Do you ever see an end to the two party system in America?

Question

I see no difference and no clear choice between the democrats nor the republicans. Both parties grow the government and both want to control our lives. America having a multi-party system would fix it, but we have to work through the exactly same 2 parties to get it. So could we eventually see an end?

Answer 1

Ugh... I hope so.

Answer 2

We've always been a two-party system. So it's kind of hard to imagine how it would be otherwise. It's like guessing how Congress would work if we had a third house. Bitter partisanship like we're seeing now is not a real issue, it's a fake issue to hide real issues. We have some problems that are going to be very hard to solve. They will require some sacrifice--hopefully proportionately from everyone. The solutions require hard political decisions, of the kind that neither party are ready to step up to. It's easier to blame it on the other party. Baiting the other party just covers up, it takes the place of the real issues you should be talking about, but they're dangerous to talk about because nobody wants to hear about them. Partisanship has gone up and down throughout our history. It was on its way out in the 1970s. More and more people through the 1950s to the 70s were registering as independent, 'voting for the man, not the party'. But partisanship got a big boost in the 1980 election, and it's just been heating up since then. And here on Yahoo Answers, it's easier just to taunt the other side, you don't have to know anything about the issues. We have whole major 'news' outlets now that are really only propaganda organs for one of the political parties. People who get all their news from these sources often don't even know there -is- another side of the story! (Notice how I didn't mention any parties here! Woo hoo! Good for me!)

Answer 3

It is sad to say it but I don't think we'll be able to see any changes in the American political system. I don't understand how come this country only has two political parties, there is no diversity of thoughts, there is no room for people who think left. Any of the parties is absolutely and ridiculously Capitalist. Most people are brainwashed and think this is the best form of government ever. See Europe, some of its countries have a socialist system that works perfectly good. One thing is socialism and other totally different is communism. I am sure there's many brilliant educated Americans who would love to change or at least to add one more party to this political system. Unfortunately, what rules is money and these two parties know perfectly what that means.

Answer 4

Multiple parties work fine for all elections except the federal elections because the federal (mainly the presidential election) is carefully constructed to include "ELECTORAL" votes which permit all states and regions to have some level of input to the process. Otherwise we would not be the "united states" but rather the group of states managed by NY and CA and maybe TX.

At the federal level, a third party only stands to be a spoiler for one of the top two contenders. The third party has no chance in the electoral college to take enough states and electoral votes to win - only to spoil chances for one of the other two.

THEY ARE DIFFERENT. Don't let rhetoric blind you to that. There is a wide variety of opinion in each party - and each party has its liberal and conservative wings. The only way to win however, is to postition the candidate as close to the middle in perception as possible without alienating the whole remainder of its party to the left or right. You can picture generally a bell curve peaking on the left of a center line for the Democrats and one peaking to the right of the center line for the Republicans. Somewhere between those two peaks of dissent, the winning candidate will find a 'sweet spot'.

There is a way to involve more parties in the national elections and that is for the states to institute "automatic runnoff" voting - which allows voters to select a preferred candidate and a second choice. Then third parties are not spoilers but are rather "definers" of public sentiment. It will remove the burden of voting for a third party and knowing it kills the chance for your second choice to win. Once a candidate wins in the state level of the federal election, the electoral votes would still be handled as they are now - "Winner takes all". That still preserves the 'sovereignty' of each state's influence on the whole of the country.

It is not likely the "automatic runnoff" system will ever be implemented. It would require a lot of changes in thinking in all 50 states. But, if it were put in place, I do think it would work - and allow a wider visible discourse between contenders. For now the disourse remains within each party's orgnization.

Answer 5

Not any time soon, the two major parties have way too much influence and money as well as power. This country has been using the same two party system for so many years and our governement has formed around that. The way it is set up you need way to much money to run so none of the smaller gorups will ever come into power.

Answer 6

We should have a better choice for the people who we want to run our country.

Being limited to an "either /or" choice between a nud-nik running as a Dem or a nud-nik running as a Rep does not say much for American politics. With 300-million people to choose from, we need to expand our choices.

The only way we are ever going to have a greater choice is to have more parties presenting more candidates. Lobby-money and "pork" are the obstacles that have to be overcome before we can get more parties in the game.

Answer 7

There is no clear choice. They are all working together to make themselves richer while enslaving the lower class in an ever tightening noose of low wages and strict law enforcement. The Sheeple who spout nonsense about LIB/CON DEM/REPUB are foolishly helping them achieve their goals as evidenced on this site by all the LIB/CON posts. If John Kerry had won the election in 2004, we still would have the same result, he is skull & bones, he believes in a one world goverment. Notice both parties will do nothing to stop illegal immigration, this is the first step to bring the whole North American continent under one government.

Answer 8

It is a one party system and has been often referred to as the money party system one party, who is in control of the Money and how much gets circulated and printed none other than congress, whom vote yes when it comes time for their raises etc! They will tell you how its your money "the American public" but what real control do you have in acquiring sufficient amounts by working hard! HA HA lol. People the first move is seize control of Money/Power/Wealth for the majority and reinstate Majority rule not the phony shams going on now! Our voting system not verifiable public office needs to be subjected to immediate firing if not serving the public honorably etc.

Answer 9

The two party system is in the same side of the coin. Multi party hopefully provides a viable alternatives.

Answer 10

If a third party could field a dynamic candidate who's platform differed substatially from the other two you could see an end to two parties. Libertarians have gained ground in state elections.

Remember this quote, though: "The pure are not drawn to power"

Answer 11

What we are really discussing is money, and a lot of it. It has been tried by some wealthy people with minimal results. Until we really want change and are willing to pay for it, nothing will change.I believe a return to service to the country for no pay {like the beginning }is part of the answer, but only part. It excludes the poor from politics.