First off, the framers of the constitution did not want a two party system per se, what they wanted was a government set up to do war with itself. The framers wanted a government with gridlock, checks and balances and division of powers to prevent the situation we find ourselves in today, where a single ideology has siezed control of the government.
Unfortunatly for our nation most americans today are to disinterested in the political process to think to not vote for the R's or the D's. There are independant candidates but without party support its virtually impossible to make it in a political race, unless you have milions of dollars to spend.
We as a people need to realize that the decision is not between left and right, but freedom or tyranny.
2006-06-15 10:55:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by sscam2001 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Actually, the framers of the Constitution didn't want political parties at all: they said as much in Federalist Paper #10. Their system was designed to create a union while preserving power in the state governments. Unfortunately, the winner-take-all elections they crafted resulted in two parties being formed and third parties being highly discouraged.
To be fair, a very large number of Americans don't categorize themselves as Democrats or Republicans. But IMHO, those that do often are simply convinced that they aren't one of the parties and, consequently, must be the other one. For most of American history, politics has been about villanizing your opponent rather than putting forth a tangible platform. That way, once a politician is in office, they aren't constrained by a platform or promises & can do whatever they want with the power given them. The dawning of the Television Age has made this phenomenon even worse.
If you see the loud partisans on television, nine times out of ten they are lambasting their opponents rather than proposing real solutions to problems. It's the need for an enemy to whip up fear among the people & make them vote certain ways that drives this. Fear itself, once more, is what we need to fear.
2006-06-15 10:38:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dave of the Hill People 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
At the present time, we have a bipartisan government that just happen to be called Democrats and Republicans. When this country began there were Whigs and Tories. It is just NAMES for platforms and philosophies of the men and women who run for public office.
By our nature as HUMANS, we usually square off between the WE's and the THEY's. One group thinks their way is the best while the other disputes those claims.
The best thing about our political system is that this country goes through significant changes every 4 to 8 years depending on the incumbency of the president, which is accomplished without bloodshed or violence, as in some other countries.
I never stop being amazed about our system of government.
2006-06-16 13:10:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by joyceadrianne 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Parties are a natural outgrowth of human nature. A sort of tribalism, I suppose. We get together for mutual protection, to further certain goals, etc. The parties supposedly reflect the outlooks of their members. There is an irony that the stated goals of both parties are nearly identical: economic prosperity? One side likes tax cuts, the other wants tax increases for social programs. Crime, one side wants to lock up the bad guys, the other opts for gun control. The list goes on. I agree that if both sides would focus on the genuine needs of the country, some common ground could probably be found in most issues. Politics has interfered too much.
2006-06-15 10:32:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by aboukir200 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
So, I am suppose to set back like a meek little mouse while I see a president take us to war for no reason at all, give tax cuts for the very rich while leaving the poor and middle class behind. I am not suppose to say anything when he cuts programs that the needy depend on to do things like eat. Another 66 million more dollars to the "war effort" I think it is my duty as an American to speak up and I will continue to do so.
2006-06-15 10:40:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
party choice and letting others know what it is, stops confusion. if I was a democrat (which I'm not) and my boss was a republican, I would know what is and is not okay to talk about with him without him getting upset. personally, I think people should be more open about things, and not let their feelings get in the way of an intelligent discussion of any kind. (also, why are people who want to conserve resources and human life called liberals, and people who are liberal and downright wasteful with human life and natural resources called conservative?)
2006-06-15 10:31:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by Exodus 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
i agree. america is very divided between polotics and religion. religion causes as many wars and fights as polotics does. my father for, instances, is upset because he just found out that my sister is democrat. and my mom is upset with me because i don't think it's right to tell my children to be christians because they are the only one that are right. i don't see how we have enough proof that what we were taught at that age is enough to make a well informed desicion, just like we should not vote for poloticians without knowing anything about. but in the long run it causes so much hate, sometimes i wonder if it's even worth it.
2006-06-15 10:50:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by angela 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because that is pretty much the only choices we are given, and the framers of the constitution wanted a two party system.
2006-06-15 10:27:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The democrats, do not want to change their ways at all, lets take the money from the lower and middle class people, thats all.
dp
2006-06-21 05:45:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by mikemadie 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
it's because each party wants to do different things, the republicans want to protect our rights and freedoms, the democrats want to protect their wallets and reputations.
that's why i can't see why people hate on bush, he's pretty well put his rep in a blender to protect us and our freedoms, but everyone shits on him for it. if Kerry or Gore were in the picture, we'd be screwed, Al Queda would be blowing up stuff left and right.
2006-06-15 12:02:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by Cyrus 4
·
0⤊
0⤋