The Two-Party System

[Prozerran]

When George Washington left office after his time as president, he warned us, "Beware the Two-Party System." What did he mean? We tend to think of it as the Democrats vs Republicans today. But I think there's more to it than just these political alignments that the Two-Party System really serves to represent. More importantly, I believe it is more a case of a struggle for power. Democrats seem intent on taking power AWAY from Republicans, and Republicans seem intent on keeping power and maintaining "The Republic" of the United States. Either way we "side", so to speak, doesn't change the roles played by these organizations.

Before the party system began, our country once elected two candidates, a President and a Vice President. The president won the most votes, and the vice president was essentially the opponent that did not win the most votes. This changed long ago when political parties started becoming aligned and presidential candidates campaigned with a vice-president they, or the party, selected.

We are witnessing today that this two-party system, as it is now, is clashing now more than ever, and the struggle for power in government has not been greater since the Vietnam war. This struggle is blinding us from seeing the real issues, I believe. Too many facts about current events are being misconstrued, twisted, and propagated to serve the interests of the parties and not the country, generally speaking of course.

I propose that it is time to reevaluate if it may be in our best interest to reinstate the Vice-Presidential candidate as that individual who loses the election so that the two-party struggle for power can be diminished and we can return to what is important about elections, the democratic process.

What say you? Are you in favor of political parties? Would you have a president and a vice-president aligned on the same issues or would you rather see both democratic and republican candidates serve as president and vice-president?

And maybe it doesn't have to be every election. Perhaps it should be in wartime that the president and vice-president come from separate political alignments. I welcome your thoughts on this if you have any.

[Icarus]

Well parties really are just finance and political backup in exchange for certain views, which I feel has the potential to show the people only the generic arguments and positions and leaves whatever non-mainstream positions out of the public eye.

A vice-presidents role is almost insignificant. His only real job is to replace the president after he dies/resigns/is not available, and if all of a sudden you were to have a president with opposite views after the opposing party was in power that could be extremely messy. I have no idea how a government could be stable with something like that, so i believe choosing your running mate is the better choice.

The separation of the parties is the biggest reason that you see bias in the media. CNN will report the stories that make abortion and stem cell research favorable and the iraq war messy. Fox will do the opposite, or at least try to. It's all because of this separation of parties, because people assume they have to join with one or the other.

I would love to see the abolishment of parties all-together, and in place, equal federal funds for campaigns, where all the candidates can only use X amount of money in their campaign. Also I think it would lead to a decline in bias in the media.

[ecyor0]

Aaghhh, Fairness Doctrine!!!!!

Nah, seriously though, that equal funds idea is good. Not only does it balance things, but it removes the temptation for politicians to cheat taxpayers of their money in order to increase their funds for election campaigns

[Tech]

I've actually been thinking about this quite a bit recently, and I do think it would be a good idea to return to the old system. Obviously some things would have to change to make the Vice President not useless, but it would be a great way to keep things from getting too extremist. If the President and Vice President both had to sign something before it could be enacted then we would have a much more "middle of the road" government than the polarized extremism we're quickly heading to.

Yet another idea was also brought up that i think could help this situation. Providing federal funds for campaigns, and not allowing any outside contributions. Politics today is too much about money, you constantly hear about which candidate has raised the most money for their campaign, or who has spent the most on advertising. Generally, if you've got the most money you're much more likely to win. There are plenty of highly qualified "average joes" out there who have great ideas and want to better this country, but if their ideas will hurt the wealthy investors it takes to run a campaign, then they stand no chance. This country is run by the companies and investors who pay for the campaigns, it isn't run by the people, and it most definitely isn't run for the people.

So I really do think that if we implemented these two ideas into our system of government we could eliminate so many of the political problems we see today and finally start to fix the state of the country instead of bickering over who has the most money and power. We would stop swinging from one extreme to another every four years, and everyone who is qualified and actually wanted to help better the country could have a shot at it. Now I'm sure there would be problems that arise with a system like this, but right now it's looking better and better every day.

[singo]

Of course such an idea would need government backing to be enacted. So its stands about as much of a chance as a whelk in a supernova.

Over here we have a three party system (technically, in practice its two and a half with an option on coalition government) and it tends to be less dependant on funding, simply because people in set areas tend to vote a certain way. (I know this happens in the States, but its effects are much more marked in a parliamentary system) And if too much is spent on advertising people tend to get bored and ignore it.

I think the best illustration of why party politics is wrong is this from my local MP, I cant remember exactly how it went but it was effectively "I was voted in to follow the party line, no matter what I think" A system that encourages that really strikes me as a bad thing.

[3Vee]

In my opinion, the problem isn't so much the "two-party system", regardless of the ills it's currently undergoing here. The problem is a one-party system: both parties are trying to secure power, and so try to appeal as much as possible to the greatest possible majority, making them all more or less moderate.

In the US system, I actually think this is largely due to the executifying of the legislative branch: legislation has established a bureaucracy which maintains most of the day-to-day governing, controlled largely by Congress. Congress holds the power, Congress appoints the committees, so Congress is the goal. The President holds a degree of executive power, but the fact that a veto is news, given the amount of legislation passed, should indicate how unused that power is.

[Ghost_Assasain]

Singo, a parliment effectively requires a prefferably two party system. Because the head of Government is appointed by majority vote within the parliment if there were multiple major parties (say upwards or four or five, although the problem can occur with three) you create an unstable government as the balance of power shifts between different parties. Personally I believe that the Parlimentary system, especially in Australia, is too party focused with its required voting on legeslation. However, I would not remove the party system from the government.

Removal of th two party from the US wouldn't be quite as bad I believe, I know very little about your actual system of government. However I know that the President isn't elected from the Congress and isn't a sitting congressmen. So because he would be there for the entire term in office it would be more stable then in the parlimentary system.

Although Singo, I do agree that in Parlimentary systems there are much too stringent rules about voting along party lines.

[singo]

Singo, a parliment effectively requires a prefferably two party system. Because the head of Government is appointed by majority vote within the parliment if there were multiple major parties (say upwards or four or five, although the problem can occur with three) you create an unstable government as the balance of power shifts between different parties.


True enough, for the most part. But power always shifts, so I think maybe four major parties as long as all of them are large enough to actually form a government.

[NightElfking]

I don't like any poltical parties what so ever. The fact that they always try to secure more power in Congress is annoying. PErsonally, I'd tear down both parties.

[ecyor0]

...which doesn't solve anything

[singo]

It solves the abuse of party politics problem quite effectively. Without party lines to follow people will be more able to vote along with what they actually think (or at least what they think their constituents think).

Unfortunately, people being what they are, it will just mean behind the scenes parties trying to one up each other as per usual.

[Prozerran]

I think what's interesting here is that the party system is sort of a contradiction in terms. Both parties, like someone else already pointed out, argue for what they believe the majority of U.S. Citizens will vote for, which often creates duality rather than variety. Yet, there are those who will stringently vote the party and not the candidate, no matter what. They don't really think about it at all. So, you sort of see that there's no substance to politics. There's no substance in the one thing in our country that actually matters, that actually distinguishes us as a democratic society. I'd like to see both parties end up in office in different positions of the Executive Branch with separate duties.

Now, I wouldn't mind so much if the Democrats picked a Republican running mate, and vice versa. As long as the parties aren't gaining such strong control of the executive branch with each upcoming election. I fear, though, that if this doesn't happen, pretty soon we're going to see just how much of a tyranny our government can grow to become.

[Ghost_Assasain]

The Problem with not having parties though is that there can never be a cohesive or stable government formed. Such that agendas won't be enacted (and I don't mean agendas in a bad way) and it would end up that very little would get done because forming a majority to push legslation through would be at best exceedingly difficult.

Although the idea behind the Westminster setup of the Lower and Upper house. Such that you have the two major parties on either side does work to stimulate debate on issues. When the British parliment (I believe) was rebuilt when asked how he wanted it layed out Churchill wanted it made so that everyone was cramped and the two parties front benches were very close to each other. It fosters debate and attcks on the other party as the politicians are surrounded by members of their own party egging them on so there is an incentive to really dig into the government/opposition becayse they can't come and whack you (Cough Putin)

The Party system is a neccesary evil in democracy and it does have its good points. Like I said just previous it fosters debate and scruteny into the other party and their policies. But it IS NEEDED to form cohesive and stable governments that can be progressive with their agenda.

[Prozerran]

Sure, this is an excellent point you bring up, too. A government needs to be able to enact some form of change when necessary. My concern is that this change is happening too rapidly, and it's going almost entirely unchecked. I state the extremes to illustrate points of contention only. I acknowledge there is definitely a positive aspect to the two-party system, and you make the case very well. Is it absolutely necessary? I don't know that agree entirely with that. I think progress needs to be balanced with the will of the people. If a government gains too much power to enact so much change that its people pay the price for it in taxes and lost lives when they didn't have a more direct say so in the matter, it's time to take a critical position on the issue to see if it can be improved. Good call, though. Excellent point to make here, I think.

[Ghost_Assasain]

This is where the two Teired system of Government works well, most of the time.

In the Westminster system there are two Houses The lower House (The main body of the government, create legelsation and all that Jazz) then the Upper House (House of Review) The Hous of review was used in England originally, the house of Lords, so that the Lords could Veto any acts they didn't want passed. But now, in Australia, it is used to balance between the states so that each has equal representation, and in my state it works on proportional voting system. So there are different ways it can work.

How ever its function is to review all peices of legeslation passed by the Lower house. So that nothing too drastic or detrimental to certian states/groups get passed unless it has a majority in both houes. The Upper House works better on proportional voting or when there is no party in control of it. This is the place where I agree that there should be restrictions on party involvment, However still involving the parties. But it works to limit the power of a government that holds the Lower hosue in Majority. And is usually elected at a different time to the government.

This allows for a stable government to be formed by majority (generally) in the Lower House while the Upper House needs to be less party based as it acts as a Hosue of Review, such as using proportional voting to elect the members.

EDIT: Just because I forgot to say this before. Australia is a Multiparty country with 3 smaller parties, One Larger Party an a Coaltion. So essentally there are two larger parties, The ALP (Australian Labor Party) and the Coalition (Liberals and the Nationals) and then the smaller parties an idependants who make up a smaller number of the seats in parliment.

[mranderson]

I don't like our political system period. It's horribly flawed. The major flaw is it grants power. Absolute power corrupsts absolutely. Their is no way to fix it by conventional means. Whatever you do to it won't matter in the long run.

You've got one billionare, and millions of people living mediocre lives. Is this fair?

Its broken. You can't fix it. Its just to large of a problem for people to correct. Start a new equation.

You've got a government. One person is put in charge, but the average Joe has no say in what he does. It would take thousands of average Joes just to make him think about their lives.

[Ghost_Assasain]

Absolute power corrupsts absolutely, that is a trow away line and means absolutely nothing. If anything people who attain 'Absolute Power' are in general not very nice people before hand.

Distribution of wealth in the US is not the fault of the style of government. It is due to the form of capitalism and lack of welfare that causes this.

Starting a new governmental system would be neither effective nor would it be viable. If you wish to adjust or add to the current system (Say with a house of Review) then by all means go ahead. But there is no course to start a brand new system of government.

One person is not put in charge in a democracy, one person may have more 'power' but ultimately every 3 or 4 years they will answer to the public. And if Americans actually voted then they could be held accountable for their actions.

[ecyor0]

Absolute power corrupsts absolutely, that is a trow away line and means absolutely nothing.

Just because its been used so many times that people get sick of hearing it, that does not automatically make it meaningless.

The problem with any government system is that it always relies on those in power to play fair (that's not a flaw, that is an unavoidable fact - all governments put power into the hands of a select few, with the possible exception of anarchy - and even that's debatable) However, ambitious people in general don't play by the rules. They think "Everyone should play by the rules, and I'll be a little sneaky"

Of course being the opinionated New Zealander that I am, I am quite dismissive of America's seeming inability to see the holes in its own boat, but it would be a mistake for me to think that America's government is the only corrupt one out there - hell, NZ's parliament probably gets even less done than Congress

[Ghost_Assasain]

No it is meaningless because there has never been an example of absolute power (Unless we are talking God here) or having a lot of power, lets go dictator or Monarchy, actually having corrupted people and that the person was not 'corrupt' or evilishness in anyway before that.

Regardless in democracy there are checks to keep people in their place and to make sure that they arn't abusing there power. I don't know what they are in the US but in Australia are Govenor General can Dismiss parliment or the PM if the need arises.

[SilverCrusader]

City-State government is the best type there is. End of story.