What's your feeling about the two-party system in the US or other countries with a two party system?

brianlux
brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,669
edited July 2018 in A Moving Train
Pick one and let's see where this goes.  And maybe tell us why you made your choice.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"
-Roberto Benigni

What's your feeling about the two-party system in the US or other countries with a two party system? 22 votes

I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.
54%
teskeincLedbetterman10lastexitlondonHesCalledDyerKev - Coat and KeysKC138045ponytdbrianluxF Me In The Braintempo_n_groovePJWGIIIJbomberger 12 votes
I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced three-party system.
0%
I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.
31%
cincybearcatjeffbrflywallyflyThoughts_ArriveBanjopearldavidsonPJ_Soul 7 votes
I'm not thrilled with the two-party system but I don't think three or more would work.
0%
I'm fine with the two-party system. Don't rock the boat.
4%
mschostok 1 vote
I want a one party system, I'm all for a benevolent dictator.
0%
I'm totally against any party system (please expain this alternative)
4%
Pap 1 vote
Other (please explain)
4%
Meltdown99 1 vote
«13

Comments

  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,669
    I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.
    Should I add another choice called "No Comment"?  :lol:
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,669
    I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.
    Ah!  We have some votes.  But so far, no comments.

    I went with "I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits".  I don't think that has a chance of being put into practice, but why not put it out there?  I think it would be great.  Don't give us your tired party line rhetoric, tell us what you are going to do to help lead and make your world or country or state or province or city or town a better place.  I'm all for this idea.

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • unsung
    unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Is there a crush your opponent party?

    I'm for candidates that want to reduce the role of govt in people's lives.
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,880
    edited July 2018
    I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.
    I made my choice because I hate both of the current parties but and feel that more competition and split govt would eventually end in more compromise (after a tough transition period). 

    I do like the idea of parties with ties in some aspects as it would be too hard to govern with no one agreeing on a platform.
    Post edited by cincybearcat on
    hippiemom = goodness
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,669
    I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.
    unsung said:
    Is there a crush your opponent party?

    I'm for candidates that want to reduce the role of govt in people's lives.
    "Is there a crush your opponent party?"
    Isn't that what every party wants- to crush their opponent? 

    "I'm for candidates that want to reduce the role of govt in people's lives." 
    But wait, how can you have both candidates and no government?


    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • flywallyfly
    flywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.
    I like the idea of several parties so that no single party has a majority. This way they are forced to work with the others to get anything passed which means (in theory) that nothing extremely radical will be passed unless it benefits all.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,669
    I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.
    I like the idea of several parties so that no single party has a majority. This way they are forced to work with the others to get anything passed which means (in theory) that nothing extremely radical will be passed unless it benefits all.
    I thought about the multi-party choice  a lot as well.  Definitely has some merits.  "Benefits all"-- I like the sound of that. Thanks for chiming in here.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Thoughts_Arrive
    Thoughts_Arrive Melbourne, Australia Posts: 15,165
    I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.
    Same old crap here too. Both the Liberals and Labor often let Aussies down.
    We have minor parties but they will never get elected.
    Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
  • Pap
    Pap Serres, Greece Posts: 30,045
    I'm totally against any party system (please expain this alternative)
    If we're discussing parliamentary democracy, then pluralism and polyvocality are prerequisites (3rd option). However, because Greece has a pretty much two-party system (totally corrupted as all of them are), I'd like to see how a self-governed society based on voluntary institutions (i.e., anarchism) would work out.
    Athens 2006 / Milton Keynes 2014 / London 1&2 2022 / Seattle 1&2 2024 / Dublin 2024 / Manchester 2024 / New Orleans 2025
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,669
    I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.
    Same old crap here too. Both the Liberals and Labor often let Aussies down.
    We have minor parties but they will never get elected.
    We get a few from other parties or independents that win, but a very small minority. 
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,669
    I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.
    Pap said:
    If we're discussing parliamentary democracy, then pluralism and polyvocality are prerequisites (3rd option). However, because Greece has a pretty much two-party system (totally corrupted as all of them are), I'd like to see how a self-governed society based on voluntary institutions (i.e., anarchism) would work out.
    Interesting thought, Pap!  Has there been a society bold enough to attempt something like that?  None that I can think of.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • lastexitlondon
    lastexitlondon Posts: 14,958
    I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.
    I'm horrible at politics  and I never understand  what each side is meant to represent.  The lines are too blurred. I think if each candidate  ran independently  then we chose I would have more of a clue . It seems all smoke and mirrors  to me. 


    this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
  • Meltdown99
    Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    Other (please explain)
    I am in favour of more direct democracy.  
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • Meltdown99
    Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    Other (please explain)
    I made my choice because I hate both of the current parties but and feel that more competition and split govt would eventually end in more compromise (after a tough transition period). 

    I do like the idea of parties with ties in some aspects as it would be too hard to govern with no one agreeing on a platform.
    We have 4 parties federally ... only 2 parties run the country into the ground ...  ;)
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • Meltdown99
    Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    Other (please explain)

    I like the idea of several parties so that no single party has a majority. This way they are forced to work with the others to get anything passed which means (in theory) that nothing extremely radical will be passed unless it benefits all.
    The only way I am in favour of minority governments is if there was a fixed election date.  In Canada, we get minority governments from time to time,  but often leads to unnecessary early elections because a no confidence vote has taken place.  Remove the no confidence vote and force them to co-operate for the entire 4 term, then that would be fine...
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • Meltdown99
    Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    Other (please explain)

    I'm horrible at politics  and I never understand  what each side is meant to represent.  The lines are too blurred. I think if each candidate  ran independently  then we chose I would have more of a clue . It seems all smoke and mirrors  to me. 
    Even if they ran independently they would form voting blocks.  That's what municipal is like.  
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,880
    I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.
    I made my choice because I hate both of the current parties but and feel that more competition and split govt would eventually end in more compromise (after a tough transition period). 

    I do like the idea of parties with ties in some aspects as it would be too hard to govern with no one agreeing on a platform.
    We have 4 parties federally ... only 2 parties run the country into the ground ...  ;)
    Can you name an elected official from a party other than the Dems and Repub at the federal level? ;)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • PJWGIII
    PJWGIII Chicago, IL Posts: 811
    I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.
    Fuck Republicans. Fuck Democrats. Love America. Be Independent.
    "Red Rover, Red Rover, Mike McCready – Take Over!!" - E.V.

    Ten Club "Ambassador" (recap-writer) - DEEP.pearljam.com
    Contributor & Patron - liveon4legs.com
    2018
    : Chicago 2 (Wrigley Field) 8/20 | 20(20)22: St Louis 9/18 | 2023: Chicago 2 (United Center) 9/7, Indianapolis (Deer Creek) 9/10 | 2024: Vegas 5/16-&-18, Indy? Wrigley 2?

    EV:
    2018: CURE Benefit Show (Chicago - Navy Pier) 10/15

    RIP: Andy, Kurt, Chris
                                       * * * * * * * * *
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,759
    edited July 2018
    I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.
    brianlux said:
    Ah!  We have some votes.  But so far, no comments.

    I went with "I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits".  I don't think that has a chance of being put into practice, but why not put it out there?  I think it would be great.  Don't give us your tired party line rhetoric, tell us what you are going to do to help lead and make your world or country or state or province or city or town a better place.  I'm all for this idea.

    It simply wouldn't work, so I'm simply not sure I see any point in putting it out there. I think that politics kind of require actual groups of people who all operate with a shared understanding of what their platform is so that they can all work together towards common goals. Otherwise it would likely just be chaos for each candidate and their cohorts. It would also be chaos within parliament or whatever government system you had in mind. How would a zero party system operate specifically?? Just a bunch of individuals all voicing their individual opinions and ideas? I would imagine that debates and votes about any bill would last forever if they did that. Government would essentially grind to a halt.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.
    brianlux said:
    I like the idea of several parties so that no single party has a majority. This way they are forced to work with the others to get anything passed which means (in theory) that nothing extremely radical will be passed unless it benefits all.
    I thought about the multi-party choice  a lot as well.  Definitely has some merits.  "Benefits all"-- I like the sound of that. Thanks for chiming in here.
    I'm also in favor of a system in which multiple parties represent voters. A parliamentary system with proportional representation. It accomplishes a few things - 1) the forming of coalitions - since no party will likely have a straight majority it requires parties to work together and form coalitions; 2) keeps parties in check - if a party gets too out of touch they won't be able to form coalitions and will fade to a footnote; 3) allows people to feel like their vote actually matters - people can better shape government by voting their conscience or a platform they can back rather than holding their nose and picking the least detestable of their two choices. Right now we are often forced to choose between a turd burger and a shit sandwich. I'd rather pick something tastier; 4) more candidates and more choices equates to a better chance that we could have candidates who are not beholden to particular special interests or party machinations. The smaller parties with the innovative ideas can come in, take votes, and have an influence via coalition, on the shaping of a larger party's agenda.

    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08