Should there be more than two major political parties in the US?

Question

I think it would be a lot better for the US if we had more major political parties. The big problem with the two party system we have now is that there are only two sides to choose from and often they sound almost exactly the same.

by the way im to young to vote.

I said MAJOR political parties not just political parties.

Answer 1

Sure should be. I makes it more difficult for one party to have majority control if there are more than two parties. As a result better legislation is promulgated because if other parties together constitute a majority.

If the minority parties can muster the votes, they can prevent the larger party from ramming through legislation that the majority of members object to.

This is how Parliamentary democracy usually work. Another facet of this method is that, under certain circumstances, a majority of the votes can force the government(party in power) to resign and call for a new election and let the people choose.

In this system, the political party that holds the most seats usually forms the government after an election but hold power at the pleasure of all the other parties which hold a majority of the seats.

This is how Canada got universal health care earl er than they would have. The ruling party did not have enough members to control and a smaller party whose seats when added to the party in power made for a majority of the seats.

The smaller party said they would support the party in power, to keep it in power, if they passed health care .Voila, they have it.

This a simplistic explanation but gives an idea as what a multi party system can attain for its citizens.

Answer 2

Yes it would be nice, but it has been proven that our government can only function w/ 2 political parties. More than two parties cannot function in a democracy since there would not be enough members to vote and get any laws passed. We can change the political parties like in the 1800's there used to be the Federalist Party and the Whig Party, which no longer exist and were replaced by the Democrats & Republicans. So if there is enough of a movement, we could replace one or both of the parties. Maybe you could start the movement.

Answer 3

Yeah, it would be nice. The middle of the road--those who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative--really aren't represented with our current two-party political system. Supposedly, these middle of the road types represent a huge portion of the electorate.

However, most elections in the US require a majority (i.e. 50% +1 vote) to win, so in a way, our government is almost geared specifically towards a two-party system. Three or more parties could result in a lot of run-offs in local elections, and presidential elections might even end up being decided by Congress (as per the Constitution, if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral vote, Congress chooses the President).

Answer 4

No, because America's vote would be divided so that it would be hard for any candidate to get a majority and therefore hard to decide an election.
Democrats and Republicans are very different from one another; if they sound the same to you, then you are either not politically knowledgeable or you are an Independent. Each party's views, especially on gay marriage and abortion, are opposite in most cases.

Answer 5

It depends. As we see in Europe, there are many political parties simply because most countries there use a proportional representation system. But, this leads to greater fracturing and factioning among political parties. Rogue groups with extremist/bizzare agendas can become involved with government (like the pedophilia-based party just created in I think Denmark).

Our system, while essentially limiting big ticket (national Congress, President, governor) choices to Republicans and Democrats, helps to keep our country more towards the center of the political spectrum and helps to avoid conflict and political stagnation.

Answer 6

There are many political parties in the U.S. including the Communist Party. The problem is no one is willing to provide the financial support necessary to successfully launch and sustain such an effort.

You will see a good example of this if Senator Lieberman looses the primary in Conn. and chooses to run as an Independent.

Answer 7

I don't think we should have political parties at all. I'm generally a democrat, but I am against abortion except in special cases and I think I am against gay marriage, but not against being gay. I am for gun control but only on hand guns and assault rifles. I am against the war in Iraq. I am for the Afghanistan war, and I think we should be pimp slapping North Korea. I am ok with taxes, kinda. I believe that there needs to be cleaner burning fuels and no more trees should be cut down unless the same number are planted somewhere else in the same region. Everyone should have Healthcare, don't tell me you can't afford it if you can spend $100 billion tearing down and rebuilding a whole country on the other side of the world that did nothing to us.

Answer 8

No. We want parties elected by majorities and not pluralities. Hitler won office based on about 37% of the vote. If we have 3, 4, 5, etc. parties, they will be winning office based on increasingly smaller vote counts. THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING.

Answer 9

no, a third or fourth party would only end up splitting one of the 1st too voting block assuring the other of a victory..
Look what happened with the "little general" during the clinton regime. The conservative vote was split and clinton won with 45% of the vote.

Answer 10

Yes, but not too many. If there were like six major political parties, elections would be in chaos.