Would Americans be better served with three strong political parties rather than just two?

Question

England and other countries have three or more contending political parties. I believe it would help to alleviatge voter apathy. Often it seems there is no real choice at all for most Americans.

I don't know how that 'g' wound up in 'alleviate'. Must be slippery fingers.

Answer 1

yes actually, let me explain...in Canada we have three main parties, and it seems like the third one is redundant; however, the third party can and does perform as a balance of power that could lean towards supporting the leading party, or lean away from the leading party and prevent unwise or unpopular government decisions from going ahead. Also, the populace has more to choose from, issues can arise beyond just the republican vs democrat debatable things. Recently a growing idea around the world is a "Green" party, paying more attention to long term sustainability because they pay more attetion to environment in the homeland instead of just stirring up political trouble and wars in other countries. Which one could really have the better prevention of trouble from other countries, and extra care for the homeland?

Answer 2

ABSOLUTELY! Unfortunately, not everyone agrees on this. There has been some resistance from both the Democratic and Republican parties - especially the past 10 to 15 years - to accept some competition. A good example - in the two most recent national TV presidential debates, the strongest 3rd party candidate was prohibited from participating. (Ralph Nader of the green party.) The media and TV networks are also to blame for this of course.
But in a country that prides itself on being a fair and democratic society, we are doing a disservice to ourselves to not seriously consider or listen to other 3rd party candidates. Imagine if we had 4 or even 5 major parties to choose from? It's supposed to be about freedom of speech and the right to choose. I personally find political voting rather boring - because there are only 2 choices in most cases.

Answer 3

No and yes because it would take the 3rd party long to follow the other two into the dark side. Change is needed and would best be if people where called about to serve in congress over the next two years. Random selection of people required to serve. Most of the people on this forum would say hell no..


Congress man makes what 176,000 now. Hell, you could pay to have advisors for each area of the field. Then you could pay a basic pay for congress. Could they turn it down, yes and then another person would be picked. Advisor is just there to help you understand all the mobo jombo of the laws and such. That way you as a person can pick what is best for this country and not some lobbyist down the street.


This idea would take more detail, thou I do not wish to fully expose it now.

Answer 4

Sure, choices are good, but if you think about it, most things end up being between two choices most of the time anyway. Coke vs. Pepsi, Mac vs. PC, etc. I mean, I like Royal Crown Cola and Atari computers, but they're really not going to be up there in the ratings.

Rather than the number of parties that dominate, we really ought to be thinking about whether the election laws are fair to all the parties. At some point in the future, people will get fed up with one or both of the current parties, and free competition would allow us to find a replacement, whether it's the Greens replacing the Democrats or the Libertarians or the Constitution Party replacing the Republicans. What you should really focus on is making sure your state laws treat each and every party equally in voting (hint: they don't!).

Answer 5

Well, you opened the can of worms. We would be better off without any of them really. The best thing that could happen is to create term limits for ALL elected positions, and a cumulative limit for those that job hop. There must be at best modest pay, and no continuing benefits, save for the President and VP. Anyone taking paid time to campaign when they should be making laws will be guilty of treason and grand larceny (stealing taxpayer money). Pork barrel politics would also be a capital crime, this could be solved by the one bill - one law idea, except in the case of budgets, but no specific vendor could be mentioned or a head would be chopped off, literally. There are many other issues that need to be addressed as well. I hate the idea of the government overriding Darwins Law and crop subsidies to already filthy rich corporations and individuals in some cases (a number of pro-sports guys buy farms to further gouge the public, as if corpor welfare wasn't enough). Providing too much taxpayer assistance would also require a death, like building a baseball stadium for a pro team with tax money.
Also, stricter classification of drivers based on skill and intelligence, and color code licenses and plates to match. No red or black plates during rush hour or rain, e.g. Also, a special permit to use, or even have, a cell phone, radio, stereo, video display device, or any other distraction in a car (Even if turned off, and crime just to have it in a moving vehicle.) (We'll make an exception if it is turned off, in a locked case, in the trunk. No trunk? No driving.).

Answer 6

no its just the pragmatics of deciding leadership...perhaps the main reason America is great is because of its 2 party history...the parties have changed, it hasn't always been the republican and democrats but for the more part its been 2 parties....in sports, the championships are decided by the 2 finalists after quaterfinals, semi final etc , at large elections can lead to wierd results. France has problems due to its multi party system
When Minessota had a 3 candidate election, we got Jesse Ventura, yikes what a mistake its not a good thing when the winner gets less than 50 percent of the vote, when you have more than 2 parties you get a leading party by coalition bargaining and that can be a bad thing

Answer 7

I think immediately of Germany, where two major ideological parties (Social Democratic and Christian Democratic) coexist with a third party (the Free Democrats) that usually captures enough of the moderate vote to deny either major party an outright majority.
The result is that the party that seeks to form a government has to court the support of the Free Democrats, which forces a degree of moderation in their policies.
Therefore, when the population votes SDP, they get a government that tends left, but not too far left, thanks to the need of the SDP to keep the Free Dems on board.
Same thing when the voters go right and the CDP wins.
Sorta forces the ideological nut zealots to the margins, yes?
Wouldn't it be nice if a third party like that could emerge in the U.S.?

Answer 8

How can we make a judgment? We don't have two strong parties now! What we have are two groups of hardheads - neither of which will compromise for the betterment of the American people. Maybe we should just vote them all out and put in democrats and republicans, each of whom will give a little to get a little and we'll get something done. As it is, all they do is block each other. Sometimes its like watching "Animal House" instead of our congress in action.
I'd like to see some debates of the issues - with everyone showing the other respect and the right to his/her opinion - even though they disagree. All they are doing now is bashing each other. It's not even high school.

Answer 9

Right now we have no strong political parties. Since the coming of the Bush administration, Republican is no longer considered an American political party by any patriotic American, and the Democrats are wimps. So yes, 3 strong political parties would be great!

Answer 10

Republicans are with reference to the 'can do, will do' mentality, no questions asked. they're neoliberals, who help loose marketplace capitalism; unrestrained by ability of government, rules (different than those designed to guard the loose working of the marketplace and the soundness of the equipment), or the different attention, that's why they bulldoze their way around the area with scant regard for human rights, worldwide treaties, the UN shape, diverse procedures of existence, etc etc. the accumulation of wealth as an lead to itself and regardless of different issues. Democrats are such as the known Labour occasion or the Liberal Democrats; controlled or constrained capitalists who have faith the worst evils of the marketplace could desire to be tempered for the sake of society and humanity. The 'in charge' accumulation of wealth. Republicans (particularly those days) are top wing however they have interior the previous been top-of-the-centre. Democrats are what i might call top-of-the-centre. Left of centre could be socialists who have faith in equality and truthful distribution of wealth. and left wing could be communists. I have not have been given any thought who the libertarians are, yet i'm specific i quickly will.