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.
A two "party system" is one of the biggest misnomers in the English language. A 'system" implies that there are some legal restriction more than two recognized political parties, in the U.S. there no such restriction. This is why there are and have been a plethora of political parties in this country.
While I will be the first to admit that their are structural barriers, such as prohibitive nominating petition requirements that act against those parties from effectively competing in national elections, they are not insurmountable if they presented a favorable alternative to the two dominating parties.
I would suggest instead of complaining over the deficiencies of the Democratic or Republican parties that individual join one of the existing alternative parties and get busy with the arduous but necessary task of party building.
NOOOO, i got moved to this part of the forum
oh well,
Anyways, about the minor parties, it is highly unlikely they will succeed at winning elections because too often people see votes for a third party as votes for the other side. I've heard that the Green Party stole enough of Al Gores votes in 2000 to let Bush get elected, so their is some validity to this.
Anyways, you need more than three. Three is unstable and will eventually wash back down to two. Four or more is preferable.
So, I've heard that Italy has it written in their constitution that the president is elected when he wins 25% of the vote, not 50%.
AND, Italy has more than the two political parties.
Would you be in favor of this for the US.
please, Obama won 51% of the vote and if you listen to republicans that means nothing because half the country didn't vote for him. You honestly believe a president who wins 25 or 30 percent of the vote is going to be any better.
NOOOO, i got moved to this part of the forum
oh well,
Anyways, about the minor parties, it is highly unlikely they will succeed at winning elections because too often people see votes for a third party as votes for the other side. I've heard that the Green Party stole enough of Al Gores votes in 2000 to let Bush get elected, so their is some validity to this.
Anyways, you need more than three. Three is unstable and will eventually wash back down to two. Four or more is preferable.
And this line of thinking that voting for a 3rd party is a vote for the other side, and therefore I need to "vote for the lesser of two evils" is what got us into the mess we're in.
And this line of thinking that voting for a 3rd party is a vote for the other side, and therefore I need to "vote for the lesser of two evils" is what got us into the mess we're in.
The GOP is pretty much finished now so the paradigm has ended.
We're now a one party system so this thread is kind of redundant.
Weren't people saying that about the Democrats in the late 1980s?
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.
