Is anyone else tired of our country's 2 Party Dictatorship?

alf · 01-05-2006, 01:47 PM

There should be more *viable* choices then just Dem and Rep.

I personally do not vote along party lines but vote for candidates that i feel are first of all HONEST and then represents my political perspective best. But as an Economic Conservative and Social Liberial, there aren't too many great choices.

Are there any democratic govts in the world today that have more than 2 strong viable parties? Who, how are they doing and how did they get there?

alf

Dantilla · 01-05-2006, 01:51 PM

In a two party system, a majority is needed to win an election.
In a ten party system, all you would need is eleven percent. No thanks.

Sorry, but I like having two major parties. The third party candidates just turn meaningful votes into jokes.

arcsine · 01-05-2006, 01:59 PM

I think this is one of the biggest fibs we have been told, that we can choose our leaders. Well, technically true, but a choice between two often comes down to voting against rather than voting for. Any "other" candidates outside the Dem-Rep parties tend to be marginalized or ignored by the public and hence have little or no chance of being elected.

BlueSkyJaunte · 01-05-2006, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dantilla
In a two party system, a majority is needed to win an election.
In a ten party system, all you would need is eleven percent. No thanks.

Sorry, but I like having two major parties. The third party candidates just turn meaningful votes into jokes.

Ummm.....coalitions? Hello?

Joeaksa · 01-05-2006, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dantilla
Sorry, but I like having two major parties. The third party candidates just turn meaningful votes into jokes.

What we have right now has turned into a joke. Sadly its that way in many cases on both sides. We either need a complete reform of both parties or a third party to wake them up.

Oh yea, two term limits for every elected politian, then they go and get a job for life. We have enough people who suck on the public dole as a elected rep for life already and this is part of whats gotten us to this point.

Joe A

Noney · 01-05-2006, 02:05 PM

How about a system like the NCAA basketball playoffs? Start with the "Sweet Sixteen" candidates and work your way down to the "Final Four" and so on........

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Noney
How about a system like the NCAA basketball playoffs? Start with the "Sweet Sixteen" candidates and work your way down to the "Final Four" and so on........

As long as it takes place in an arena with armor, broadswords and maces, you betcha!

on-ramp · 01-05-2006, 03:01 PM

it doesn't matter who you vote for during election time, because the government always wins.

Tobra · Tobra's Garage

Been tired of it, it is really bad in California, where we have essentially a one party system

aways · 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dantilla
In a two party system, a majority is needed to win an election.
In a ten party system, all you would need is eleven percent. No thanks.

Sorry, but I like having two major parties. The third party candidates just turn meaningful votes into jokes.

I agree here... The only way a multi-party system would be reasonable would be if we had a runoff between the two highest vote getters. That way a third-party "spoiler" like Perot can't delive us another Clinton. In any event a two-party system is fine. I'm tired of people saying that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Repubs and Dems. There's a world of difference between Kerry and Bush, for example. Any candidate more Left than Kerry (e.g. Nader) or more Right than Bush (e.g. Buchanan), would have no chance to win, so what's the point.

Dantilla · 01-05-2006, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joeaksa

Oh yea, two term limits for every elected politian, then they go and get a job for life. We have enough people who suck on the public dole as a elected rep for life already and this is part of whats gotten us to this point.

Agreed. You've got my vote. But only twice.

Joeaksa · 01-05-2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dantilla
Agreed. You've got my vote. But only twice.

Agreed and the term limits is the only way to get new and fresh blood in the system. The majority of the old jerks are corrupt or stuck in place.

We need a major overhaul...

Joe A

mikester · 01-05-2006, 07:02 PM

If there were multitudes of candidates then run-off elections would be the rule. Unless one single candidate got 51% in an initial election there would be a runoff between the top two.

So even if there were ten parties (or candidates) - the top two would be a run off.

That's how I think it could be done (and is done here in CA).

bivenator · 01-06-2006, 04:14 AM

Alf, I'm with you on the Social Lib/Fiscal Con viewpoint. Its hard for me to vote repub. since BushI campaigned with a family values platform. Did not resonate with me, or enough of the population for him to win. The repubs previous hands off approach to social legislation has been hijacked by a powerful religious right leaving me wishing for more options. Libertarian is one that I will explore.

onewhippedpuppy · 01-06-2006, 05:58 AM

Lets move beyond the parties for a minute, and look at the people. How about getting average Americans, with a work ethic and a little integrity, into office. What ever happened to "for the people, by the people"? Most modern politicians have never held a real job in their life. Never had to worry about paying bills, or putting food on the table. Never been laid off or downsized. John Kerry, GW, Ted Kennedy, etc. They're all spoiled rich kids, and yet this is who we choose to represent us? The social elite wouldn't like it, because they look down on the middle class, but why is it that the bulk of the population really has no representation?

I agree with what Joe says, two term limits for everybody. That would remove some of the worthless wastes of space from the senate, such as Kennedy. Then major limits on campaign spending, because right now, there's no way anyone that isn't incredibly wealthy can afford to run. I think if you could get people in place that work hard, and actually give a damn, that this country could be a much better place than it is already. Of course, this will never happen, because nobody in office will ever vote to threaten their cushy government job.

lendaddy · 01-06-2006, 06:05 AM

I think the two-party-yet-open system is excellent. I just think both parties have been co-opted and a purge is required to right the ship.

Not sure if it will happen, but it wont happen gradually if it does.

Eric 951 · 01-06-2006, 08:29 AM

I am a whig. I got sick of the federalists, know-nothings, and tories.

alf · 01-06-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onewhippedpuppy
I agree with what Joe says, two term limits for everybody.... Then major limits on campaign spending...

Amen!

alf · 01-06-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bivenator
Alf, I'm with you on the Social Lib/Fiscal Con viewpoint. Its hard for me to vote repub. since BushI campaigned with a family values platform. Did not resonate with me, or enough of the population for him to win. The repubs previous hands off approach to social legislation has been hijacked by a powerful religious right leaving me wishing for more options. Libertarian is one that I will explore.

I do question how viable libertarian candidates are though...are there any in office?

scottmandue · 01-06-2006, 03:59 PM

I'm tired of having the option to vote for bad or worse.

I like the average guy idea, professional politicians are killing this country.

If I remember my history correctly the founding fathers all had jobs and ran this country as an advocation.