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

I am not being sarcastic, I am genuinely trying to learn about politics. I feel like it is my generation that is suffering from the politics of today (I'm 20-talking about foreign policy) and I want to make sure I am not "part of the voting apathy problem." But it's easier said than done because I don't understand things that seem like they should be easy answers.
I don't understand why "smaller" parties like the Libertarian party and the Green Party don't get fair representation in presidential races. I also don't understand why each party is only able to present one Presidential Candidate. And I also don't understand why if we only have two parties that the general population chooses from, why are they so alike lately?
And I would like to point out that I have researched Europe and they have several political parties across the spectrum that all get fair representation in the European government. If we are based off them why don't we?

2007-06-06 09:29:30 · 12 answers · asked by <Sweet-Innocence> 4 in Politics & Government Elections

12 answers

Because the election laws that have been set up do not help third parties. Having runoffs between the top two in local elections is a help to the established parties.

The little parties need money and publicity. Perot had that in 1992 but failed to endorse or include people running for Congress, therefore the reform he had would have failed due to lack of support in Congress.

Another reason the third parties do not get fair representation is that we in the US tend to vote for candiates. In some countries you vote party and they choose the candiates in off. So if the Green Party wins 13%of the vote, they get 13% representation and the party chooses who those members are.

Essentially our laws were set up to protect the status quo. The Progressive party is the only one that lasted for a bit but they won too few elections to impact Congress.

I actually think the internet would be a great place for a third party to rise. But it must be based on ideas and too many complainers now do not have solutions except throw the bums out. There has to be a plan after the bums are out.

2007-06-06 09:37:41 · answer #1 · answered by Tom Sh*t 3 · 10 1

It's simple - we have a winner-take-all system. In every election, you either win or lose. You can't share part of an office. So to win, you have to get as many people behind you to get 51 percent of the vote or more. If you get 51% you win 100% of the power. If you win 49% or less, you get nothing. You have to get 51% of people to agree with you.

Now, if you're a new third party, you'll never have a chance to win anything that way because the first two parties are almost certain to get to 51% first, and the second one will take the other votes that you might have used to get to 51%. You either have to join one of the two parties that do have a chance, or replace one that fails. That's the way every party in America has succeeded - by either being absorbed by a major party or replacing one when it falls apart.

2007-06-06 09:48:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Because it is easier for the two parties to get together and play the American populace so they can acquire power together rather than having and sharing with a third party or more.

It is nothing more than a game, which the American populace bite hook, line, and sinker. The folly of voting for a politician of specific party is that the politician will have to scratch their back after getting into office. I imagine exploitation of the American populace is illegal only if the American populace recognizes it is being exploited.

2007-06-06 09:46:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

We have 2 parties because the Government doesn't exercise its control over the election process and allow the parties to do so, therefore the Republicans and Dems control the process and don't allow Libertarians and Constitutionalists and other parties to join the debate, write your congress person and change this travisty

2007-06-06 09:43:20 · answer #4 · answered by Greg 7 · 0 0

Both the Republican and Democratic parties are controlled by the same super rich power base. They simply smother any other party that tries to have a voice. If there were another party that was able to be sucessful then that would mean that the super rich power base would be losing political control over this country and that will never happen they are to way to rich and way to powerful.

2007-06-06 09:36:42 · answer #5 · answered by Itiyah Yisrael 2 · 1 1

America has more that 2 parties, but the others are irrelevant right now because they pose unpopular or extremist views.

See Liberterian, Green, Constitution & Communist for example

2007-06-06 09:34:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Lobbiests and the money big business contributes to inept, power hungry politicians. Slicing up the pie more than two ways would confuse them.

2007-06-06 09:35:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

because the socialists have a bad rep from the U.S.S.R and liberals are consisdered to extreme

2007-06-06 10:33:22 · answer #8 · answered by Fantasy football Champ 2 · 0 0

i believe that the reason America only has two political parties is because when America's political system was first introduced there was only two types of parties. So when something new was introduced people didn't like to stray too far from the norm and if more people weren't afraid of change maybe we would have more than one political party

2007-06-06 09:38:38 · answer #9 · answered by Brian Byrd 3 · 0 6

Maybe because no one has invented a three-sided coin for voters to use in making up their minds.

2007-06-06 09:32:38 · answer #10 · answered by open4one 7 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers