Why do u americans have only 2 choices?

Question

Why should there b on Republicans and democrats both working as virtual corporations and alternating power between them... why cant u ppl have opinions in various shades of grey... why just black or white... is the doctrine 'if u r not with us u r against us' your national doctrine?

Answer 1

Sadly those two parties are dominating our political landscape and the Republicans have certainly pushed the "us or them" division in recent decades. There was a time where the division wasn't as polarized.

We do have choices, Green Party, Libertarian, independant candidates, but most of the media covers the Democrats and Republicans, and the other candiates are painted as "fringe" or just plain crazy. Even a valid candiate is portrayed as wasting your vote.

Answer 2

It is unfortunate that in the US there are only two major parties. This has not become the situation overnight. There is a history behind the two-party system. There have been other parties in the US, but only the present two parties have survived. Basically, these parties have revolved around two main principles: wealth and prejudice.

At one time wealth was the primary difference between the parties. The Republicans were rich and most of their support was located in the Northern part of the nation. The South was poor, and the Democratic Party best represented their interests.

In the last half of the 20th Century, prejudice took over. The South went Republican, and the North went Democratic.

Today we have a real mess, begging for the creation of a strong third party or the metamorphosing of one of the present two parties into something new. One party, the Republicans, seem to support the more "family value" orientation of mainstream America. Yet, they still are at the heart of things a party of the rich. The regressive taxation we find at all levels of government is a prime example of this. The system of taxation slaps at the face of moral America.

The Democrats, on the other hand, would be the best choice in most matters of the pocketbook of the average American. They favor a more progressive system of taxation, and favor universal health care and certain other principals that would be very good for the nation. However, they too are conflicted in that they tend to support issues such as gay marriage and abortion--issues that many middle Americans disagree with.

So--the average American is forced to choose between voting for their pocketbook and the environment on the one hand, and for their perception of family values on the other hand.

We need a third party that is concerned with both taxation and family values.

Answer 3

There are more than two parties, but they are usually to small to influence the masses. The one exception is the Independent Party that holds, or has held, various government offices at all levels except for the President. When it comes to the President of the United States, the influence of a third party can be problematic in the sense that the ideas of the third party may be very similar to the ideas of one of the two major parties and split the voting strength of that party. In recent history an example of this occurred when Ross Perot ran for president with the Reform Party getting almost 20% of the vote. most agree that the large majority of those Votes would have been for the Republican Party votes. If the Reform Party hadn't gained so much influence, Bill Clinton may never have been President.

Our national doctrine is not "if you are not with us, you are against us". All political parties in the US evolve over time and sometimes compromise themselves in order to gain strength. Still, many basic ideologies remains the same. But there are so many people who vote based upon a single issue that political parties mean absolutely nothing to them.

I agree with you that a choice of only two parties is limiting and it is also likely that when the American voter has to make that choice that they are not choosing which candidate they want to win, but are choosing the lesser of two evils.

Answer 4

The strength of the two party system is that it forces compromise, and keeps radical, one-issue candidates from winning transitory public opinion long enough to get elected to the Oval Office.

I remember reading how Iranian elections are absolutely chaotic. You can have 80 people running for the same office! Votes are thinly spread out because candidates appeal to single-issue hot topics.

Theodore Roosevelt was the last person who even came close to winning as a third party candidate. Nowadays, the only way you'd get a viable third party into office is if the Republican and Democratic candidates were Alan Keyes and Al Franken.

Answer 5

Mad Americans are against our two party system (and there ARE several other parties participating-- only they get little or no coverage at all). You're operating on the false pretense that American political power still rests in the hands of the voting population.

So in answer to your first two questions: because the two dominant parties want it that way; 2. there shouldn't.

So do "us" all a favor and f--k off with your arguments ad hominem-- they don't carry weight. Any semi-intelligent American can tell you how much and why they hate the system, but that doesn't accomplish $h!t-- much like your question. What we do instead is find ways and means of maneuvering within our f--ked up system to accomplish some good and get $h!t straight. Because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Now get back to the playground, toy, the grown-ups are talking about "big person" things.

Answer 6

What two choices? Coke and Pepsi? That's not exactly a choice my friend. Some of us want a beer. Others may prefer Ginger Ale or just plain drinking water!

There are no choices given to the general public in U.S. by design. It creates the illusion of democracy and choice, while no significant alternatives are ever offered. Only when a more educated voter base realizes this and builds its own new choices, will we ever experience true democracy.

But that's not likely to happen either, as part of the general scheme is to also hold the majority of voters in relative political illiteracy, so only hot-bottom issues can mobilize them in support of issues that benefit the 1% on the top.

Answer 7

We Americans have many choices for our political parties. It is just that the Republican and Democratic parties are the largest. It just so happens that most vote the way their parents voted, but there are other parties (such as the green party that is always seems to be a distant third). Americans have plenty of choice and lots of opinion:)

Answer 8

It's easier for people to have faith in their country that way. Other than that, Republicans and Democrats are just the two most known political parties. There's still Greenpeace and Progressives, as well as Whigs(well, there used to be). Don't be so close-minded about Americans. Not all of us are idiots.

Answer 9

There are lots more options. The more people know about the other choices, the more people may align with the various parties. However, it is frustrating when policies are decided based on individual gain and through compromising values to satisfy a specific contingency. The squeaky wheel, if you will.

Take a test to see where you fall:

http://www.okcupid.com/politics

Answer 10

it is a viable explaination as to why the country is in the shape it is in. It seems whoever has the loudest voice and most catchy sound bites wins elections. People want a "Fast-food" version of issues and agendas of candidates and certain parties have the backing to toot thier horn the loudest. We are lazy as citizens and voters for NOT doing our research and making a truly informed decision Instead we rely on smear commercials and manipulation by people with thier own agendas to tell us what to think and how to vote.