why would anyone prefer bad ideas over no ideas?

why would anyone prefer bad ideas over no ideas?

My theory is that a 2 party political system cannot possibly work in the long run. You will end up with half the country on either side and nothing will get done....instead you will have each half constantly trying to point out the mistakes of the other half.

Basically, our political process right now is a glorified camp Color War. When Bush was re-elected, the Repubs cried "we win!" and the Dems cried "we lose!"

Its not supposed to be about winning and losing. It is supposed to be about steering the country effectively while meeting the needs of all its citizens to the best of our capabilities.

Under a two party system I dont see how that is possible. We have ended up with two fractured halves of a country that despise each other.....arent we all supposed to be Americans?

So are you saying that a 3-party (or more) system would be better and more unifying?

Go read the Federalists Papers (#10 in particular), and then get back to me.

Two party systems can...and have...worked, especially in this country. Yes, things seem pretty terrible at the moment, but they always do in the heat of the moment. I'm sure if Madison came back right now, he wouldn't be so proud of the system he helped create. It's true that the political parties have become what he called 'factions' which are inevitably horrible for the union of a country. If you really believe that, then you can change it. You simply elect people who aren't like the people we have in office today.

By the way, you think this is bad? The Congress, Presidency, and arguably the Supreme Court are all controlled by Republicans (or Republican-appointed members in the case of the USSC). We're still having problems. Try to run a country when different parties control the different branches.

This country's system isn't perfect. I don't think it's supposed to be. I'm okay with it not being perfect. I'm a Democrat. I understand why we lost. I understand why we're still losing. And I'm mad as hell about it. So, I'm trying to change it. That's why I'm interning in Washington, DC right now. That's why I plan on running for office later on in life. That's the way to do things.




I monetarily and voting-wise (cant think of the right word) support candidates who I feel fit the descriptions I am looking for.

For the most part they dont exist though.

I applaud your efforts in changing the system.....I am going to law school....maybe someday I can be a supreme court judge instead of going your route.

Of course, maybe I would be better of never having a legal career or being any kind of judge.....thats Miers' qualifications right? (sorry couldnt resist! I love how even the hardcore repubs are turning on Bush now.....like they didnt know he was a mental midget all along)
If you think something is out of whack, change it.

The system will never change.  And it's for the same reason we'll never have a playoff in college football. Too many powerful people have too much invested in the status quo.  And they're certainly not interested in the best interests of the masses...

As an active particpant in the "Filthy Liberals" thread...I'm wondering why you didn't just continue this discussion in that thread?

That aside, although I see your point about divisiveness that exists in your 2 party system....I'm curious as to what your alternative is?  Dictatorship?  Communism?  Not sarcastic, just curious.  

In Canada we have several different "parties" at any given time...some fringe fruitcake stuff....with probably 3 parties with any credibility that actually get significant votes.   But when the votes get spread around like that....you can, and we have, end up with "minority" governments.  Which can be very deterimental to accomplishing anything.  I am, admittedly, no expert on systems of government....but I know that in Canada, having several parties does not necessarily make for a more effective system.

Yes I believe the emergence of a legitimate 3rd party would be just what this country needs. Maybe even 4 parties. I am not saying this would be a panacea.....but hear me out.

Basically, we moan about politicians a lot but they are very hamstrung by the 2 party system. A Republican senator cant vote against the a Bush endorsed bill.....because the Repubs would threaten to back a different candidate in his state when he was up for re-election. The politicians are so beholden to their party that they cant vote their minds.

If there were multiple parties, then these politicians might have options in the face of such threats.


as it is it takes a very ballsy politician to vote his mind and not his party on a consistent basis which is a shame.

By the way, you think this is bad?  The Congress, Presidency, and arguably the Supreme Court are all controlled by Republicans (or Republican-appointed members in the case of the USSC).  We're still having problems.  Try to run a country when  different parties control the different branches.

The problem is not the two-party system. Throughout the history of the world, a two-party system has proven to be the best option, especially in the United States. Sure, things will never be perfect, but go live in another country for a while and come back and see what you think then. Go live in China, or Russia, or Mexico, or many many many many other countries and see if America's problems are really that bad. Every single country in the world has problems with political institutions, that is just the way it is becuase of human nature, not the workings of the actual institution itself.  

The problem in the U.S. is not the two-party system, but the mindset that if a person is a Republican, he can not agree with Democrats, and vice versa. Just because a person is a Republican, does not mean they can't have some "liberal" beliefs, and vice versa. However, in this country, when a person is labeled as a Democrat, they are automatically assumed to be aligned with every single so-called "liberal" belief and idea, and are thus villified by everyone who calls themselves a Republican, without even listening to the Democrat's ideas and beliefs. Thus, republicans and democrats too often just assume that they have to disagree with each other and must choose seperate sides of an issue, without actually getting together and equally negotiating a common stance on an issue.

I understand that not all issues can be completely resolved and that there are people who are exceptions to this, but I think if people could just work together better without worrying about "who is a liberal and who is a conservative" then things would run smoother. Not perfectly, but better.

I agree with much of what you say.

But I disagree about your first paragraph. You gave horrible examples of countries. of course, mexico isnt better.

But I did say that I like the set up of the Dutch government and I think that there way of doing things is very smart.

You wont find a more progressive people....and their attitudes towards drug policy are light years beyond ours.

Plus, I find that a two party system impedes the harmony you talk about in the rest of your post. either way we basically agree on the source of the problem....and thats more important than anything.

I think it's clear you know what you are talking about and I agree with you about this aspect of American politics. It almost seems like there is no need for candidates at all, that in every race across every state you can vote purely on party since that's how the candidates are going to pass their legislation anyways.

What I think is interesting though, about a three or four party system, is that - though it allows more diverse approaches to answers in addition to allowing more political freedom for politicians to "vote their minds" - we sort of eliminate the "majority makes the decisions" concept that this country is founded on. When the choice is either A or B, we determine our choice based on a majority. When the choice is A, B or C (or D and on), we may find that the majority is often unsatisfied.

This is just a thought of mine, I don't know if others have thought about it. Perhaps some thoughts/feedback?

As I pointed out my post....having more than 2 parties, although sounds nice in theory....creates a problem of "minority" governments.....no clear leadership....lots of bickering and arguing....things don't get done...back room deals get made....and can be very paralyzing to effective government. I don't know anything about the systems in the Netherlands....but I know that in Canada, it has at times, when we have a minority government in place, caused alot of crap.

If it wasn't for liberals, Women wouldn't be voting, Blacks would still be in chains and women would be barefoot and pregnant....



Liberals  seek change for the better, Cons want to repress and ignore existing problems.

"What global warming??"

Wrong. Very close-minded of you. Conservatives want to solve problems too, just in different ways. Not to say NO conservatives are corrupt, but some Democrats are corrupt too.

Also, you saying that slavery would still exist if it weren't for liberals in EXTREMELY wrong of you to say. Yes, the abolition movement was started by "liberals," but, realistically, the movement was an issue of race, not of politics. Slavery was bound to be abolished at some point and it would have happened no matter what the 'conservatives' or 'liberals' did. Same thing with women voting.


This close-mindedness is EXACTLY why things don't run as smoothly as they could. Liberals lump all conservatives into one category of "censored and women-hating rednecks," and conservatives do the same thing, which is why things take so long to get through the government.


You, are a moron.

My alternative would not be anything so drastic as chaging from a capitalistic democracy.  Just one with 3-4 parties.

JEB IN 08 !!!!!!!!!!

So are you saying that a 3-party (or more) system would be better and more unifying?

Just copy and paste a pic of Tom Delay. It would represent your party in one fell swoop. Lie, Lie, Lie.

and when that doesn't work, lie some more.

You probably voted for Bush. 2 times no less.

And I'M the moron.

LMAO. Too funny!!

Heres a question................

Has anyone found the poker part of this post?

I'm promising to stay out of this post tho and not get wrapped up in it. Last time I did..... well, I'm sure MK can tell you how time consuming it was, lol.

Liberlas have a defeatist mentality and are always complaining and never trying to fix anything.

har. In between pillaging and burying treasure i am political philosopher and arm chair intellectual.

Har.

Lol. The funny thing is, I think we were agreeing with one another, but we were just communicating too aggressively.

Go read the Federalists Papers (#10 in particular), and then get back to me.

Two party systems can...and have...worked, especially in this country. Yes, things seem pretty terrible at the moment, but they always do in the heat of the moment. I'm sure if Madison came back right now, he wouldn't be so proud of the system he helped create. It's true that the political parties have become what he called 'factions' which are inevitably horrible for the union of a country. If you really believe that, then you can change it. You simply elect people who aren't like the people we have in office today.

By the way, you think this is bad? The Congress, Presidency, and arguably the Supreme Court are all controlled by Republicans (or Republican-appointed members in the case of the USSC). We're still having problems. Try to run a country when different parties control the different branches.

This country's system isn't perfect. I don't think it's supposed to be. I'm okay with it not being perfect. I'm a Democrat. I understand why we lost. I understand why we're still losing. And I'm mad as hell about it. So, I'm trying to change it. That's why I'm interning in Washington, DC right now. That's why I plan on running for office later on in life. That's the way to do things.

If you think something is out of whack, change it.

lol. a legimate criticism would be that liberals try to fix everything with government.