Is a two party system where the parties are not to different truly a democracy?

Question

The UK and US essentially run a two party system (OK the UK has the Liberal and Green Party but they don't represent a significant share of the vote) - in essence these epublicans and Democrats/Labour and Conservatives both represent big business but merely have a slightly different approach to taxation and public spending. Clinton for example enacted several Bills towards the end of his term not because he felt that they were right but because he wanted the incoming Republican President to look bad by striking these Bills. Essentially it seems that Britain and the US give the illusion of democracy when really they are closer to dictatorships. Sure you may change the face of the dictator but essentially the principles remain.

I moved from Ireland to Germany and here there are around 5 or six different parties represented in government. Every government is essentially a coalition and to make these coalitions succeed there has to compromise.

Answer 1

excellent question, i have been asking the same question for a very long time. Democrcy is an evil word made up by colonials,it realy means oppress the poor and serve the rich.If you look at most countires in the world, they have a choice of over five main parties to choose from, unlike the u.s they have democrats and republicans, both as evil and oppresive as each other.In simple words, a two party country is not a democrcy, but a front for oppresion both to it's own ppl and and ppl of the world.

Answer 2

Yes it is a form of democracy, the majority decides,
but not the best form. If I had my way, we would be using four votes each at every election: party A OR B; B OR C; A OR C; BEST OTHER. And at the next election, the best other winner replaces the worst performing of the three as a main candidate.

You have not looked at local nor national election outcomes if you believe the Lib Dems do not get a significant share of the votes in the UK at presnt (only in a tiny minority of constituencies do they still get under 20% of the vote)!

And I welcome the convergence, I see it as a realisation process from all parties that only certain principles, proposals and ideas are politically, economically, and internationally viable - the main parties have to be similar when in government, as they cannot afford to ignore the basic lessons of history - and too drastic change when a new party comes in leads to decades of progress being esponged away.

I only wish it was easier to spot the differences in their track records and in their proposals, come election time, without having to rely on the BBC or take Rupert Murdock's word for it (and that my above proposal gains lots of support).

Answer 3

Its been said the only difference between the parties is which special interests they cater to. And there is alot of truth to it.

As in the UK, there are third parties in the USA also. Green, Libertarian, among others.

One of the problems I have seen is people focus on the National Election. They ignore their local and state elections to a large degree.

The only way some of these third party people can get into office is to join one of the major parties, of course that is going to compromise their position at some point.
OR
People can vote third party candidates in for mayors, and governors and state government and national reps...
eventually if they do their job, some will move up to the Reps, Senators etc..

Whether its the USA or UK, whether its a big city or a small town, the more localized the government is the greater influence they have on your day to day lives.
Why people brush over these people and only worry about presidents and congress or PM and parliament etc.. I just have never quite understood why people dont get that.

Answer 4

First of all, we aren't a Democracy! We are a Representative Republic! When you find a Democracy let me know!

We are as close to a fascist dictator than I want to be! And you are right, a few control the money and everyone in in the US! I guess we can only hope that one day there won't be so many greedy, narcissistic, money hoarders, who steal everyone else's money then blames them for being poor!

We don't have to have a 2 party system, but the way it is set up, as far as money and access to the media, I don't see to many like Ross Perot that is rich enough to finance a presidential campaign, or even get on all the state's ballots.

Answer 5

You have already answered the question. This is the problem of today's democracy. Only persons can change the situation, fresh politicians who will be able to change at least the relation of the big parties with the economic interests of each country and make parties indipendent. I hope you do not believe that Bush or Clinton take choices independently.

Answer 6

THey had done what the most of the eople want with the olimpics, the congestion charge, the invasion and ocupation, with the new taxes or with the green taxes...with the new cheme they are working for taxes for the rubish or the new hips they want to install in our cars...???.

As we just keep eating tv and listening and listening to those misinformations and not stand up for our rights ANY PARTY will abuse us, we are the ones to blame...

Answer 7

In America we oversimplify things at times to their basic elements. This does not serve democracy well so we have ended up with a Plutocratic Corporatocracy.

Answer 8

There's never been a true democracy in any country its been twisted around by unscrupulous politicians to satisfy there own ends, all about greed.

Answer 9

As far as the very wealthy corporate ceo's are concerned, its a democracy. When it comes to us normal folks, dictatorship.

Answer 10

two party system anywhere is a illusion of democracy and are funded by the same people .