If you don't stand for something, then you'll fall for anything. You have to pick a side of the street or else get run over.
2007-08-01 17:44:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Appono Astos 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Its a bogus system. We dont need 10 dominant political parties but at least 3 or 4 would better represesnt the views of americans. There is no choosing one or the other party, most americans are moderate and have trouble choosing between the lesser of 2 evils.
One huge factor is money. Our tax dollars go to support the 2 party system and their campaigns, while 3rd party candidates get no federal money. Having money to afford a campaign also means that we get guys like Edwards worth millions and millions of dollars saying they are the man to bring the poor a higher standard of living (cause he knows what the por need, give me a break). We dont need someone average, but someone who is willing to break out of the system and do whats right, not just protect their party's interests and vote down party lines.
Also, i am from ohio, and would have voted for nader in 2004, but in our great democratic system with free elections, i was denied that opertunity. The dems thought he was a threat to kerry and petitioned that he be removed from the ballot. After being denied my own free choice, there was no way I would even consider voting for someone that stood in the way of democracy. I chose not to vote for president.
2007-08-02 03:17:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by nigel 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The average american citizen couldnt even name the prime minister of GB right now.
The average citizen doesnt have a clue how hard and complicated the job of the presidency is or how much politics are involved. The average citizen probably would have a very very hard time compromising some core beliefs in order to get some other programs or policies passed.
I love the US and I love americans. But until the average citizen gets off their butts and actually vote and pay attention to the world around them, I dont think an average citizen should ever be president.
2007-08-02 00:57:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by cadisneygirl 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
In fact, there are many more political parties in America than just the democratic and republican. See link. The problem is that on most of the important issues that affect our lives, there are really only two positions: for something or against something. This is especially true on the really huge issues such as war, abortion, federal vs. state control, supply side or demand side economics, strict interpretation of the constitution or not, socialism vs. self determination, etc.
Some issues lend themselves to compromise but usually the most important are winner take all. That leaves little room for other positions.
.
2007-08-02 00:55:26
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jacob W 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
By having 2 parties, you force a majority. If you had a 10 party system for instance, you could have someone with 12% of the votes winning an election. That would leave 88% of people voting for someone else.
2007-08-02 00:44:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by - 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
We're not supposed to be a two-party system -- nothing in the Constitution mentions parties, and in fact implies a lack of parties.
But the two current dominant parties have managed to gerrymander and rig the system to lock out anyone else -- it's the only thing they can agree on (keeping ever other party out).
2007-08-02 00:44:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because American politics is corrupt and only those who can attract large amounts of money can be elected.
The so called two party system is in fact one party, the rich man's party.
2007-08-02 01:30:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by brainstorm 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
don't know, Every election we have a dozen or so multimillionaires spending millions of dollars per month, all so they can obtain a job that pays $250,000 a year. And we aren't supposed to think the whole system isn't corrupt.
2007-08-02 00:46:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋