The end of the two party system - when and why?

Question

In George Washington's first State of the Union Address, he warned America against using a bi-partisan system.

As far as I can see, there's no possible way the candidates that we have running every four years are the best people in the country that would want to be president, (if they are, heaven help us). I'm not saying that Independents have been better than Republicans or Democrats, but it's pretty obvious that presidential elections have come down to choosing the lesser of two morons...

So what would logically dispel the bi-partisan system? Obviously it's not two incompetent and inept candidates, 2004 shot that theory down. Is the only visible end a schism in the parties (which is a remote possibility considering the knowledge that if your party divides you lose the election). Would it take an amazing Independent?

Will it end? If so, how and when?

"it's worked for over 200 years"? Careful, careful.This is close to one of the attitudes that are destroying America, the unwillingness and the fear of change without looking at the possibilities or seeing if the system we have is REALLY the best system available.

What if the government required "blind" elections? You would not know a candidates party, although it may seem obvious - would this work if it were instated? if so, would it be possible to instate it into the constitution?

Answer 1

It cannot end as long as the media is running the show.

They rarely give coverage to"third" parties. In the last election in California they barely gave coverage to two.

If we institute limits on how much propaganda a party can pump into the system, made a level playing field, other parties would have a chance. BUT the media would of course loose hundreds of million each election.

Answer 2

As I see it, there are several factors that will contribute to the end of our current system: 1) the ever widening socio-economic gap between the wealthy and everyone else, 2) the seemingly inevitable bankruptcy of our government, 3) a lackluster (at best) educational system, 4) the playground mentality of the vast majority of the citizenry.

There's not much people like more than a good dodge-ball game. Our elections are little more than that. A well educated electorate would not allow such antics to go on for long. Instead, they would insist on an 'open' election process (we're supposed to have one, but we don't) which required civility and an honest debate.

When there are only two classes left, the wealthy will likely loosen their stranglehold on our government enough for change to become possible. Hopefully, at that point, the tired and hungry masses will be willing to put the dodge-ball down and do what's necessary to realize what our founders intended.

It would be a shame if the situation had to become so dire for the change you've posed to occur. Unfortunately, we don't seem to address a problem until it becomes a crisis.

That assumes, of course, we survive that long.

Answer 3

Can't and Never.

It simply will not happen. The two current parties are way too dug into politics to lose much footing. Third-party & Independent candidates, by not associating with one of the two major parties, are seen by many as candidates who wish to defy the current political system, as being small people in a big world.

They are seen by some as election-hindrances, as well. You could say that Ralph Nader caused George W. Bush to win in 2000, since most of those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore, if Nader weren't running, and surveys taken since then have seem to have backed up this claim.

Okay, if it WERE to happen (chances are VERY slim), here's what they need to do:

Independent & third-party candidates seem to not have lots of political experience, other than being millionaires, lobbyists, activists, or any combination of the three, and do not have the footing required at the local level to gain support. To win nationally, they would need to start assembling, and trying to win local & state elections. Eventually, after there is an Independent or third-party governor, they may be able to run for national offices. They need to learn how to run a "grassroots" campaign.

Answer 4

The 2-party system is self-reinforcing because voting
for a 3rd-party candidate ("Nader") actually hurts the major party
one you most-like ("lesser evil") so it is a strategically stupid
thing to do. 90% of Nader-favorers (said studies) actually voted for somebody else, and that is why. No third-party candidate
can get anywhere against such a huge (90%) uphill factor.

In a better voting system called "range voting,"
voting Nader top NEVER hurts one major-party candidate in his battle versus the other. Vote Nader top and if Nader is your favorite that is never stupid. Poll studies show Nader would have
got approximately 25 on a scale where Bush and Kerry got about
47, if the 2004 election had been conducted with range voting.
(In the real election, Nader got 0.38%; about 66 times less!)
http://rangevoting.org/PsEl04.html

If we get this system, then 2-party domination will probably
gradually end. An alternative proposal called "Instant Runoff Voting" (IRV) will, however, still produce 2-party domination
(it has in every iRV country) which is because there still are
spoiler effects with IRV, see
http://rangevoting.org/TarrIrv.html
for an introduction to such effects and for links to
the facts about IRV countries.

Range Voting is in fact feasible to get because the major
parties actually WANT it (it is in their own huge self interest)
in their own PRIMARIES.
So it is merely a matter of educating them about the huge
advantages they will get for free if they adopt Range in
their primaries but the other major party foolishly does not.

I recommend examining
http://rangevoting.org/
and endorsing it (click "endorse") if you
want this effort to get somewhere.
It can. But not without help.

Answer 5

First of all, it really is not that hard to change two party government. You and about twenty committed friends could do it, all it takes is a constutional amendment changing us from direct democracy to an indirect or proportional democracy. This would allow third parties to gain seats in Congress based on their percentage of vote recieved. Constitutional amendments are difficult to pass but as I said you and twenty committed friends could do it.

Answer 6

First of all it will never end. The Bi Partisan is here to stay. Tradition I believe is here to stay. But you have some good ideas.

Answer 7

How many Americans take the time to really understand what the party stands for before they vote?

If you don't like what the party stands for - come up with another one! Canada does it all the time...you can too!!!

Answer 8

It's worked for over 200 years. Leave it alone.