I believe American government has reached a point where the traditional 2 party system is actually hurting us as a country more than it is helping. So much focus and emphasis is placed upon the implications of a candidates affiliation that the actual point of politics and government becomes lost. The point of government is to serve it's citizens, but how can any one candidate really make that a priority when he (or she) is automatically shackled to the party they are aligned with. I know we have our independent party runners, but they are never a factor and rarely taken seriously. So, can America adapt and evolve past this rut??
2007-03-01 09:24:42 · 13 answers · asked by Chill 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
hopefully. they have wasted so much time and money.
2007-03-01 09:28:38 · answer #1 · answered by Active Denial System™ 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am as our forefathers were against party system , as to many people will vote for the party and not the man, as now even when we have a good man running on a independent ticket not enough people will vote for him because they have this stupid way of thinking that since even tho they feel he is a good man he can't win, therefore they will lose their vote, doe's that mean they only want to vote for the winner? even if he is a no good S.O.B.. I think that is crazy, but, that is why they won't tell who is winning on the east coast until the voting is over on the west coast to keep so many people from voting for the winner or the leading candidate, many country's feel Americans are stupid in the way they do things and sometimes I tend to agree , why is it so important to some people to be P.C. and always want to vote for not the best man but either the party or the winner???if the people would vote for the best man there would be a lot more good men running for office and a better selection for the voters to chose from,or is this planned this way by the Zionist because they control both party's presently???
some say democracy is mob rule as they want people to believe the majority rule is mob rule so they use the word mob to make the idea sound bad . but, what is democracy? I thought it was majority rule , so don't be fooled when some one uses the word mob,
2007-03-01 18:02:21 · answer #2 · answered by james w 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, you actually have it backwards. We used to have many more parties and they have broken down or were drawn into the current 2 party system.
There are other governments in the world with many, many political parties and the problem with that is they never get anything done. Everyone has their own agenda, so they can never agree on anything.
I think the best bet for us is not to change to a third party, (don't get me wrong, it would be nice sometimes to have a strong enough third choice) but to change the parties we have.
For example, Ron Paul from Texas. A former Libertarian candidate for the presidency, he is now a Republican (but in name only). His views run contrast to most of what the current party follows, and I think brings ideas that almost everyone can get behind. Even if you don't agree with the guy on an issue, he usually writes up an article explaining why - and he makes some good points. His party for the most part hates him, but I hope he gets his chance in the primaries - he has formed a presidential exploratory committee.
2007-03-01 20:49:28 · answer #3 · answered by trybalrage 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not in the likely future. Which is truly sad. We could be moving past all these hurdles in the road..(abortion, gay marriage, Iraq)..if we could just manage to get more parties involved in the decision making process of government.
Your absolutely right in your assertion that candidates are being shackled to their political parties. Too many politicians are used and abused by the party system. As an example, John McCain is being persecuted by Libs as being to conservative and by GOP's as to liberal. When does the madness end?
Personally I'll be voting for another party when the election comes in 2008. And I'm doing it because I firmly believe America is in desperate need of realignment in order to get us back to the constitutions idea of what a government is and should be. Even if my own mother ran as a candidate of the 2 party system.
Great ?
2007-03-01 17:38:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Excuse me... but the American sysyem of government is a REPUBLIC... not a democray, regardless of how many political parties operate within it. And elected officials are not "shackled" to the party dogma unless they choose to be. Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are a few recent examples.
Theodore Roosevelt ran as an independent, and believe me, the world took him seriously. But, basically I agree with you. A good start would be to repeal the17th amendment.
2007-03-01 17:41:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it wouldn't be evolution considering the country started out as a multi-party one. It wasn't until after the Civil War that it became impossible for third-parties to win states. That was largely due to the fact that there wasn't a long lasting major-priority issue (no, not Iraq). Most issues are either one-or-the-other things (Iraq: Stay the course or pull out, no one would vote for anything else)
2007-03-01 17:40:55 · answer #6 · answered by kass9191 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
and change it to what? Parliamentary? Where we elect who we want and they select the president?
You don't offer any solutions. Its fine to say the water is poisoned. We all know it is. What do you suggest?
Right now the people elect the representatives. It's a 2 party system. Eventually a 3 or 4 party system would be just as bad.
Do you want a king? Emperor? Our gov is a representation of us.
Everyone is laughing at John Kerry and yet a majority of Americans voted for for him in the primaries. If he was so terrible why did we nominate him?
If you want to change things, we are listening
2007-03-01 17:34:49 · answer #7 · answered by eddie9551 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The major liberal and conservative parties have been in power for so long, that it is unlikely to change. Democracy is mob rule, and with most people leaning to one mob or the other, and with the power-holders actively collaborating to stifle new ideas, third parties have very little hope of ever having a widespread effect on American politics.
2007-03-01 17:29:52 · answer #8 · answered by Zombie 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yeah. It's like being offered either chicken or pork, and nothing else for a menu item. C'mon! Where's my steak? Or tuna? Or even a nice five mushroom fondue! Just like we need more than two choices in eating, we need more than two choices in policy.
And, Eddie. We aren't talking about changing the Legislative or Executive selection process, just opening the door to choices. You know. Like in my analogy above?
2007-03-01 17:35:44 · answer #9 · answered by sjsosullivan 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
stopping small party lobbyists and corporate financed campaigns would be a good start...... I stopped watching NASCAR when i realized the one with the most money wins,,, mostly.....
The same with the political races... it is who owns the media,,who gets their vote...,, and who can afford the biggest campaign... and recently who can have voting machines rigged,,,,,.. it is a joke,,,, it is time for the ruling elite to no longer have power.... bring it back to the people..... gees.... this country is a mess.....
We will be knocked out of apathy when enough of us hurt.... pain will motivate the people.... it is coming,,, too....
the foreclosure rates are an early indicator.....watch them,.,,,
2007-03-01 17:59:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only way Democracy can work is with a 2 Party system.
Unless, you want a General Election, and then a Run-Off Election of the two highest vote getters.
That would give the Democrats twice as many votes with voter fraud.
2007-03-01 17:31:52 · answer #11 · answered by wolf 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋