Why I am now completley sold on our US two party system

[WeDidIt]

Looking at all thevotes so far in the United Kingdom elections, the Labour Paty and the Liberal Dmeocratic Party have taken a combined 51% of the vote, yet the Tories and the Democratic Unionists have a combined total of just over 50% of the seats decided so far.

In the US it's clear that you ahve a choice between the lesser of two evils. In a multi-party parliament system, a majority could support a center to leftist agenda and still hand control of the governement to a super-minority of rightwing nutburgers.

I'll take Dems that disappoint any day over Tories that will kill people through neglect.

[depakid]

1. That 2000 election worked out great, eh?

[BzaDem]

4. Sometimes it takes a whole election to convince people not to throw away their votes, though they

are always convinced eventually. (See Nader vote share, 2004.)

[depakid]

7. Actually, what it shows is what happens when one party panders too far to the right

and creates a vacuum in an archaic two party system lacking proportional representation and preferential voting.

[BzaDem]

8. If that were the case, then Nader wouldn't have lost 90% of his share in 2004. But he did. Nice try.

Sometimes, it takes longer than normal for irrational voters and reality to converge. But eventually and always, converge they do.

[depakid]

14. Lesson- if you create a political vacuum, someone or some party will come along and fill it

Perhaps you missed that day in Poly Sci 101.

Or- in basic physics (I know, they don't often teach that in high school in the states anymore- but once upon a time they did).

[BzaDem]

23. Did they also teach you that bullshit theories unsupported by evidence are not facts?

Again, if youur theory was correct, Nader's vote share would not have dropped by 90% in 2004. You can keep repeating the BS over and over (and over), but that doens't make it any less of a BS theory unsupported by facts and divorced from reality.

[pnwmom]

13. No, it shows what happens when the party in charge engages in widespread

election fraud.

[anakie]

17. Nader?

what about the 40+ percent of eligible voters who didn't vote in 2000. Easier to blame Nader


Peace

[BzaDem]

24. And that was out of the ordinary how?

Last time I checked, 50% is pretty par for the course for turnout.

[anakie]

29. which is a pretty ordinary turnout for the worlds greatest

democracy. The point being that when nearly half of the eligible electorate chose not to vote in 2000, people here still cling to the notion that Nader cost the Democratic Party the 2000 election.


Peace

[BzaDem]

32. If Nader decided not to run (or endorsed Gore), Gore would have won.

I don't care that there were other causes. One single person with progressive views could have saved us from 8 years of GWB. Single handedly. He chose not to. The fact that there were other factors doesn't somehow make this not true.

[anakie]

38. it is all what if of course

but what if those who voted for Nader had not voted at all. Back to square one. In a democracy every one is entitled to vote for whomever they choose. Gore could not even carry Tennessee or Arkansas which may have given him moral authority in the Supreme Court f/up. Or may not have.

At least you now have the adults back in charge, for which the rest of the world is grateful for.:)


Peace

[BzaDem]

39. Everyone is perfectly entitled to be mind-numbingly stupd

but that doesn't mean anyone SHOULD be mind-numbingly stupid.

Our system does not have proportional representation. It is winner-take-all. That means that (unless the Constitution is changed) we live in a mathematical two-party system, and voting for a third party candidate is mathematically equivalent to staying home.

If people want to stay home, they have that right. But we shouldn't stand around and pretend that they should be respected.

[AnArmyVeteran]

51. Being stupid is voting for the same people and expecting different results!

It's also the definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" is the definition of insanity, or at the very least, gross stupidity. Without putting fear into the two major parties they will ALWAYS be prostitutes to their corporate pimps. So supporting a two party system, (which is really one party with two different flavors), is actually contributing to the continued NON representation of our citizenry. Ever hear of the Bull Moose party? Throughout our history third parties have caused great changes. Even if they aren't successful at the ballot box they are effective in forcing those in power to succumb to the will of the people.

Ralph Nader is a great American. He didn't lose the 2000 election for Gore, Gore did! Gore was inept against an even more inept Bush. And during debates Gore just nodded in agreement with what Bush said. The democratic party and the republican party prevented Nader from participating in the debates. They were so terrified of how he would expose the entire corrupt two-party system. In Texas, the two major parties have so rigged the ballot access laws they prevent good third party candidates from even running for office. So what we get is an assembly line of political whores going to Washington funded by corrupt corporations. And you want to continue this disastrous system? Do you believe a qualified independent candidate should not be allowed to run because he refuses to whore himself out for the cash he needs to win? Or would you like to keep the current system where only the rich, or those who sell themselves to the rich, can run for office?

I am proud to say I have voted for every political party through the years. I don't mindlessly vote a straight party ticket which perpetuates a system where the rich and powerful have complete control over the electorate. If people voted for third party candidates or independents, you would begin to see actual representation of the people. And why have a winner take all system which leaves half the people totally unrepresented? I believe we should have proportional representation so that ALL people are represented. I'm quite sure if we had proportional representation people like Bush would not have been allowed to start a war based entirely on lies.

No system will be perfect, but the two party monopoly is just one big rigged game, ensuring the rich and powerful will remain in control, while we are virtually left out of the electoral process. Voting for a third party candidate is not the equivalent of staying home. It is crucial to the success and survival of our country. What we have now is a choice between republican and republican-lite. That isn't choice.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Why not blame Gore for not getting the votes of the left?

It was his job to attract the votes.

[Forkboy]

45. "I don't care that there were other causes."

Yes, let's wet our keks over the one actual democratic portion of the 2000 election. All the games and vote counts and butterfly ballots and Repub riots and SCOTUS? All that's ok, but fuck that Nader for running for president at a time inconvenient for the parties he's running against. What is this, America or something?

Nice to see that DU is still so deep on this topic!

[AnArmyVeteran]

49. NO! If Gore had quit his campaign and endorsed Nader, then Nader would have won.

You have it backwards pal. Don't blame GWB on Nader. Nader would have destroyed Bush if he was allowed in the debates. But the corrupt powers that be that (corporations) controlled the CPD decided to exclude Nader from debates. Gore's debate performance against Bush was pathetic and as I watched them I wondered if he was trying to lose. If Nader was in the debates he would have made a laughingstock out of Bush and the election wouldn't have been close. Using your logic, Gore is responsible for the eight years of GW Bush.

And ANYONE who can lose an election to such a dimwitted corporate whore like Bush deserves to lose. I could have debated Bush and made him a laughingstock. But for some reason Gore never went after him. Gore just sat there nodding in agreement with what Bush said.

[AnArmyVeteran]

47. Nader didn't lose the 2000 election for Gore, Gore and the democratic party did!

Gore was pathetic debating the imbecile Bush. I could have debated Bush and made him a laughingstock. If Gore had the guts the vote wouldn't have even been close enough for the Supreme Court to steal the election. And because the CPD, headed by one democrat and one republican, decided to prevent Nader from participating in the debates we ended up with Gore nodding in agreement with most of what Bush said. It looked like a charade, and the people who I knew at the time wondered if the fix was in. It looked like a corporate sponsored debate with those pulling the strings totally unconcerned whether it was Bush or Gore in the White House. But those same powers that be were terrified of Ralph Nader and his message of truth, which would have exposed massive corruption in Washington. Remember: It was Nader who said, "Bush is nothing but a corporation masquerading as a human being". If he was allowed to debate Bush it would have destroyed any chance Bush could have been elected. But once again: Corporations 1, People 0.

If democrats weren't so terrified of Ralph Nader and true democracy, they would have let him debate, and since Gore didn't have the guts to expose Bush for what he was, Nader sure would have. Nader would have made Bush look like the laughingstock he was. But the corrupt powers that be (CPD) were so terrified of Nader they excluded him from the debates. Hell, at one debate they even prevented him from showing up and entering a screening room, far away from the actual debate, even though Nader had a ticket. They had Nader escorted by police away. Corporations feared Nader, so did the democratic leaders who were in bed with those same corporations.

And then Gore made the blunder to ask for recounts of just a few of Florida's districts, instead of a statewide recount. Even the Supreme Court could not have prevented the state from a statewide recount.

I'm always amazed at how people are still blaming Nader, when democratic candidates seem so eager to give away elections because they are so gutless to have real debates.

Having said all the above. I like Gore. But I know with 100% certainty that I could have debated Bush and made him look like an imbecile. Why Gore refused to go after him is still a mystery. And frankly, no one should be president if they can't beat the likes of a corporate prostitute like Bush.

[grantcart]

2. The Liberal Democratic Party is in an excellent position to get a referrendum

on proportional representation which will solve many of the problems.

In the meant time the United States Senate can stop all legislation with 40 votes who, if they came from the 20 least populated states, would have less population than the State of California that has only 2 Senators.

More over much legislation in the US Senate can be stopped by secret holds made by a single Senator.

The fact is that the Senate is getting increasing less democratic in nature and is more like the House of Lords. UK, on the other hand is moving to a more representative form of government.

[ZombieHorde]

3. 51% + just over 50% = just over 101%. What am I missing? nt

[WeDidIt]

5. 51% of the vote for Lib Dems and Labour

just over 50% of the seats for Tories and Democratic Unionists.

Two different sets of statistics.

That's what you're missing.

The Tories and Democratic Unionists have taken just over 50% of the parliament seats with about 37% of the vote.

The Lib Dems and Labour have take 51.5% of the vote, but just 47.4% of the seats.

[ZombieHorde]

41. Oh, that makes sense now. Thanks. Disproportionate seating is common in Briton,

at least that is what my Government teacher told my class.

[Q3JR4]

6. I like parliamentary systems BECAUSE they are

multi-party. You, as a voter, can vote for whatever party you want and if whatever party you vote for gets enough seats your party could influence legislation even if they don't win an outright majority. If nobody wins an outright majority then a coalition is formed that makes the overall legislation more moderate and if the person in charge of the coalition pisses everyone else off, the other parties can band together and any time it comes up issue a vote of no confidence. That typically means that the next biggest party gets to form a government or another election is held.

Q3JR4.

[ZombieHorde]

42. Presidential-parliamentary systems have the advantages mentioned in your post plus

the people get to directly elect the executive.

In Great Briton, people can only elect the people who choose the executive.

[flyarm]

9. there are no two parties here..there is one party with one big money pot in the middle..the 2 party

system is a grand illusion!

[laughingliberal]

11. +1 nt

[readmoreoften]

19. +1

[leftstreet]

40. +1

[AnArmyVeteran]

48. Absolutely! The 2 party system is a myth. Both the Ds & Rs are whores to the same corporate masters.

People who blindly vote for democrats and republicans and expecting different results fit the definition of insane perfectly. "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is one of the definitions of insanity".

Until people start using their brains and begin voting for third party candidates the two major parties (really one) will keep control over the government. But once people started to vote for third party candidates and electing them it would put the fear of god into the major party candidates and they just might start representing the people, instead of their corporate pimps.

Wake up people...

[SidDithers]

10. How is that significantly different than popular vote vs ...

electoral college numbers?

Sid

[Electric Monk]

12. edit: nevermind

You're not worth it.

[Turborama]

15. There are more parties involved than the ones you mention

Constitutionally, under a hung parliament Gordon Brown has the right to try and form a government and the Conservatives can't do anything about it. He could achieve an overall majority with the Lib Dems, SDLP (Scotland), Plaid Cymru (Wales), seats from Northern Ireland and a seat for the newly elected Green Party MP. If this came about they would be a much more comprehensive representation of British politics than a minority Tory (mainly English) government.

The main problem with British elections is that the results are not truly representative of the votes that are cast. Hence the reason why they need proportional representation to fix this.

ETA Coalition governments are quite common in the rest of Europe and they seem to work quite well.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Except the Tories haven't, on projected results, got enough seats to have a majority.

The election outcome is a hung Parliament. It takes a a majority of 326 out of 650. A Liberal/Labour coalition is a possible outcome in a hung Parliament. Proportional representation on the continental European model would deliver a more democratic result and would generally mean coalitions would be necessary to govern; as it is the US 'two-party' system isn't REALLY a two-party system, it's two big tents with various factions left, right and centre grouping together under the labels of 'Democrat' and 'Republican'...Democrats include centre-right neoliberals like Bill Clinton as well as democratic socialists, labour unionists, and so on; there are a fair number of Ayn Rand cultist 'libertarians' who vite Republican.

[G_j]

18. the lesser of two evils is?

sort of redundant

[Bonobo]

20. I guess you like the permanent "good cop-bad cop" treatment, eh?

Cause that's what the US two-party system is.
Or haven't you figured that out yet?

[Rex]

21. Three parties should be minimum. Two is no better than one.

Evidently.

[dbmk]

22. But they will be a minority government

To get anything passed it would still have to get support from someone to the left of them.

Which is the exactly why a multi party system is better. It wildly increases the chance of avoiding a far left or far right policy making that the citizens does not support. It (in most cases) pulls politics towards the middle.

[ima_sinnic]

25. a "choice between the lesser of two evils" is a crappy choice, one I refuse to make

evil is still evil, even if it's "lesser."
but I guess you have no problem with evil.
unrecced for the constant reframing of the DLC agenda

[Echo In Light]

"America has one political party with two right wings" Gore Vidal

[Echo In Light]

26. "America has one political party with two right wings" Gore Vidal

[MadHound]

27. Better yet, let's have multiple parties and proportional representation

Frankly the two party system sucks, you are correct that you vote for the lesser of two evils, but it is still evil. With a multiple party system and the process of forming a coalition government, you insure that those on the outside actually have a voice and say so in government, and that's a good thing.

[kedrys]

28. Yeah, because if we only had 2 parties up here,

Stephen Harper would be running roughshod through the landscape instead of being sat on daily by the other three major parties, who together hold the majority. That would be great.

Not.

[AllentownJake]

30. The Tories are closer to our democrats

than either Labor or the liberal democrats public policy wise.

[mmonk]

31. Two party system?

That would be neat. Beats our 1 1/2 one.

[chillspike]

33. Well, I disagree that the dems are evil to any degree but..

..I'm glad you're sticking on our side.

[flyarm]

36. yah right!!!!!!!!!!! Kool aide on isle 3 .......blue light special......

How does this work for you..remember Dashle who pushed Obama during our primaries..working with Whitman..the lady who lied about the air quality at Ground zero in NY?? Can i tickle your memory..she fucking lied and people died and keep dying!! And that is just one example..

and these bastards were advisors making $120,000....from BP and now we face the death of the Gulf Of Mexico..and the possibilitty of the oil going up the Atlantic Ocan from the Florida Keys to Maine............oh and guess it is a coinsidence that BP wasn't audited last year??????? Oh and Obama got the most $$$ from BP..but they all got their damn pockets greased..both fucking parties..( 2 parties my ass!)

Come tell me there are two parties while you look at the dead birds and fish on my used to be pristine beach!



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8261946

Spill, Baby, Spill: Christine Whitman, Tom Daschle & Leon Panetta got on BP's payroll in 2007

Posted by Better Believe It


They went to work for BP in 2007 as advisors. They are shocked and surprised by the offshore oil rig explosion. After all, they were certainly impressed by BP's sterling safety record. And the company CEO flew them out over the Gulf of Mexico on a helicopter in 2008 to demonstrate the oil giants safeguards.

What in the world could ever suggest to Whitman, Daschle and Panetta that BP had major safety problems? They obviously never read or heard anything negative about BP's safety record in the mass media. And how in the world would they find the time to read that stuff? They were far too busy taking helicopter trips and counting their money from BP. BBI




Spill, Baby, Spill
By Michael Isikoff, Ian Yarett and Matthew Philips | NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated May 10, 2010

BP has been trying hard to burnish its public image in recent years after being hit with a pair of environmental disasters, including a fatal refinery explosion in Texas and a pipeline leak in Alaska. One major step was to announce, in 2007, that it had hired a high-powered advisory board that included former EPA director Christine Todd Whitman, former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, and Leon Panetta, who were each paid $120,000 a year. (Panetta left when he became President Obama's CIA director.) Two years ago the oil giant's chief executive, Robert Malone, flew board members out to the Gulf of Mexico on a helicopter to demonstrate the safeguards surrounding BP's advanced drilling technology. "We got a sense they were really committed to ensuring they got it right," Whitman told NEWSWEEK.

Now BP, formerly known as British Petroleum, finds itself blamed for what could prove to be the worst oil spill in U.S. history. And only weeks after Obama announced an ambitious plan to open up more U.S. offshore waters to oil drilling, shunting aside environmental concerns from his own Democratic Party, his administration is facing a comeuppance from hell. "There was a lot of wishful thinking, I guess," says Villy Kourafalou, a scientist at the University of Miami's Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. "The new technologies were said to be so wonderful that we'd never have an oil spill again." Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who had sought to block the expanded drilling, says the oil and gas industry was pushing this idea hard. "They said, 'We'll never have a repeat of Santa Barbara,'?" referring to the 1969 rig explosion off the California coast. Both the Bush and Obama administrations "were buying the line that the technology was fine," Pallone adds.

BP pressed hard to make that point in D.C. Its PR efforts included payments of $16 million last year to a battery of Washington lobbyists, among them the firm of Tony Podesta, the brother of former Obama transition chief John Podesta. Last fall, after the U.S. Interior Department proposed tighter federal regulation of oil companies' environmental programs, David Rainey, BP's vice president for Gulf of Mexico exploration, told Congress that the proposal was unnecessary. "I think we need to remember," he said, that offshore drilling "has been going on for the last 50 years, and it has been going on in a way that is both safe and protective of the environment."

Read the full article at:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237298

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

how's that FISA immunity for the telecoms working for ya?

when do we get Habeas Corpus back?????????

How's the Patriot Act that destroys our bill of rights working for you?????????

How's the sell out of our Health care working for you ?

How is the dems writing a bill to force all Americans to carry a national ID with fingerprints and embedded chips to be required to get a jobbbbbbbbbbbb............ working for you????

Wall street bailouts and abnk bailouts while millions upon millions of Americans remain jobless and are losing everything..with no bailfuckingouts for them!

drill baby drill or bettter known in Fla now..Drill Obama Drill...by Floridians and Fla dems who he PROMISED DURING HIS CAMPAIGN.. no new drilling..and now we know his mentors and his campaign staff was loading their pockets with BP OIL $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ right alongside of Republican Christine THE AIR IS CLEAN Whitman! A one women killing machine!!

These are just a few things dems have done or are doing..that Bush and the repukes are having wet dreams about!


Let us know when you wake up!!

Baaaaaa..baaaaa black sheep...........

[Bluenorthwest]

34. When you have to present a choice between US Democrats

And British Tories to declare you'd take the Democrats, you might be onto part of the problem. You see, we do not run against Tories. That is not the choice at hand. The Tories are in another country. So it is amusing that this is where you take it.
Like most on this thread, I find our one Party disguised as two Parties thing to be far less attractive than a multi Party system.
And by the way, our DNC is closer to the Tories in policy than to either of the two other major UK Parties. So voting for US Democrats gets you Torry simulacrums, the closest thing we got to them, in actuality. Because our Party is not liberal. It is closer to the Tories. It is lead by people who hold open prejudice against millions of the rank and file, and favor open discrimination based on religious dogmas and tests, that is the DNC today. I'd love to be able to vote for a Party that represents me, rather than disrespects me, even if we don't win. Sick of voting for bigots who are against my own household to serve this right leaning Party.

[Odin2005]

35. We have 2 parties? I'm only seeing a single Corporate Party.

[GreenPartyVoter]

37. Seriously, if the opposition party fails to oppose then what good are they doing? That really leaves

too much power concentrated in the hands of a potentially very small group of leaders on the Hill.

[ZombieHorde]

43. The U.S. system is not even close to being representational.

California has a population of 36,961,664, While Wyoming has a population of 544,270.

California has 55 votes in the electoral college while Wyoming has 3 votes. Each electoral vote in California represents 672,030 people while each electoral vote in Wyoming represents 181,423 people.

Each state has two senators who have an equal vote in the senate even though the populations are dramatically different.

[AnArmyVeteran]

52. That's why we need proportional representation though elections.

[Forkboy]

46. Yeah, it's working out awesome.

[Flaneur]

50. Yes, long llive the Single Unified Capitaist War Party!

We have always been at war with...