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

Would having more than just the Democratic and Republican parties address major issues better? Also would it cause you to vote if you don't vote already?

2007-11-18 09:57:54 · 13 answers · asked by atlcutie20493 1 in Politics & Government Elections

Most Americans only know about the republican and democratic parties, would putting more than just the independent party on the ballot help increase the ways major issues are solved?

2007-11-18 10:06:47 · update #1

no stars????????????

2007-11-18 10:50:17 · update #2

There are a lot of different opinions on major issues. With more political parties do you think those opinions could be better addressed?

2007-11-18 12:05:21 · update #3

13 answers

I'm assuming you mean the US.
We have what is called a winner-takes-all system. Because for each particular contest we only have one winner, it is pretty cost prohibitive to have more than two large parties.

2007-11-18 10:02:39 · answer #1 · answered by Mark P 5 · 2 1

There are NO limits to how many political parties are permited in this country. In fact there are currently atleast five: Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian and Independant. The two most prevenlent and strongest are the Democratic and Republican because they have been around longer and have a larger group committed to them, giving them more money. There were also Tories and Whigs in our early history. If the American voter took issues strongly to heart the smaller and less effective parties would become stronger and their voices would be heard more clearly.

2007-11-18 10:05:21 · answer #2 · answered by Bobbi D 2 · 0 1

possibly... and, in fact, there are far more than the 2 main parties... including the Socialist Party, Communist Party, Libertarian Party, the Prohibition Party and more.... none of them, however, (with the possible exception of the Libertarian Party) have much influence. Ross Perot was a member of a "3rd" Party that actually got 19% of the vote. Ron Paul is actually a Libertarian that won his house seat as a Republican and is running as a Republican in the Presidential Primaries.

2007-11-18 10:10:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

In a country that has hundreds of choices for everything from automobiles to xylophones, it's a shame - and a sham - that we only have two primary choices for Presidential candidates and Congressional candidates. But the "Republicrats" want to keep it that way. They have monopolized our two-party political system to such a point that it is corrupt, inefficient and an outright deception.
Voters don't 'choose' their candidates; the two political parties do, with the help of power brokers like the Bilderberg Conference.
"Republicrats" don't want large voter turn-outs; it might upset their cushy little political apple cart (look how Perot scared the beJesus out of 'career politicians' in 1992!).
If voters had more - and better - choices, more voters would actually go to the polls. But the "Republicrats" dominate the political high ground, and they are not about to relinquish control. -RKO- 11/18/07

2007-11-18 10:09:22 · answer #4 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 0 1

Both the Republicans and the Democrats are run by the same global elite Zionists. The Rothschilds rule both parties. It is safer to vote for someone like Ron Paul that is not in Israel's front pocket the way that Democrat and Repubican candidates are.

2007-11-18 10:04:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

America's two-party system might not seem very fair, but if five different political parties had a significant number of representatives in Congress even less would be accomplished than now because compromises would have to be agreeable to five different parties not only two.
In theory a multi-party system would be more democratic and less corrupt, but more changes would have to be made to the system in order for it to function effectively.

2007-11-18 10:09:39 · answer #6 · answered by steve2theo21 2 · 1 0

We already do, it's just that most people are Democrats or Republicans. There's also the Green Party, Libertarians, IRP(Constitution) Party and more.

2007-11-18 10:00:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Democrats and Republicans can LEGALLY shut other parties out of debates and keep them off ballots. If they werent able to do this you'd see more of us in other parties.

2007-11-18 10:25:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

No, two less are needed. No political parties, then people would actually have to pay attention to what they say, their ideas, their records, instead of relying on the R or D by their name.

2007-11-18 10:04:39 · answer #9 · answered by bacco l 3 · 0 1

I think there should be ZERO political parties - each issue should be taken independently.

2007-11-18 10:03:34 · answer #10 · answered by TBEau 3 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers