Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me repeat again simply, if you want to get rid of the two-party system, it would require changing the Constitution.
The question here is, is it realistic to expect that you can change a Constitution, when in order to change it, you will need the help of the media, the two-parties themselves and their wealthy backers. Especially considering that complaints about the two-party system aren't new, they go back right to the beginning of this country.
Also, such a change would necessarily change the political landscape, otherwise, why bother? If it does change the political landscape, then someone is going to win, and someone is going to lose. Why would those who have the most to lose, support changing a system which obviously benefits them?
In truth, there are only two ways to change anything in this country. Either you have to support a change which obviously benefits big-business(which is self-defeating). Or you would need a revolution.
Basically, we would need to throw off everything and start over.
Which is why I've for years called for the drafting of an entirely new Constitution. And since that hasn't been effective(for the same reasons we haven't been able to change the system with an amendment). I've decided to go more towards Civil-disobedience. And more "individual" and "small-group" based Civil-Disobedience. Organizing large numbers of people just requires too much money.
Lets understand, the Revolutionary War was started by a few radicals who were ready, and even eager to confront the British Army. Without the Massachusetts militias, there probably wouldn't have been a Revolutionary War.
you wouldn't need to change the constitution, and we don't have to get rid of them, just everyone vote for an Independent, and let the other ones hanging....that would really show them....
...the current two party system has destroyed all political innovation and is rotting our brains
The only problem with the two party system is the electorate who hires the political class to administrate it. If we insist politicians abide by the same rules as the citizens upon whom they impose those rules, prosecute those who violate laws - including employees and staff of their offices and of other agencies, and 'just follow the damned Constitution', then we might be able to salvage this country.
However, I am ready for a multiple choice quiz on U.S. government to issue a license to vote. It's time to stop driving into the ditch and/or off the road.
If people are sick and tired of the two party system, start hounding your state reps...with letters, emails etc...and tell them what you are unhappy with, I do....if more people would do so, they'd start listening, and do it now.
...
PEOPLE THERE IS STRENGTH IN NUMBERS!!! DO IT....IF YOU CAN SPEND ALL YOUR TIME IN THIS FORUM, IT DOESN'T TAKE LONG TO WRITE YOUR STATE REPS...
Yes!!! At least I know the Senate/Congressional mail delivery folks have 2 letters to deliver - yours and mine.
you wouldn't need to change the constitution, and we don't have to get rid of them, just everyone vote for an Independent, and let the other ones hanging....that would really show them....
First, not only does "voting for an independent" accomplish nothing. It is actually counterproductive.
Please watch this video and STOP talking about things you don't understand.
The ONLY way to fix our system, is to change the Constitution. The questions are, is changing the Constitution possible? And would changing the Constitution ultimately be beneficial?
First, not only does "voting for an independent" accomplish nothing. It is actually counterproductive.
Please watch this video and STOP talking about things you don't understand.
The ONLY way to fix our system, is to change the Constitution. The questions are, is changing the Constitution possible? And would changing the Constitution ultimately be beneficial?
The video was interesting - not because it added new information, but because it summarized what happens already - including mentioning gerrymandering (defined as manipulating an electorate area, usually by altering its boundaries, in order to gain an unfair political advantage in an election.).
We do allow Independent candidates (e.g. Bernie Sanders, VT and Joe Lieberman, CT) and perhaps if there were more of them, the other parties would move towards a middle ground to gain alliances/support, rather than the extremes they continually move towards.
I am one of “the people”. I believed multiple political parties were necessary as a sanity check; a dialectic council where healthy debate by people of divergent opinions and interests reach collective decisions, binding to all,for the good of the [whole] country, and enforced as common policy. That is not what has been evolving and why our government leadership is dysfunctional.
As for the ability to change the constitution - of course it provides for change, that's why it has Amendments r(ef Article V). Two methods are mentioned. Also, the Declaration of Independence gives us the right to change our government. Remember:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,..." Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript. Powerful words. But, it takes work.
As for whether or not would a change be beneficial, 1) it would create a tremendous amount of much needed discussion about the extremists in government and why the public rates our congress as dysfunctional, 2) if we had a new amendment (and I am not saying we need one), I would hope it would make a difference - or object to it; it is your/my RIGHT to have a government that works for all of us.
Last edited by BraveHeart01; 05-09-2015 at 05:51 PM..
I am one of “the people”. I believed multiple political parties were necessary as a sanity check; a dialectic council where healthy debate by people of divergent opinions and interests reach collective decisions, binding to all,for the good of the [whole] country, and enforced as common policy. That is not what has been evolving and why our government leadership is dysfunctional.
Well, the problem with the idea of Democracy, is that it effectively means "majority rule". Now, I don't believe anyone thinks that whatever the majority wants, that they should get it. Nor would most people even imagine that the majority of the people even know enough about any particular issue as to be able to make a real informed decision. For that matter, in most situations, decisions aren't "binary"(IE left or right, up or down, right or wrong), they are quite "grey". As in, Obamacare regulations are something like 10,000-20,000 pages long.
But more importantly, it assumes that all the people either in all of the United States, or within some arbitrary lines on the map, are part of the same society. And should be voting against each other "for the good of the entire society".
First, the society we live in was ultimately not our choice, we were born into it. And once you are in it, you can never escape it, short of either moving to another society(presuming they will even let you in, and in most cases they won't), or through revolution(IE secession, and trust me, a lot of people would love to secede, not a majority, but a majority never wants to secede, why would a majority want to secede in a democracy?).
Lets also understand that America is a completely artificial society that came about almost entirely from conquest. It would be as if America was to invade and occupy Canada tomorrow, then declare that we are now part of the same society and should vote for what benefits the entire society. The vast majority of Canadians would see this as absolute garbage. But lets pretend for a moment that 51% of Canadians wanted to actually join America. Does that mean the other 49% don't matter? And what if that 51% primarily comes from only one or two of the most populous provinces? And the other smaller provinces overwhelmingly reject the idea? Does that matter?
Even if you consider the Constitution as "binding" over this country, forever. Lets understand that only a tiny fraction of the population ever supported the Constitution to begin with. In 1789, women weren't allowed to vote, slaves weren't allowed to vote, people who didn't own property weren't allowed to vote, children weren't allowed to vote, and not everyone who could vote, either did vote, or even voted in favor of it when they did vote(nearly half of the people almost always vote against pretty much everything). Some people speculate that as few as 5% of the population ever openly supported the Constitution, and in most cases, ratification didn't come from statewide votes, it merely came from Conventions of delegates. Which may or may not represent the actual will of the people.
If you want to further understand the problem, you need to understand how cites become "incorporated".
What happens, is that someone(usually a group) petitions the state to incorporate some arbitrary area into a municipality. The state can either turn them down(usually there are a number of criteria they have to meet), or if they accept their petition. Once the petition has been accepted, then all the people in the area get to vote whether or not the incorporation goes through.
To understand, just zoom into a random area on a map. Now, just imagine a box being drawn at random on that map. There might be a couple hundred people, or even a couple thousand people living within that box.
In most cases, when the issue comes up for a vote, most of the people in the area won't even vote on it. These issues are usually part of local elections, and on average, only about 20-25% of those who can vote, will vote in local elections. And at any time, about 25% of the people aren't eligible to vote(under the age of 18, felons, etc).
So if 20% of the people who can vote do vote, and if 25% of the population can't vote at all, and if the vote is roughly split. Then only 15% of the total population actually does vote. And then possibly less than 8% of the people actually openly supported the incorporation. And it is an incorporation that is nearly impossible to reverse once it happens.
So, if you lived in the woods on a piece of land with very low property taxes and few regulations on what you can do with your land. You might, without your permission being given, be thrown under the authority of a new city government, which can pass any number of ridiculous laws and taxes. And a new city government which was never even openly supported by a majority of the actual population to begin with(only a majority of those who actually did vote, and the people who vote in local elections, are usually older and wealthier people, they aren't a good representation for the population-at-large).
The point is, Democracies rarely are a reflection of the actual "will of the people", and the concept behind democracy, is that it is "by the consent of the governed". But rarely ever does anyone truly give their consent to be governed by society. The only people who ever give their consent, are the ones in power. Why would you give your consent to be ruled by people you either don't agree with, or who you might even hate?
Lets examine Lysander Spooner's words here...
"It is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."
And Thomas Jefferson wanted to get out of this problem with "consent of the governed", by effectively having government "reset every generation".
He wrote, "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."
Basically, Adams believed that there didn't need to be a time-limitation on government, since the people could at any time repeal it. Jefferson believed that the workings of a representative government would constantly work against the actual will of the people. And that the only way to make sure the government is working for the people, is to let it expire every nineteen years, unless otherwise reauthorized.
Basically, imagine if the government had to be reauthorized in a similar way as we "raise the debt limit". And that, in effect, if we don't reauthorize the government(through a majority), it will simply disappear.
Make the politicians quit bashing their opponents. Instead ,make them tell us what they are going to do for us . Instead of saying they want to erase every word of Obamacare, make them tell us what they plan on replacing it with! (Crickets?)
Then change the US Constitution...radically, so that votes for the House and Senate go to parties to allocate as they wish from a party list, and not congressional districts and states...and quite a few other minor things
you wouldn't need to change the constitution, and we don't have to get rid of them, just everyone vote for an Independent, and let the other ones hanging....that would really show them....
It is my understanding that a person running for the Independent Party has a tough time even getting on the ticket. I don't have enough civics understanding to know just why that is, I just know that it is. Ron Paul an Independent he switched to the Republican Party so that he could run for President and his voice be heard.
I've also been told if there is a representative of the Independent Party on the ticket, voting for them is securing one side (D-R) or the other for a win. Again, I don't know why that is. Perhaps studying the electoral college and how that comes into play rather than vote by vote count, could prove to be enlightening of our voting system.
Friends of mine (very civic minded people; and they know more than I) told me once that in the beginning the ideals of the Republican Party were much the same as the Independent Party today. Also, the ideals of the two parties Republican and Democrats did a reverse order, as well, some were along the lines in our history.
We won't be a true democracy until we can cast a clear vote for all three parties, which is something Ron Paul stated that I agree with. However, our founding fathers established a Republic; I'm sure there inlays a difference for those who have an understanding of government(s) and how all these things work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
