Do you think either party wants a strong two party system?

Can't believe the GOP would even claim they want to strengthen the two-party system. Their actions certainly belie that claim. They demonize Democrats at every chance.

In fairness, it's now fair play, it seems, for Democrats to demonize Republicans, too. And why shouldn't they?

Let's face it, either party would love to win every election. Fortunately, that won't happen. It's bad enough having the presidency and both houses controlled by the same party. We used to hear about the problem of gridlock, but this is worse. Bad policies ramrodded into law...

I don't believe there is a two party system.

I've mentioned before the criticism of the NYTimes during the run-up to the 2000 election: that the Times writes as though it thinks America should get efficient and have just one party. I think that's true of the Times but also increasingly of the American people. The ha-ha cynicism one sees in the press about campaigns and campaigners (nine dwarves, etc.) and behaviors in Congress, etc., etc., is a disease which has spread to most of the populace -- "For God's sake, I wish they'd stop all this silly partisanship and get down to the business of nation..." which turns out to be a desire for one side having its way and not bothering us with silly stuff like social justice and peace.

Nope- I think that each of the two major parties want themselves to be strong, and the other party splintered into many factions. In that way, the cohesive party would have a much better chance of electing their candidates.

There are two parties. There are also more than two parties. Remember a time when there were four parties and a majority was not necessarily 51%?

I don't see two parties.

Todays presidential elections are like the superbowl. The AFC plays the NFC, but they are all the same organization.

The terms "Republican" and "Democrat" are merely marketing terms for two wings of the American political homogenous blob. There is not much difference in opinion in the political arena. Most of the "democrats" support the war and don't want to raise taxes.

As evidence -- look at the reaction of the democrats to "Howard Dean" (who by the way is not that out of the mainstream).

The cry goes out "He is not electable!". What they are saying is that he is skirting the edges of the "Party" (that is The One Party). The Democratic powers that be want to find someone who looks more like Bush.

Those of us willing to vote out of The One Party, for instance for Nader, attract derision from both sides of the Party faithful.

But I will vote my conscience. If the Democrats (or the Republicans) give me a candidate I can believe in I will support them as an individual. I am not going to vote for The Party just because it't the way things are.

I think the decision to call someone electable is the same as the decision to call a product improved: marketing. We need less marketing and more philosophizing and more common sense.

Re: Do you think either party wants a strong two party syste

If you've already made up your mind, why ask us?

Personally, I want a strong multi-party system, which is what we have. The fact that most of the also-rans are just that is a function of the actions of the electorate. There is nothing in the "system" that forces people to vote only for one of two parties. The people consistently make those choices.

Scrat, your signature suggests we don't have "a strong multi-party system." Looks to me that they're both too left of center for you. The idea that the current GOP is too left of center for anyone is a bit spooky, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

What gives on the other question, though?

I found Scrat's reply puzzling.

If you've already made up your mind, why ask us?

The above is, in my mind, a strange question. Why challenge someone fo
r starting a discussion? A tad aggressive.

Personally, I want a strong multi-party system,

Really? More people than not think a multi party system is inherently weak.

which is what we have

If we had a strong multi party system, than there would be more than the occassional third party holder of a governorship or Senate seat. These are rare birds, a testiment to the ineffectiveness of any party beyond the Big Two.


There is nothing in the "system" that forces people to vote only for one of two parties

I'm not certain if this is meaningless or simply opaque.

I suspect that is due to a failure in our ability to comprehend what you read. :wink: A statement taking the two largest parties to task in no way denies the existence of other parties.

And aggressive is bad because?


Fine, let them tell us that. I care far less whether such a system is "inherently weak" and far more that people have the freedom to vote for any party they choose. (We do, in case you forgot.)


I understand that you think that, but you are defining a "strong" multi-party system as one where more than two parties have significant numbers of representatives elected to the legislature. (That's outcome.) I define it as a system where the right to create a political party and vote for that party is protected. (That's access.)

Your argument, and the argument posed by the author here could easily be applied to a government with significant representation from 3 or 4 or 5 parties. One can always complain that the absence of serious numbers from a 6th or 7th party means those parties have no access and the system is flawed, but that's just not true. We have two strong parties in this country because that's what they people choose, year in and year out. Perot's success a bit back shows that this can change if another party simply offers something that appeals to enough voters.

There are certain elements of our system that can make it harder for other parties to get their message out, but that's more a function of our media and less one of our "system" of government.

I think we have a strong multi-party system, and I think that's a good thing. If you can identify ways in which the government blocks or restricts access to "third" parties, I'd be all for knocking those rules, laws or provisions down and making it stronger still.


That's okay. I'm sure you'll work it out if given enough time. :wink: