of $600 (max) to people running for that office, but each year they could only donate to the Incumbent or ONE of that incumbent's opponents.

3. 90 days before an election, all candidates for office MUST provide (in writing) their voting records and personal policy platforms to the registarts of voters of every city and town in their districts to be made available at every Town Hall, Library, and Post Office inside that district.
Click to expand...
You and James both have some excellent ideas, IMO, quite something for "very conservatives"...a man's think must ever change..
We have an old system...are we the only non-parliament nation in the world ?
 
earthworm said:
You and James both have some excellent ideas, IMO, quite something for "very conservatives"...a man's think must ever change..
We have an old system...are we the only non-parliament nation in the world ?
Click to expand...

The idea of doing away with Political Parties is not a new one. Several of the Founding Fathers felt they were incredibly dangerous as well.
 
earthworm said:
You and James both have some excellent ideas, IMO, quite something for "very conservatives"...a man's think must ever change..
We have an old system...are we the only non-parliament nation in the world ?
Click to expand...

Why would we be? Parliamentary systems are reserved mostly to Europe and former/current British colonies. It's probably the most used system in terms of percentage but we're not the only non-parliament country by any means. Latin America doesn't have parliaments, neither does most of Africa/Asia.
 
Not really, no, but I realize it's way better than having a one-party system.

I'd love to see our government become smaller, and less powerful. To me the enemy of freedom is the centralization of power.
 
jamesrage said:
I am not happy with the two party monopoly. Sadly parties in various states have worked to screw 3rd parties,so even if you wanted to vote for a 3rd party candidate you are unable to unless your state allows write ins. The media aids in keeping this two party monopoly by blatantly ignoring 3rd party candidates,so many people are not even aware they exist which results in there being no name recognition with the 3rd parties. Seeing how we have the 1st amendment we can't ban broadcasters from showing political ads nor can we force them to show everybody.We could offer tax incentives to give equal air time to all candidates which would help with name recognition. I think primary should be held on the same day all across the country, so that if a candidate drops out it is because he or she lost, not because a handful of states didn't pick them.

...

These things would help eliminate the two party monopoly.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with this, especially the monopoly part. The two parties have worked together to effectively make it a monopoly. That needs to change. Equal and reasonable access should be the rule, not the exception.

I also believe that no federal, or state, or local entity should be allowed to disallow write-in votes.

I'm not a fan of having a coalition government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom