the USA pretends to be a great democracy, but at the same time there are no more than 2 parties - Republicans and Democrats. Moreover, both parties are very similar, the only difference is that each one is "owned" by a different group or clan or gang.
Why not establishing more parties in the US? is it forbidden to have socialist, nationalist, etc.. parties?
2007-02-07 00:51:10 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
We have several minor parties that are growing: Libertarian, Green, Constitutionalist, Reform, etc...
The problem is that all the independents are brainwashed into thinking you are wasting a vote when you vote for an independent. The reality is, independents have been very important in past elections and in recent election history.
Ross Perot enabled the election and reelection of Bill Clinton while Ralph Nader and Patt Buchanan enabled the reelection and election of George Bush. What happened after the elections? The losing party listened to the viewpoints of the independent.
Personally, I have not voted for a Dem or a Rep in a national election in over 20 years. There is hope out there.
2007-02-07 01:02:54 · answer #1 · answered by Christmas Light Guy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The reason is tactical voting.
Many voters who WANT to vote for the green party, for instance, end up voting for the Democrats because they think that their vote on the Green party would be wasted, since the haven't got a chance of winning anyway. Also, a lot of people vote for the Democrats to keep the Republicans from winning even if they would have preferred to vote Green.
Single transferrable voting (STV) is an alternative system to the first-past-the-post (FPTP) method we have now, since it eliminates the need for tactical voting. In my opinion, if we introduced STV we would see four major parties emerging instead of just two.
The trouble is that introducing STV requires a change in the constitution, and the big two parties are not prepared to do that as they know it's not in their interest.
2007-02-07 01:08:29 · answer #2 · answered by bergab_hase 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I feel that this is because of the political naivety of the American Public.
Socialism is an anathema to them because of its links to Communism, ( Generally a, corrupted, form of Anarcho-Syndicalism that is practised in other politically naive countries.), to ask the American public to distinguish between and vote for Christian Socialists and Democratic Socialists, the only forms that would be acceptable to most Americans, would invite serious dissent from the religious far right, the Neo-Conservatives.
Nationalist parties still have the ring of European Fascism about them, racist, homophobic, seriously right-wing, and anti-semitic, (I use this in it's purest sense because that would include hatred of both Jews and Muslims), it is a political creed that would appeal to the violent thugs, like the KKK and Nazis, that inhabit the murky fringes of politics.
Now may be the time for the rise of, "Green" parties in the US. As more Americans become aware of the damage their country is inflicting upon the world, in common with most developed and developing countries, they may wish to have a say in the future prospects of their descendants.
Beware the Politician, whatever the party, they are socially conniving for personal gain. There is a basis for great things in US Democracy, it is up to the people to keep their politicians under surveillance to make sure this greatness is achieved.
2007-02-07 01:24:09 · answer #3 · answered by djoldgeezer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We do have more than 2 parties....However the Democrat & Republician are the pouplar. The others do nothing but splint the vote of these 2 parties. if you vote for any of the other parties you are basically just throwing you vote away because the majority are dems and reps. So if you wnat you vote to count vote for either of the 2 pouplar.
2007-02-07 01:00:36 · answer #4 · answered by mrs_endless 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The reason you can't have more than two parties is because your voting system is flawed. If you used the "single transferable vote", you would have far more parties and more democratic representation.
2007-02-07 01:02:46 · answer #5 · answered by Gnomon 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are more; just search on the net and you will find many; they aren't very well publicized because the mainstream 2 have more money to keep themselves in the spotlight.
2007-02-07 00:59:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we had three parties there would always be pressure for one to merge with another to form a voting block.
2007-02-07 00:57:51 · answer #7 · answered by Count Acumen 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
no forbidden, just not popular or powerful enough to exist
Libertarian party, Green party.....
2007-02-07 00:55:39 · answer #8 · answered by pilotB 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋