Why don't we restore democracy in the US. Even a stoplight has 3 choices.All parties are banned except DEM&REP

Question

Why does a country of 300 million people agree to have only two parties in major elections? What kind of a democracy is that? No American candidates can participate in debates unless they sign up with the two parties. We need to change this. We are suppose to be the example of democracy in action, lol.

Answer 1

You only have two choices at a stoplight: Obey the law or disobey the law.

Besides which 'third party' is not a bunch of nutcases?

Answer 2

The reason we have a two-party system is because of the way the electoral college is set up. You have to get a majority of the electoral college to win the presidential election. If you have many "third parties," then it'd be harder for one candidate to capture this majority.

Therefore, the solution should be obvious. If you want political parties other than the Democrats or Republicans to stand a chance in any major election, especially the presidency, then the electoral college must be reformed or eliminated.

As for why the two-party system dominates in other federal, state and local elections, well, the whole dynamic filters down to the lower levels. The Democrats and Republicans are major fundraising machines. Because they're in the club, they have all the advantages of the club.

Although third parties aren't actually banned from participating, very few third parties actually have any success. Sometimes you can get a Libertarian to serve on the water board or something like that, but it's uncommon to see a third-party candidate serving in Congress.

Answer 3

I am all for allowing 3rd (and 4th, 5th, etc.) parties into the debates. I see no reason to silence other ideas from the mix. There are severe problems with our system in the modern age if you ask me. I would also like to see term limits. The founding fathers never intended for these people to make a career out of politics. They were supposed to serve and then go home! Both parties are corrupted by the power and will not give it up even at the expense of what is good for our nation. A sad, sad thing...

Answer 4

The media can answer this very well. The Dem and Rep have been fighting for years and there is no press on any other party that may be a benefit to our country. Smear, smear, smear is all that we hear about any candidate. For me it is the best and most able person with who I feel can take our country to where it can be, but no Rep's vote Rep and Dem's vote Dem. Labeling ourselves enables us to be true Americans! It is the best person - NOT the party! Actions speak louder than words and all I hear are empty words. Lets have our leaders words mean something for and from the people - forget the riches and politics!

Answer 5

Over the years, the US has had, from time to time, 3 or more relatively equal parties. This didn't work out very well. Our form of government seems to work best with 2 and only 2 strong parties. If one gets too far out of hand, the public gives the other a chance. For example, Democrats were in power for about 40 years, until the public voted the Republicans a chance in 1994.

Answer 6

Part of the reason democracy has lasted so long in the US has been from the two-party system. A multi-party system in large country like the US would probably be divided along regional lines and wouldn't help national unity. There's a lot wrong with the two parties, but I look at the minor parties every election and they don't seem to have any wisdom the others lack and are usally single issue-based. I attended the 3rd parties presidential debate in Richmond in '92 and it was pretty scary to think of anybody there in charge of a nuclear arsenal.

Answer 7

It's actually a fairly easy question that deals entirely with the way elections are held. The United States utilizes a "first past the post" voting system, where the candidate to gain the greatest percentage of votes wins 100% of the position. For example, if a race for the Virginia Senate ends with the Democratic Party candidate receiving 40% of the vote, the Republican Candidate receiving 35%, and the Independent Party receiving 25%, the Democratic Party would still win the seat. Magnify this winner-takes-all system onto a macro scale, and you can see how a strong third party (and especially more than three parties) cannot possible exist: if that same race took place in every state, the Democrats would receive 100% of the seats in the Senate, even though technically only 40% of the population had voted for them, and 60% of the population had voted for someone else.

The main benefit of having a first past the post, no-third party system is that the two main parties have to gain as many votes as possible in order to win the plurality, and thus are forced to moderate their ideologies. This in turn creates a more stable system of government, due to the fact that it is in neither party's interest to substantially alter the status quo. Take, for example, the difference between the US and Great Britain: Great Britain's Parliament is chosen via a system of proportial representation -- a 40/35/25% split in the vote would yield those proportions of seats to their respective parties. However, Britain's parties can afford to be more radical with their ideologies, because so long as they are somewhat supported by the people, they will continue to earn seats in the government. Thus, if a party who favors, say, banning the Irish from voting in Parliamenty elections gains a large enough number of votes, they then have a large enough amount of resources to actively discriminate against an entire segment of the population.

However, in exchange for stability, the American people are forced to choose between parties with essentially the same core ideals of government, whose differences lie more in their application of common principles than the re-defining of fundamental law. Thus, a large portion of the voice of people goes unheard and underrepresented.

There is no doubt that we are not a perfect Democratic Republic; the very notion of government precludes the abandonment of certain rights and privileges in exchange for the protection that the rule of law can provide. Without government, the strong would control the weak, and there would be nothing to prevent the will of one to utterly dominate another. However, it the strong's fear that they will one day become weak that makes them consent to a government that takes away their superior level of power, as James Madison said in The Federalist Papers. In having a system that perpetuates a two-party system, we trade true representation for the preservation of the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution. The way I see it, in a world where one person's blog can reach millions of readers, and the government is required to stand by that person's right of free speech, I am willing to trade a bit of representation for a lot of political freedom.

Answer 8

As most of the other post have mentioned, we do not have a democracy, nor do I think that you want one. In a democracy we wouldn't have "special interest" groups or "pork" projects, or minority rights, because the majority would never have allowed them. Imagine a world without national parks or forest land, a country full of monopolies, no unions (not that I am totally in favor of unions in todays world), and very little change. People in general don't like change and the majority will amost always vote the status quo. I think we have more than enough democracy in this country.

Answer 9

Bring me a party that reflected my viewpoint as a capitalist (little r) republican, who knows that what we currently have resembles nothing of which our Constitution speaks, and I'm there!!

I firmly believe that the 2 parties are merely wings of 1 super government party that has, with the aid of a leftist leaning press, deftly manipulated the fulcrum exactly where they want it, socialist democracy.

Sorry, but if the Constitution says we are a Republic then why are we now a socialist democracy operating under a hodgepodge capitalist/collective economy?

If our Founders wanted the United States of America to have direct democracy, they would have said so in the Constitution, wouldn't they?

Believe me, I would much rather sit at home on Election Day fully confident the government would do its Constitutional duty to keep the factions at bay and protect the smallest minority that ever existed -- the individual!

I don't believe the Constitution gives absolute power to any majority via elections for in a capitalist republic government can't take sides, except in defense of the individual. It does what the Constitution demands and makes no demands of the Constitution.

We don't need to restore democracy in America, as we have far more than our share already, thank you very much, but no thanks!

We need to restore the Republic, and no election will do that most likely!

The socialist democracy we have now will inevitably collapse unless we miraculously find courageous leaders. I don’t see any George Washingtons on the horizon.

Failing that, we will just pick up the pieces and start over, as a copy of the Constitution will survive somewhere, somehow. Hopefully, we will learn something from the experience, but not as long as history is taught in government schools.

In the mean time, I will just have to continue, at least in my eyes, to vote for the least of two evils. Man, that is just sick!







"A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul" George Bernard Shaw

****************************************************************

"It is often easier for our children to obtain a gun than it is to find a good school." Joycelyn Elders


"Maybe that's because guns are sold at a profit, while schools are provided by the government." David Boaz

*******************************************************************


"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

"We won't dispassionately investigate or rationally debate which drugs do what damage and whether or how much of that damage is the result of criminalization. We'd rather work ourselves into a screaming fit of puritanism and then go home and take a pill."

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

P.J. O'Rourke

*********************************************************************

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."

Fredric Bastiat, early French economist

*********************************************************************

"The legacy of Democrats and Republicans approaches: Libertarianism by bankruptcy."

Nick Nuessle, 1992

*********************************************************************

"Truth and news are not the same thing."

Katharine Graham, owner of The Washington Post

*******************************************************************

"Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence"

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark - Mapp vs. Ohio

*********************************************************************

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

Thomas Jefferson

**********************************************************************

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."

Alexander Fraser Tyler, "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"

Answer 10

im sorry to burst your bubble my friend, the US democracy is considered by most political scientists the most languid of all the democracies of the world. it seems the people have little or no say in their own governance, the presidential structure along with the two party system is truly considered a deadly combination in terms of divesting the citizenry of power. the media has been doped (not gagged but doped) by powerful propaganda and vivid imagery. and the education system is amongst the most co-opted (ok not university education but schooling is). hence its no miracle that the tro party system has not been purged over the years. its true that the two party system has a lot of merits to recommend itself by. it ensures stability of governance for one. (i can't think of any other merits :D)