Two-Party Government System

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Considering that nearly 95% of the people of the United States are not truly represented by elected official, why do the people continue to only vote in Democrats and Republicans? And if they vote in third party candidates, those candidates typical side with either party, and end up being little more than Republicans or Democrats by proxy. Both parties seem to represent different sectors of the corporatocracy and tell the voters what they want to hear, but rarely follow through on their words in anyway but with more nice sounding rhetoric. It seems that the only thing that matters to elected officials is setting themselves up to win their next election rather than representing the people that put them into office in the first place.

So I ask, why the two party system? Is there some sort of inherent benefit to only having two parties that I am missing? How do we push people to vote for representatives that represent people rather than special interests? What would it mean to the U.S. government if their were five or more major parties?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,959 • Replies: 17

No top replies

@Theaetetus,

Sadly, this joke of a system continues to exist because people are easily fooled. They can't imagine that the government could actually actively plot against them. I think Hitler said something to the effect of 'if you have to lie, lie big.' It's just inconcievable for most people that the two parties they see engaged in 'partisan warfare!' on T.V. sit around in smoky rooms drinking brandy and laughing at them, planning the next scheme to pick their pockets and take their freedom. Most people get their vision of reality from the people who design fraudulent realities for a living. There are dozens of think tanks of very intelligent professionals, psychologists, sociologists, etc. who do nothing but develop techniques for propoganda. The people, educated in schools whose curriculum is designed by the same people, simply never had a chance. That said, people are waking up I think. I only hope we can change things before 1) this growing popular anger turns into violence, or 2) there are electronic voting machines in every district...guess why? :shocked:

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

I hear you on your two concerns. I worry that people have been so convinced that there are only two choices, that the worst case scenario does not become a reality--that is if it hasn't already. While the Obama administration is a major step in the right direction after the Bush administration, it is painfully obvious that "Change that we can believe in" is in fact, only change that does not fully touch the real problems that most people deal with. That is exactly why there needs to be more parties to shape what matters in the political realm. Without the more radical viewpoints being accounted for in the political system, true change will never be a reality.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

The problem is that the parties have become institutions in their own right. The system is set just so- a few swing states, a few percentage of the vote every year, and then one of them wins. Nobody ever loses badly enough to get hurt, they always remain in play. Nothing even vaguely radical can make its way into the politcal arena because the entire mechanism of governance is set up to prevent that. The way that bills are past, judges appointed, and media coverage given is all essentially corrupt and utterly undemocratic. America needs a significant third party, an independant judiciary, an end to congressional commitees, a ban on lobbying, an affordable national insurance scheme and an end to federal governance. It will get none of them.

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

Giving the government more power, via a national health care scheme, the 'green revolution', etc. will make the problem worse. The only way to improve things is to take power back from them, generally, in every field. Why is it a sensable idea to allow the people who caused the problems unlimited powers to fix them?

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

The problem that has happen since the U.S. has had a deregulation fetish over the last 30 years is that when power is taken away from government, it has been quickly seized by corporate interests. Given the choice between government or corporate control over things such as health care, I would take the government every single time. I think the main problem with the government here in the U.S. is that there is not a major difference between Republicans and Democrats. The government needs more perspectives with power in the government to voice the concerns of a wider range of interests, rather than just a small select group of elites.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Does it have to be either/or? Couldn't the US have a central government that guarentees freedoms, runs the army, provides nationwide insurance and dictates wider policy, but with far more power devolved to local communities, and a focus on small over large buissnesses.

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

The problem, the most serious one, is not really what the government is doing in any one instance, but rather the question of what authority they have to do it. If the government has the authority to make laws about anything they deem appropriate, like very personal behavior, that is tyranny, whether or not they actually do it. I personally am opposed to national health care, but I would be less opposed if advocates for it were calling for a constitutional ammendment, which would grant government that new power. But alas, there is simply an assumption that government can and should do whatever is neccessary, as determined by the government. :sarcastic:

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

Why would nationalised healthcare be more authoritarian than road building?

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

The influence over individuals associated with road building is generally limited to detours and taxes. On the other hand, national health care could (with this government, IMO, would) give the government enormous (at least theoretical) power to interfere with the most personal aspects of a person's life, his diet, excersize regimen or lack thereof, his naughty habits like smoking or drinking, etc. If the collective is responsible for health of individuals, then it is not unreasonable for the collective to dictate individual behavior to a very large extent. Government money always comes with strings. The possibilities are potentially pretty scary. I keep thinking about mental health and the implications for our rights to bear arms. "O hello Mr. Smith, yes that's right, its really doesn't cost anything, no need to fill out any insurance forms. O wait, before you go, fill out this questionaire...your grandmother had chronic depression? Hmmm, you'll need to make an appointment for a formal evaluation. Of course, that's free too!" :sarcastic:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter103.htm

2 Replies

@BrightNoon,

The corporations will do that anyway- and do, if you have heard anything about insurance companies and genetic testing. In fact they often have more motivation. However it isn't a choice between two evils, one can have a government funded but independant body- take the BBC in my own country. The NHS may suffer from government incompetence from time to time, but as far as I know it has never been used as an instument of control.

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7;68619 wrote:

The corporations will do that anyway- and do, if you have heard anything about insurance companies and genetic testing. In fact they often have more motivation. However it isn't a choice between two evils, one can have a government funded but independant body- take the BBC in my own country. The NHS may suffer from government incompetence from time to time, but as far as I know it has never been used as an instument of control.

The BBC an independent agency? I assume your kidding..they are propogandists extraordinaire

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Why push only for a multi-party system? Why not strive for a nonpartisan government instead? What are political parties doing that is so great for the State?

1 Reply

@Caezius,

Parties develop naturally. There is no way to remove them. There is however a way to remove the present parties, or in any case create new, rival parties.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

I do not think that the situation in America is as hopeless as it might seem at first glance, though things are coming to a head. The trick, however, is understanding just what government means in America.

Contrary to other countries, America is in a very special situation, because any one person can form an organization with any other group of people and work to fulfill that group's interests according to our political system. This isn't normally encouraged, but it is perfectly legal, and is in fact how most powerful groups influenced american politics in the first place.

I think that if you are going to make a change for the better in the world, relying on political representatives and elections is optional, and often is the least useful course of action, while Assembling and becoming organized is mandatory.

Which brings me back to the understanding of government in america. American government is controlled by groups, yes, but any group can organize and efficiently exert it's needs on the government. I think that as long as it is perfectly legal for citizens to assemble, all hope has not been lost.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;68511 wrote:

The influence over individuals associated with road building is generally limited to detours and taxes. On the other hand, national health care could (with this government, IMO, would) give the government enormous (at least theoretical) power to interfere with the most personal aspects of a person's life, his diet, excersize regimen or lack thereof, his naughty habits like smoking or drinking, etc. If the collective is responsible for health of individuals, then it is not unreasonable for the collective to dictate individual behavior to a very large extent. Government money always comes with strings. The possibilities are potentially pretty scary. I keep thinking about mental health and the implications for our rights to bear arms. "O hello Mr. Smith, yes that's right, its really doesn't cost anything, no need to fill out any insurance forms. O wait, before you go, fill out this questionaire...your grandmother had chronic depression? Hmmm, you'll need to make an appointment for a formal evaluation. Of course, that's free too!" :sarcastic:

[URL="http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter103.htm"]http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter103.htm[/URL]

I suppose the implications are kinda scary, but only if you assume that the American government and your doctors are somehow far more intrusive and controlling than their Canadian counterparts. I've had a doctor suggest that I lose weight, simply because it is an health issue, but that's as far as it went, a suggestion. Do you mean to suggest that doctors in America don't tell people that being overweight is bad for your health? I'm not criticizing the current American system here, I'm just saying that you seem to be afraid of the big bad government boogie man. I'd be surprised to learn that there is a conspiracy in the Canadian health profession to subvert our rights, and equally surprised to learn that there would be any such thing in America.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Are we really citing Lynn Stuter? That's scary.

How many times does a columnist need to outright lie before we stop taking them seriously?

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;67318 wrote:

Considering that nearly 95% of the people of the United States are not truly represented by elected official, why do the people continue to only vote in Democrats and Republicans? And if they vote in third party candidates, those candidates typical side with either party, and end up being little more than Republicans or Democrats by proxy. Both parties seem to represent different sectors of the corporatocracy and tell the voters what they want to hear, but rarely follow through on their words in anyway but with more nice sounding rhetoric. It seems that the only thing that matters to elected officials is setting themselves up to win their next election rather than representing the people that put them into office in the first place.

So I ask, why the two party system? Is there some sort of inherent benefit to only having two parties that I am missing? How do we push people to vote for representatives that represent people rather than special interests? What would it mean to the U.S. government if their were five or more major parties?

No one has more choice than the percieve that they have...People think they cannot live without parties.... Perhaps some people think they cannot live without the syphilis or cancer that is killing them...Some people think they cannot live without their addictions... So; they are wrong...But the notion of majority rule that makes the government able to do something even over the objections of a vast minority makes parties essential... But the are destructive of the stated goals of our constitution, one of which is union...

The government permits parties when it permits free association; yet they are still an extraconstitional part of our constitution...The way to challenge them is simple... We have our organization, our government, for the protection of our rights..If one person combines with another to attack rights all people must combine to defend them...If people do combine then they should have no more rights than a single individual...Or rather, since combination gives to the group an advantage over individuals, organizations should be able to prove they are beyond doubt, acting in a purely public purpose...They should not be able to hide behind individual rights..

.Both of these parties, and many other organizations stand against our rights, and they act to prevent government from reaching the goals for which it was constituted...Parties, like corporations are empowered by the loss of rights for individuals... Yet all stand behind individual right to attack our rights..They cannot be both against the constitution, and for it...Rather, it is their refuge and their target, and when they no longer need it, we will not have it...It will remain so long as it protects them from us, but will be an object of derision so long as it gives only lip service to our rights

---------- Post added 07-12-2009 at 12:09 AM ----------

DasTränegras;76422 wrote:

I do not think that the situation in America is as hopeless as it might seem at first glance, though things are coming to a head. The trick, however, is understanding just what government means in America.

Contrary to other countries, America is in a very special situation, because any one person can form an organization with any other group of people and work to fulfill that group's interests according to our political system. This isn't normally encouraged, but it is perfectly legal, and is in fact how most powerful groups influenced american politics in the first place.

I think that if you are going to make a change for the better in the world, relying on political representatives and elections is optional, and often is the least useful course of action, while Assembling and becoming organized is mandatory.

Which brings me back to the understanding of government in america. American government is controlled by groups, yes, but any group can organize and efficiently exert it's needs on the government. I think that as long as it is perfectly legal for citizens to assemble, all hope has not been lost.

Ones community is that group which will defend ones rights...We say the balck community or the gay community..All it means is that to have the right they think they need they must stand together against others determined to deny them....What has that to do with government??? Government should support all claims to rights unless it can show a danger or a damage to society... Forget about morality as preached...Think of morality as the exprit de corp of any community... Should it not be outsiders, enemies, foreigners threatening our rights??? Should the government not be defending our rights???Majority rule makes goverment a platform from which -those on it can attack the rights of those they hate... Government has tried to make certain all people have equal access to the law, to education, government employment and medicine. It has not made descrimination illegal, and has done much to make certain it was legal...How do we find unity under such circumstances???We can be beaten by halves...It does not matter how many are take, or ruined, or robbed...It does not matter how many people try to organize to resist their spolation....No matter how many are defeated the rest will always party and can be beaten by a fraction, which means they are beat... This is not democracy, but majority rule... We do not have consent, but on top of our taxes which is the sacrifice we make to be citizens and have our rights supported; on top of that we must pay and give of our time to defeat the influence of money in government and have our rights... We should not have to ask for our rights, let alone, Beg!!!

0 Replies

Two-Party Government System

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know