What do you think of the Two-Party system ?

[kentuck]

Would you like it better if it were a One-Party system?

Do you think the Two-Parties represent the majority of ideas in this country?

To what extent do you think the Two-Party system has evolved?

[annabanana]

1. Why "one" party or "two" parties?

Most Democracies don't function like that.

[2banon]

22. Exactly. Precisely because it is IMPOSSIBLE for democracy to function in a "two party" stystem

we do not have any form of democracy, not even a Republic Democracy. it's all pure myth.

[think]

2. The 2 party system is an effective way to limit debate between predefined parameters

[Marr]

14. +1

[2banon]

23. Hear! Here!

[daleanime]

52. +1

[Alittleliberal]

57. +1

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. If it wasn't an anachronism before 2016.....

... it's hard to see how it won't be after.

Gore Vidal had it right . We actually have a ONE party system: The MONEY Party.

With two right wings.

And that was 20 years ago. What miracle is going come along to change the dynamic?

Other than a REAL two party system.

[brooklynite]

13. Tell me...if it's that bad, why does Bernie Sanders associate with it?

Elizabeth Warren?

Alan Grayson?

[Adrahil]

15. Because in the end, it's what we have.

Without proportional representation or a parliamentary system, political power will tend to form into two poles.

At least for now, if you want to have any real chance of influence (other than just being a spoiler), then you have to play with one team or the other.

Fortunately, I'm mostly happy with the Democratic party.

[pipoman]

4. we currently don't have a 2 party system, we have a single

Ideology based on the wishes of a small group of elite.

Historically liberal and conservative ideologies are present nearly every human culture. These ideologies have always created two sides of the coin politically...I believe we will get back there, just waiting for the correction...

[HereSince1628]

7. Right, we have 2 large coalition parties and a handful of less influential parties...

The 2 large parties are dominated/corrupted by big money donations from sources with big money who share mostly the same desire for neoliberal outcomes. They differ only in how they wish neoliberal policy to be applied to their personal fortunes.

[DetlefK]

5. But, but... Having more than two parties would mean political instability!

And elections must be held on work-days because tradition says so!

And the winner must be determined by winner-takes-all because tradition says so!

And there has to be an electoral college because we are all dumb peasants who have to send a representative to Washington DC to submit our democratic will because there is no such thing as telephone or Internet!

[2banon]

24. !!!

[bemildred]

6. I think parties are a mistake in a democracy.

They always serve narrow interests, and narrow interests don't turn out to be the common good. I am more a fan of particular political leaders, who keep their jobs on condition of honest and prudent behavior.

[Adrahil]

16. Political parties are inevitable in a democracy....

Because people will naturally attempt to multiply their influence through organization.

[bemildred]

18. I find people who come along with bald assertions about what is inevitable in democracy amusing. nt

[Adrahil]

70. I'm glad I brightened your day!

But seriously... it's natural for people to ally with people with similar ideas in order to be more effective. I can't imagine a democracy where such a thing wouldn't happen. And certainly none exist today on a national level where it hasn't... at least that I know of.

[bemildred]

71. That is true, but it does not need to take the form of a Permanent Political Party arrangement

that enduringly turns your poitics into a dog-eat-dog contest for power and money. That you don't have to do.

[jwirr]

29. We had that in the early years of our country. But what was happening what that the prez would

be one party and the vp another and they would end up fighting between them. The two party system evolved out of the unworkable system that was what your describe.

[bemildred]

31. The present system doesn't appear very workable to me either?

I don't see that we got rid of the problem with the two-party system, it's more like we institutionalized it.

[jwirr]

40. I think that the only way we are ever going to correct this is getting involved at the local party

level. My county holds a convention for each party. At our Democratic convention we both propose and vote on the platform and take a vote on our candidates. Then we send our delegates to the district convention to do the same, then the state convention and finally the national convention.

I think the real problem starts at the local level. If no one shows up then of course they are not going to have their views included. Involvement is the way to go. And we have enough trouble just getting people to vote in the primaries and the general election. I do not know how to get more people involved in the conventions.

[kentuck]

45. At the local level, it doesn't take many to make up the majority in the precinct and county caucuses

Just two or three people might make a difference at the precinct level?

[jwirr]

50. That is true. I once attended a caucus in Iowa that had 5 persons there. The one I go to where I

live today has about 400.

[Nay]

8. A parliamentary system is turning out to be the best way to represent most

factions of people. Winner take all is a huge failure because it can very easily be bought by the rich.

[jwirr]

34. How is a parliamentary election different than ours? At least on the congressional level. And I do

not like that their parliament selects their leader. That means the majority always rules and has little protection for the minority.

Now I will admit that I do not pay much attention to this in other countries.

[Nay]

41. From what I understand, the whole Parliament can declare that it has no confidence in

the party or leader in power, and there has to be another election. Also, there are several or many parties for whom people can vote, which means that more viewpoints can be represented, since it's not a winner-take-all environment. This means that smaller parties can band together in parliament to hash out how they are going to vote, who they will align with, etc., and get part or all of what they want without having to be a majority. I have to admit that I'm hazy on the whole process, though -- input from Canadians or others are welcome.

[jwirr]

42. I do wish that we had the power of a no-confidence vote. And at least on my ballot we have a lot

of parties - they just do not get many votes. Even when it is a bigger third party candidate.

[Spazito]

58. The only time the government in power can be put in a 'no confidence' position...

is if they are in a minority position, more seats than the opposition but not the majority, and have to depend on votes from the other parties to retain power. If the party wins a majority number of seats, more than 155 in the last election, more than 169 in the upcoming election this year, the party stays in power for the full 4 years.

Most of the time Canada has majority governments so the 'no confidence' motion doesn't come into play at all. A majority government can pass all it's bills without one vote from any of the opposition parties.

We do have a multi-party system, 5 mainstream parties - one on the right, four on the left. The vote on the left is split 4 ways while the right has no split to worry about. Because the left is split, the right, Conservatives, won a majority government with only 39% of votes cast, 61% of the voters didn't want the Cons but because the left vote was split 4 ways that's who won.

Multiparty systems are good until they aren't, just like any other democratic voting system, imo.

[Nay]

60. Thank you for the more in-depth explanation!

[Art_from_Ark]

65. Here in Japan, there are at least 7 registered parties

There is a lot of fracturing among the left, while the right-wing has a pretty firm grip on power. Except for the Communist Party (which is actually more like a European labor party), left-wing parties can't seem to hold together very long, and they have only held power for a total of about 4 years since 1955.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. If it uses plurality voting it isn't much different.

If instead proportional representation with open party lists is used, then you can have a robust multi-party system with the additional advantage of the "executive" serving only as along as she has a majority in the legislature.

We could reform our legislatures to use proportional representation, or at least "instant runoff" majority voting systems to enable a robust multi-party legislature. We still have problems with the absurdly non-representative senate and the fact that the executive is essentially independent of and superior to the legislature, a fact that coupled with the legislatures ceding of war powers to the executive has enabled the post WWII imperial presidency.

[davidn3600]

9. What would George Washington say?

"They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."

“However (political parties) may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
-George Washingon

Can you honestly say he's wrong?

Washington believed that political parties destroy individualism because the platforms are decided by the leaders of the party and not the people themselves. The party leaders are typically artful manipulators that work in favor of a privileged group (ie: the rich and elites). The party leaders then demand the whole party fall in line with the platform and put their personal beliefs aside for the good of the party. (Notice we see this on DU all the time)

He also believed political parties would lead to anger, division, and hostility. He believed it was counter-productive to unity due to how alliances seem to thrive on conflict.

[jwirr]

37. And not long after that they started the party system. And his statement does not say much about

"we the people".

At least where I live we hold conventions which from the county convention on vote on the platform and the candidates plus we also hold a primary.

But according to Washington we do not have a say. That is not the fault of the two+ party system. That is because too few people exercise their right to be involved. Our fault.

[GeorgeGist]

10. Binary like checkers.

[alc]

11. when parties are important

candidate & politicians have a debt to the parties (not the people).

Federal candidates (both parties) can't get elected/reelected without
* money from their party
* endorsement from party representatives (e.g. senators, ex-whatevers, business/community leaders the party controls)
* being allowed to sponsor certain legislation (to help with re-election)
* voting for legislation their party favors even against voters wishes (often being allowed to "vote against" it first as cover)
* being "allowed" to vote against party legislation their voters don't like (but only when the party already has the votes so they don't matter)
* being "allowed" to be on the ballot

Candidates can get re-elected even if they
* ignore their their constituents throughout their term

I blame voters for not paying attention until last minute (mostly attack) ads, then being swayed by the ads (to pick the party favorite in primaries and to vote or stay home in the general). But the 2 parties have become the best marketing corporations on the planet and take advantage of voters to sell a product that that doesn't exist (i.e. one who represents the voters). And they aren't held to any truth-in-advertising laws.

[bemildred]

33. +1. nt

[Betty Karlson]

12. Four answers

Two parties are not a good division in politics. Five or six parties is a healthy amount for a thriving democracy, as are coalitions between these parties.

In many states, there is a one-party system. That's one of the disadvantages of the two-party system at the federal level: a few levels down, you get one-party subdivisions.

The mainstream of both parties covers 50 % of the ideas in the USA. Please remember that once, the liberals were the SWING VOTERS - with both parties vying for their votes. Now we have a political system wherein the liberals have only one choice (Democrats) and everything to their left goes (mostly) unrepresented.

The two-party system has evolved certainly. After WWI, when the progressive party split away from the GOP, the GOP ran to the right, ever further to the right, dragging the whole system with them, because money money money. Want to reverse that process? Start by reforming all thsoe pro-corporate election campaigning laws.

[jwirr]

39. And you have hit a point - the third party is always money - it is needed to pay for elections.

[Betty Karlson]

63. It could be downgraded to 7th party or so.

Because even though we can't have elections without money, we certainly can have them for less.

In Skandinavia (home of the practical examples of ideas Bernie wants to implement across the Atlantic), in Britain, in the Netherlands and in a few more countries I fail to name right now, public television emits regular party-political broadcasts. Essentially, they are free advertising time for any party that has paid a fee to be on the ballot.

Consequently, there is no more need for excessive corporate sponsorship of individual candidates. And with that need gone, the way would be open for restrictions on such sponsorship, which in turn would help to wield out corruption/ fraud.

There is a reason why so many US politicians (and especially Republicans) are found to be corrupt: the system is inherently corrupting.

[jwirr]

67. And yes the television could do that. We would also need a ban on outside buying by PACs or it

would still be about money. And right now we the people could just refuse to elect a big money person. It is ridiculous that each rethug has his own billionaire.

[Betty Karlson]

68. I can only fervently agree with you

You speak words that could have come right out of my heart.

[dawg]

17. Multi-party parliamentary systems work better, but we are stuck with what we have.

The two-party system benefits the two parties. And keeping it is one of the few things they can agree upon.

Instant run-off would be one big step in the right direction. Perhaps we can work towards that.

[Starry Messenger]

19. I think it exists and pretending it doesn't

Doesn't really translate into effective political work.

Might it change? Yes, but I think more local candidates would help this.

I go back and forth on multi-party politics. While it is frustrating to be wodged in with party members who would be in a more centrist party in another country, even if we were in separate parties here, we'd still have to form coalitions to get things done.

[tritsofme]

20. Multi-party parliamentary systems have produced some chaotic and unstable coalitions in recent years

Especially in places like Britain, where they are just coming out of a seemingly illogical coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Was British democracy enhanced by such a bizarre combination?

Not to mention countries like Israel where the mess of different parties breeds even more chaos in forming and maintaining a government.

Each system has it's flaws, but I am generally happy with ours.

[Betty Karlson]

21. I'm going to disagree with you about Britain.

If Britain had had a proportional representation system, BOTH coalition parties would have lost in the last elections. The Tories had fewer votes and fewer percents of the vote than in 2010 - they just banked on UKIP sucking Labour votes away in the North of England while they themselves could compensate for UKIP's sucking by devouring the votes of their coalition partners - in a first past the post system all that matters is having the most votes in a majority of the total number of seats.

It should be noted that had proportional representation existed in 2010, the Tories would have had to go into coalition as well. And that Labour should have done so too, in 2005 and 2001.

It should further be noted that Scotland, being fed up with the electoral system in Great-Britain, has been shifting its protest votes in ever larger droves. First, they eradicated the Tories, becoming a Labour Bullwark (1997). Then they became disaffected with New Labour (the British equivalent of Third Way, with Tony Blair happily assisting war criminal George W. Bush) and started voting for the Lid-Dems. And when the Lib-Dems went into a government with the Tories, Scotland overwhelmingly voted SNP (all but three Scottish seats went for the SNP).

Lastly, it should be noted that Liberals and Conservatives in power together are not so uncommon in British politics:

* Salisbury's governments (end of the 19th century) were propped up by the Unionist Liberals.
* Churchill's second government (1951-1955) was propped up by the National Liberals
* With such allignments taking place about once every fifty years, is 2010 really such an anomaly?

[Romulox]

32. "illogical coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats" = US' "New Democrats". Same same. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. I ignore it when voting.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[2banon]

26. Excellent Questions!

Best Op for Discussion I've seen in a while, wish I could Rec this 1000 times.

[blm]

27. I think Reich's recent FB post shows a significant difference in the two parties.

Via kpete:

Robert Reich Tells Republican Friend: "The Koch brothers are intent on stealing our democracy.”


A few moments ago, in the lobby of the hotel I'm staying at in Washington, I ran into an old friend who’s become a conservative Republican. He’s incensed at the news that billionaire investor George Soros has committed $5 million to lawsuits attacking voting restrictions put in place by Republican-led legislatures and governors -- including ID requirements and limits on early voting. “You criticize the Koch brothers,” he said. “Soros is doing the same thing, but he’s a liberal so you don’t criticize him.”

“There’s a huge difference,” I said. “The Koch brothers’ political machine is spending over $900 million on the 2016 election – much of it to dismantle environmental and safety regulations, and cut taxes on the wealthy, in order to further enrich themselves. Soros is spending $5 million to help preserve the voting rights of the poor, minorities, and young.”

“That’s a lot of crap,” he said. “Soros just wants to give Democrats an advantage, even if it invites voter fraud.”

“Voter fraud is a red herring,” I said. “It’s nearly non-existent. These restrictions were put in place to make it harder for millions of low-income Americans to vote. Soros deserves the thanks of everyone who cares about our democracy. The Koch brothers are intent on stealing our democracy.”

At this point he turned around and walked away, muttering to himself


https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1010043675674895

[jwirr]

28. I do not ever want a one party system. But I have mixed feelings about the two party system. Back

in the days before Jerry Falwell and raygun it still worked for the most part. And now we do have a four party system embodied inside the two parties.

The rethugs have the old style pre-raygun type who are economic conservatives. Then they have the teabaggers who are just plain crazy. And today the teabaggers are the dominant party for the rethugs.

In the Democratic Party we have the third way/centrist/DLC party and the progressives. And at the moment we are in fight for the heart of this party.

Many in the Democratic Party have often called for a separate third party. I tend to be against that because I have voted since JFK and I have not seen one time that a third party challenge did not end up with more problems than it would have solved. I also do not see other countries that have multiple parties being successful either. Plus at least on the ballot I vote on we do have other parties and they do not get anywhere near to the majority of the votes.

I watched the teabaggers take over the rethug party and personally I think that is what needs to happen in the Democratic Party. And that may be just what is happening right now. Us Progressives are finally fighting back.

[KamaAina]

30. I'm all for it

as long as the two parties are Democratic and Green, with the repukes banned the way the Nazi party is in Germany.

[Rex]

35. I think it is total crap. For a country that prides itself on diversity...we sure don't see

it much in the Halls of Power. A lot of white men in business suits representing their own personal interests is what I see.

I wish we were more like Germany.

[Shrek]

36. With more than 2 major parties it would hard to reach 270 votes in the Electoral College

And without that, the House would elect the President.

I have to believe no one would be happy with that.

[olddots]

38. this ain't no ball game

life is not so simple and the 2 party system is about lazy convenience .

[Warren Stupidity]

43. 1.5 party system.

There is the Corporate Kleptocracy Party that spans the "establishment" of both the Republican and Democratic Parties. Within those two parties there are non-establishment factions that occasionally threaten to disrupt the status quo, but for the most part are unable to do anything to fundamentally change the system. I've arbitrarily assigned 0.25 to each "outsider" faction in each party, although realistically it is more like 0.1 for the Democratic Party and 0.4 for the Republican Party at the moment.

[ileus]

46. 2 is one too many...

Imagine what a great country we would have with only our part in power.

[Chathamization]

47. It's a pretty good system. It makes sense to make an internal decision on the left-ish side about

who will represent us in the general, and then have a general election. If you have a free for all, you can end up with a mess like California's jungle primaries, where the victors tend to be whichever side has fewer candidates running.

I'm not sure what problem more parties are supposed to solve. We need more progressive candidates? Eh, well, we usually already have those but they (often) can't win the primaries. If a progressive has a tough time winning amongst progressives, I'm not sure how they'll suddenly fair better when conservatives are added to the mix.

What I'd like to see is more sub-parties/slates. Vote splitting isn't a big deal in the general from what I've seen, but it seems to be something that happens often during the primaries. It'd be nice if progressives had a better way to coalesce around the anti-machine candidate.

[m-lekktor]

48. the choice is between centrist and far right.

neither are what I am politically so from where I sit my only viable choice is lesser evil DEMs.

[CrawlingChaos]

66. I would say more like center-right and far-right

There's a constant drift in that direction. We all know it.

When I was very young I believed it was a pendulum that would swing this way, then that, but it hasn't swung left in a very, very long time.

My support for Dems is also strictly pragmatic. I'm terrified of Republicans.

[panader0]

49. Next we'll be driving on the left side of the road and converting to the metric system!

[villager]

51. The 1.3 party system, you mean?

[Jackpine Radical]

53. As Gandhi said when asked what he thought of western civilization,

"That would be nice."

[Scootaloo]

54. I think it's inevitable in a winner-takes-all system

and the result is that the parties, competing for the saem voter base, inevitably end up sounding and acting very much alike.

[moondust]

55. Too easy to "game" and corrupt.

"You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. We'll both end up very rich."

In any given election a candidate may not have to stand for anything at all but simply use smears and bullshit and money to destroy the ONE opponent and win. Harder to do with TWO opponents. Harder yet with THREE. Soon you'll have to start actually standing for something other than obstructionism and "destroy the other guy."

I'm no expert but Europe's multiparty democracies and coalition governments seem to have more integrity than the U.S. duopoly, though part of that is probably due to much shorter election campaigns and much less money spent trying to influence the outcome of elections.

Two parties can easily turn into a football game kind of contest of red team vs. blue team. A multiparty system requires that voters know something about the issues involved and who stands for what in order to sort it all out and know whom to vote for. Better informed voters leads to better representation and government more responsive to voters. Maybe that's why Europeans have bullet trains and great subways and plenty of time off work, to name a few.

etc.

[Warpy]

56. it worked fine when both parties were sane.

Today, not so much.

[no_hypocrisy]

59. Pluralities worry me.

When you get about six candidates in a race, all that's needed is a little more than 13% to win.

At least a two-party system mandates at least 51% of the vote to be elected.

[enigmatic]

61. Hate It

I had to move to Canada and become a citizen to really appreciate the parliamentary system. It has it's flaws as well but I much, much prefer it to the 2 party system.

[LWolf]

62. I would like to see

some of the following to help restructure the "two party system:"

100% public financing of elections; no donations of any kind.

Some form of IRV

Perhaps some form of proportional representation

And I'm open to other ideas that would level the playing field.

[DemocraticWing]

64. Mostly inevitable in FPTP voting schemes, thanks to Duverger's Law.

It's made even more so by certain quirks in federalism that affects how we elect representatives and the President. I think we should find a better system, but the American system is set up to be fundamentally, stubbornly conservative about massive structural changes. There's a reason the Constitution doesn't get amended much, for instance.

My biggest recommendations would be to change how the Electoral College works (or abolish it), grow the House of Representatives, switch to Single Transferable Vote for the House, and reduce the stature of the Senate and Presidency.

[Romulox]

69. It's working great for the rich! nt

[bigwillq]

72. It stinks (nt)