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

Why or why not?

2007-03-25 03:43:08 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

8 answers

Hi Jason,

Honestly, I don't think it's about the number of parties so much as they type of government. The US form of government is based on the separation of powers, because the founders were afraid of too much power in the hands of too few people. In my opinion, a parliamentary form of government would produce the kind of accountability for policy that is currently lacking in American politics.

But if you need an answer to your original question -- yes, I do favor a two party system -- but not the system as it currently exists.

There was a time when the political parties were truly representative of the people; but those days are over. For the last fifty years, the Democrats and Republicans have written the laws in such a way so that their parties are the only parties that have a chance to capture offices (Campaign finance law, Presidential debates, etc).

This means that it is difficult for anyone not content with the status quo to make an impact. The Democrats and Republicans have stacked the deck in their own favor. Thus, both parties have now become very arrogant in their disregard of the people's interests.

What America needs are two parties because that creates the greatest prospect for political stability. But what America really needs are two political parties than can be successfully challenged by outsiders with the possibility of replace one or both of them as governing parties. Then, and ONLY then, will the parties not take the voters for granted. And America doesn't have that now.

Cheers, mate.

2007-03-25 23:24:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes I do. Because what has happened in the past few elections (notably, Bush's first term), was that the third party drew votes away from a similiar platform that the democrats hold. The third party is going to fall close to the views of one of the major parties, dividing the voters that believe in those platforms. I believe we would haved a democratic president if there hadn't been a third party to draw votes away from the Democratic party.

2007-03-25 03:55:18 · answer #2 · answered by kel_230 2 · 0 0

I think that 2 should be the minimum number of parties. I would like to see 3 but we are too comfortable with our current system.

This is a good way to have checks and balances on power.

2007-03-25 03:48:20 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 0 0

no.

nowhere is it written that there should only be two parties in the usa.

the only reason that there are only two parties is that the democratic and republican parties have managed to get control of election rules and are so corrupt that they have rigged the rules to sideline any other parties.

as long as this stays this way, a 3rd party has exactly zero chance to make any real progress.

2007-03-25 03:48:37 · answer #4 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 1 0

No, I do not favour the two-party system, I think more political parties should be involved in the political process.

2007-03-25 14:30:49 · answer #5 · answered by WMD 7 · 1 0

I'd like to see a third party like we once had.
The two party system limits our choices.

2007-03-25 03:50:58 · answer #6 · answered by kyle.keyes 6 · 1 0

you may screw up issues for somebody else. maximum votes for green celebration candidate Ralph Nader in 2000 maximum possibly might have long previous to Al Gore giving him Florida and the election.

2016-10-20 10:11:09 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

We need more choices, Libertarian party needs more attention.

2007-03-25 04:08:10 · answer #8 · answered by Pandora 5 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers