What happened to the two-party system? (Ron Paul, independent, politicians, parties)
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.
Much as I'd like a third party, we don't even have a two-party system. We have a one-party system. Both parties endorse the welfare state and corporatism. Both support interventionism overseas. Both support bigger government. Both support chipping away at individual rights. Both support deficit spending. The only politician of either party I have any respect left for is Ron Paul.
The very concept behind a two-party system doesn't work. How can we all have representation with only two choices?
We need a complete overhaul of the election system, but since our election system is based off the constitution, its never going to happen. The democrats in New york are not the same democrats in Michigan and they aren't the same democrats as the ones in California. What has happened is, you have to have all these slightly left-wing groups in a coalition together just to get elected.
I generally support the democrats but I am very opposed to them on so many issues, but I feel that giving them my vote is like saying that I support all they believe in, and I don't.
Much as I'd like a third party, we don't even have a two-party system. We have a one-party system. Both parties endorse the welfare state and corporatism. Both support interventionism overseas. Both support bigger government. Both support chipping away at individual rights. Both support deficit spending. The only politician of either party I have any respect left for is Ron Paul.
There is still a two-party system in the USA.
There is "My Party" which is always right.
And "Your Party" which is always wrong.
(Insert your choice of party in between the quotes)
Parties respond to the voters. People claim that politicians do not represent their interests, but then continue to cast ballots for incumbents, and return them to office over and over again.
As long as voters remain "all talk" outside of the ballot box, politicians will continue to primarily serve their donors and sponsors. That means a form of corporatism where powerful financial interests are served first and often.
Voters have the power to put an end to this, but have resolutely refused to do so.
Much as I'd like a third party, we don't even have a two-party system. We have a one-party system. Both parties endorse the welfare state and corporatism. Both support interventionism overseas. Both support bigger government. Both support chipping away at individual rights. Both support deficit spending. The only politician of either party I have any respect left for is Ron Paul.
With both the GOP 20% and the Democrats 33% in decline soon the majority of Americans will be neither. The Libertarians missed the boat by trying to stay right of the Wingnuts. Look at what happened in New York 23. If Ross Perot were around he'd be President.
You people obviously don't even understand why there IS NOT and CAN NOT be anything more than a two-party system in this country. It is everything to do with our elections.
Rather than use a representative system where if a certain percentage of the populace agrees with one party, that party is represented with that percentage in Washington, the United States uses a winner-take-all election scheme. The winner of an election goes to Washington and takes his or her seat; the loser gets nothing. If, in a presidential election, a state is carried by one candidate, that candidate gets all of that state's votes in the electoral college, where the president is formally elected.
Because of this winner-take-all system, it is almost impossible for third parties to build up support. It is very difficult for a third party to get a member elected to a statewide office (but not impossible). As a result of this inherent difficulty, the minor parties have no way to gain any significant ground in legislatures or executive offices, and thus never have the advantage of incumbency or the ability to demonstrate their party's platform at work.
There are way more options than Americans realize. I have been told many times I am throwing my vote away when choosing a low in the polls/alternate party candidate - the system is in place - unfotunately people feel more inclined to vote against someone before voting for someone - then people blame the system and corrupt politicians while ignoring the viable candidates - people, wake up and research all the candidates before checking the box and when you check the box be sure it is FOR something you believe in, and if not quit crying - there were several solid libertarians, independents, and green party candidates - as the main stream media and big name politicians dismiss them we should know they are less likley to be bought and therefore better suited to serve US.
Look at it like this. Lets pretend that half of the country is currently Republican and half are Democrats. Then lets pretend that half of the current Republican party was actually libertarian. Well currently libertarians vote Republican, so what if they instead voted libertarian on the ballot?
25% would vote Republican
25% would vote Libertarian
50% would vote Democrat - Democrats win
So libertarians are basically forced to vote Republican, even if they only agree with them on maybe 51% of the issues because they agree with democrats on only 49% of the issues.
If you are voting for a 3rd party candidate right now, you are basically voting against yourself.
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.