The fault is ours, the electorate's. There ARE third party candidates, but nobody supports them at the polls. The reason for this is that American politics is largely preventative: in a climate which has seen centrism fade from view, and the right and left become increasingly polarized, we don't vote for a candidate or a platform, we vote AGAINST a party and it's platform. Democrats won't cast their vote for a green party candidates largely because they are terrified of the Republican candidate winning. Republicans won't cast their vote for a Libertarian candidate because they are terrified that so doing will result in the Democratic candidate winning. That seems to be the nature of our politics in America, and so the conundrum in which we find ourselves.The two parties have rigged the system, including outright legislation, that makes it difficult for a another camel to get his nose under the tent. — James Riley
Hahaha, now you sound like my nonna; I haven't heard that phrase used in a long time! My maternal grandma used to say that whenever I made a statement beginning with "I wish...". Riley, you must be Irish in actuality! When I'd ask her where she got that from, nonna used to say that that saying was "something that the Irish say"....hope in one hand and shit in the other... — James Riley
Blaming the sheep is little too easy. Replace the current rigged electoral gerrymandering racket with a modern parliamentary system comparable to those by which other developed nations govern themselves, then start flaying those damn bleatin' sheep.The fault is ours, the electorate's. — Michael Zwingli
Blaming the sheep is little too easy. Replace the current rigged electoral gerrymandering racket with a modern parliamentary system comparable to those by which other developed nations govern themselves, then start flaying the damn bleatin' sheep. — 180 Proof
Not that I am pro-parliament. But supporting one of the two parties seems the only rational choice unless you want to be a protest vote. — Ennui Elucidator
The typical voter who identifies as a party member, though removed from the functioning of their actual party and probably not dues paying, is not in a position to change power by merely winning one election, regardless of the significance of such office. — Ennui Elucidator
The divide and rule strategy has been quite successful many times. — ssu
Exactly. We could establish term limits which would then increase the frequency with which one needs to buy off a politician, but then it would eventually be realized that purchasing the political parties themselves rather than the individuals would be more efficient.P.S. I should add that it is much cheaper to purchase two politicians than ten. — James Riley
Protest votes seem to be the majority type of vote in the U.S. as most of the commentary of politicians is demonizing their opponents rather than proposing their own ideas. Most people in America vote against the other party rather than for the another. As Obama has told his constituents, "I want you to stay angry." Is using anger as the reason for your vote a rational choice?But supporting one of the two parties seems the only rational choice unless you want to be a protest vote. — Ennui Elucidator
No, the typical voter is a one-issue voter and only registers as a member of the party that is on their side of their one issue, even if the other party sides on other issues the voter might take on the other issues. The typical voter isn't really interested in the other issues and allow the party they've adopted to tell them what positions to take on these other issues. These are the ones that simply regurgitate what their party is saying.The parties aren’t some abstraction, but actual groups of people who work towards their common betterment and have entrenched power structures. The typical voter who identifies as a party member... — Ennui Elucidator
Yes. So abolishing political parties would be double-good in weeding out the ones that find it difficult to think for themselves from the voting system, and endowing those that do take the time to research the candidates with more options.People can vote however they wish to and most prefer an A or B option so they don’t have to think too hard. — I like sushi
Then abolishing political parties would leave you with no problems. :cool:Two problems are more than I can handle. I don't want a third or fourth or a fifth... — TheMadFool
Yes. So abolishing political parties would be double-good in weeding out the ones that find it difficult to think for themselves from the voting system, and endowing those that do take the time to research the candidates more options. — Harry Hindu
The U.S. govt. is an elitist oligarchy after all.There have been instances for governmental reform but generally they are sidelined as much as possible by those in power because it doesn't suit them. — I like sushi
I'm still not sure. I think the two parties need each other and will try to hold the country together under the status quo for as long as possible. One party has no one else to blame when things go south, so the only way one party stays in power is by becoming more authoritarian - by taking away your right to complain and be angry at them.In this instance the US when in splits (assuming it is still a powerhouse when it does) may open up a door to change. Either way I think the 'nation' is on its way out and I've little idea what will come next but technology will undoubtedly play a major role. — I like sushi
I'm still not sure. I think the two parties need each other and will try to hold the country together under the status quo for as long as possible. — Harry Hindu
As things stand, an inclination to self-criticism after an electoral defeat is far more pronounced in countries with a two-party system than in those where there are several parties. In practice, then, a two-party system is likely to be more flexible than a multi-party system, contrary to first impressions.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.