English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

9 answers

Imagine what it would be like if we had a two restaurant system in the U.S. Say, for example, only McDonalds and Burger King. Any other restaurant would have to reside outside of city limits, would have to pay out the nose for advertising, and would have to get the approval of McDonalds and Burger King just to exist.

Eating out would get to be a real drag. Not that I'm ragging on McDonalds or Burger King, both of which I think make some pretty tolerable burgers, but sometimes I'm in the mood for something different.

In this hypothetical world, more people would stay home and cook their own meals. Hence there would be less participation in the "restaurant system." (weakness)

Only burgers, chicken sandwiches, salads, and an occasional novelty item like the McRib would be on the menu. (weakness)

The system would be self-perpetuating, because attempts by third party restaurants to break into the system would quickly be quashed by the restaurants in power. Say goodbye to any hope you might have had of ever tasting a nice prime rib or quiche. (weakness)

As for strengths, I can't really think of any.

2006-07-20 15:23:17 · answer #1 · answered by McNeef 4 · 2 1

There are other smaller parties trying to emerge. I am an independent. However at the moment there is two main parties. The checks and balances usually balance. That is a strength but its so unbalanced now that change is a necessity.

The main weakness is that they do not seem to agree on much so its hard to get things passed and its hard to compromise. There is such a growing division between contrasting views in our country that there is a struggle for bipartisanship. There is the really far left and the really far right and neither are correct in everything they say or do.

The Bush Administration has created a deep rift in our country between the people who support and profit from war and those who oppose it and refuse to swallow the Bushshit. Its bad, probably the worst in our history since the civil war.

Basically theres a huge growing gap between the haves and the have nots. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is a recipe for disaster.

We need a new party who will represent the people by the people instead of the rich corporate wealthy for the rich.

2006-07-20 15:15:46 · answer #2 · answered by PeaceTree 3 · 0 0

These United States actually play host to an enumerable number of parties, included in which are the Democrats, the Republicans, the Libertarians, Greens, the Constitution Party, Socialist Party USA, Communist Party of America,... the list goes on and on. However, I understand that your question concerns the major parties and not the minor ones, which altogether have less than 1% of the national presidential vote as a rule. Considering that as what you have meant to ask: there exist no fundamental differences between Democat and Republican presidents; what these United States truly lack is a powerful Centrist wing, advocating the Third Way, along with certain social democratic principles such as the movement towards becoming an active welfare state. The real setbacks come at the expense of the American proletariat; there essentially is no change in the working class's daily lives, regardless of the enumerable promises made. Becoming a true welfare state via moderate social democracy and the Third Way would cure these inconsistancies.

2006-07-20 15:06:19 · answer #3 · answered by Dan 4 · 0 0

well what i was tought is that the advantage of the two party system is that we as americans have the oppertunity to elect the people we want in office. This makes us a free nation. There are some other countries that only provide one person, and there is no democracy in that. But one of the weakneses i believe, is that there is more contention created between the two. Look at the Democrats and Republicans, they are completelly opposite in some aspects. people are forced to choose between the two. Of course you could act like Tony Blair, and make his "third Way" which seemed to help for Great Britain.
I personally like the two party system, and it's what defines America.

2006-07-20 15:11:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Strengths-It allows for fewer candidates which means people are more familiar with whom they are voting.
Strengths-It means the parties have to talk about more issues which means that elected officials won't be knowledge on just one subject.
Weaknessess-It creates a social polarization which is damaging, forcing one party to go one way on a subject, while the other party goes the other way. This dichotomy can lead to fierce, damaging discourse which is the primary reason that many people simply can't stand politics.

2006-07-20 14:54:10 · answer #5 · answered by tyler_shay4 2 · 1 0

Two party? Ok we have the Greens, The Republicans, The Democrats and the Independant party that is 4 :)

2006-07-20 14:53:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

The weakness isn't the number of parties. The weakness is that both sides totally refuse to budge one inch and therefore nothing gets done.

2006-07-20 15:15:13 · answer #7 · answered by John S 3 · 0 0

Frankly I would like to see more than just the 2 major ones. Republican and Democratic parties.

2006-07-20 14:53:18 · answer #8 · answered by Guzzy 5 · 0 1

The middle line is utterly ignored, and common sense flies out of the window. We need another few 9/11's.

2016-03-27 01:32:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers