How do Americans feel about only having two parties?
I find this such a crazy idea that a country that champions the cause of democracy so much only has two parties. I mean I know that means there is choice but only two seems a little few. And if what I am told from my American friends is true only if the two parties agreed could there be more parties allowed to run. That seems insane to me. How do any Americans here feel about the issue?
Comments60
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
There're more than two parties here, but little attention is given to them. I remember when I took a civics class, a full ballot of all parties that had attempted to run during the 2000 presidential election was shown to us in the text book. I counted five or six parties on it, and could only verify that I knew three of them.
terrified
scared
absolutely horrible.
considering both parties at their core are more or less the same, and both don't mind ignoring freedom and democracy when it suits their intrests.
scared
absolutely horrible.
considering both parties at their core are more or less the same, and both don't mind ignoring freedom and democracy when it suits their intrests.
Absolutely horrendous.
We need:
1. A voting system which makes third parties mathematically viable. Runoff or other proportional voting methods would go a long way.
2. More than one politically viable third party. The Independents are sort of a dumping ground, and the Greens are fielding bleeding heart hippy-type liberals that would be pants dealing with the system, rather than practical savvy-type liberals. And the other third parties aren't even on the map. Leaving just the Libertarians, which are, quite frankly, scarier than the Republicans.
1. A voting system which makes third parties mathematically viable. Runoff or other proportional voting methods would go a long way.
2. More than one politically viable third party. The Independents are sort of a dumping ground, and the Greens are fielding bleeding heart hippy-type liberals that would be pants dealing with the system, rather than practical savvy-type liberals. And the other third parties aren't even on the map. Leaving just the Libertarians, which are, quite frankly, scarier than the Republicans.
"proportional voting methods would go a long way."
this
this
I would love to have proportional voting, especially any type of preferential voting. Then you actually could vote for the candidate you want, because you could also make a hedge bet against the candidate you don't want at the same time, thus eliminating the problem of the spoiler effect.
or the idea of coalitions. Minor parties might never win the presidency, but they could make a showing in congress, and larger parties could ally with them, if they needed a majority.
Which would work great for most day to day issues, but the third parties could put their boot down on issues the majors don't want to touch, especially on major issues that are non-partisan, and both parties support.
For example, the greens, libertarians, and justice parties, could band together and but their feet down against things like the patriot act, SOPA, PIPA, and other things that tend to unite independents in one corner, and the mainstream in another.
At the same time, the greens and libertarians can still quibble over the budget and government spending.
I also think it'd breed more civility. People would need "agree to disagree" with people they know they'd need to be united with on other issues.
I also want a federal amendment for ballot initiatives like many states have now.
I think both are in line with the original goals of the constitution, and progress in line with previous amendments.
Which would work great for most day to day issues, but the third parties could put their boot down on issues the majors don't want to touch, especially on major issues that are non-partisan, and both parties support.
For example, the greens, libertarians, and justice parties, could band together and but their feet down against things like the patriot act, SOPA, PIPA, and other things that tend to unite independents in one corner, and the mainstream in another.
At the same time, the greens and libertarians can still quibble over the budget and government spending.
I also think it'd breed more civility. People would need "agree to disagree" with people they know they'd need to be united with on other issues.
I also want a federal amendment for ballot initiatives like many states have now.
I think both are in line with the original goals of the constitution, and progress in line with previous amendments.
I can't see a coalition happening, honestly. If the Republicans and Democrats can't agree, even when the Democrats are implementing Republican ideas, there's zero reason why any other right vs. left groups would. The right-wing in general is too entrenched at this point.
Mmm. I agree on principle, but honestly ballots are abused enough already either on things so confusing that even if you're sure where you stand it's still hard to tell how to vote, or stuff that has no place being put to a vote to begin with.
Mmm. I agree on principle, but honestly ballots are abused enough already either on things so confusing that even if you're sure where you stand it's still hard to tell how to vote, or stuff that has no place being put to a vote to begin with.
its because the system as we have it now, doesn't lend it self to compromise
with proportional representation, more people would just vote third party when the major two pull the same happy horseshit which reminds us they are all blowhards.
[link]
scales would tip until the dems are the third party and greens are the major party.
with proportional representation, more people would just vote third party when the major two pull the same happy horseshit which reminds us they are all blowhards.
[link]
scales would tip until the dems are the third party and greens are the major party.
Actually, the more realistic result would be that Dems would become the new right, Greens would become the new left, and the Republicans would become the new nobodies.
Though admittedly that would require the Greens actually fielding a realistic candidate. We could end up in a horrible scenario where the Dems are still the left and the Libertarians are the new right.
Though admittedly that would require the Greens actually fielding a realistic candidate. We could end up in a horrible scenario where the Dems are still the left and the Libertarians are the new right.
View all replies
It is hysterical, isn't it? I never really thought about it, but recently I saw it pointed out and was like, "HA! Freedumb!". The oooh so free America, where you get to pick between right and righter, and the independent 3rd party can go fuck itself because the paid-off media won't give it a minute of coverage but will gladly bring you blatant lies for the sake of more mass shootings ("In Israel everyone gets to have a gun so school shootings don't happen, BUY GUNS NOW!") or bullshit wonder weightloss pills commercials, followed by "Try the new McFatass NOW!" followed by "Rub your fat off with this soap!" followed by "The new super-greasy gravy at KFC, instant heart attack, God bless America!".
The oooooooooh so unfree European countries Germany, Belgium, and many others, oh, and Israel, have a shitload of equally exposed parties to pick from. Why do you think there are those huge mudfights in European and Israeli parliaments? Everyone is represented. Makes it complicated, but the whole convenience crap Americans seem so into, isn't always the best way to go. Obama angers the fat and sassy, and Romney would have fucked the less better-off right up their asses.
The oooooooooh so unfree European countries Germany, Belgium, and many others, oh, and Israel, have a shitload of equally exposed parties to pick from. Why do you think there are those huge mudfights in European and Israeli parliaments? Everyone is represented. Makes it complicated, but the whole convenience crap Americans seem so into, isn't always the best way to go. Obama angers the fat and sassy, and Romney would have fucked the less better-off right up their asses.
There was an interview with Ron Paul where he admitted the state funded TV actually gave him better coverage than the private channels. Irony at its best.
We would be so much better off if every political candidate had only a set amount of campaigning funds, supplemented by things like TV stations having to offer a certain amount of ad time to each candidate.
Not only would it make it easier for third parties to get heard (though that's only one issue that needs fixing), but it would make it possible for poor and middle class people to finally get into office and represent those two factions.
Not only would it make it easier for third parties to get heard (though that's only one issue that needs fixing), but it would make it possible for poor and middle class people to finally get into office and represent those two factions.
The UK only really has 2 parties as well champ, Conservative and Labour. Any country with a first past the post system will eventually become a 2 horse race.
actually America has three, there's the Independent party, which doesn't bother with either side. if you want to vote you got a choice, if you don't want to vote then don't. thankfully America is a country which such an option. you can vote one party one term or the next party next term. or not vote at all and votes for the others which interest you.
Actually, the US has dozens of political parties, but only two relevant ones.
I think it's tearing the country apart at the seams.
personally I highly dislike it all: the backstabbing, as well as well as the refusal to collaborate, or at the very least, compromise on issues that need to be dealt with.
it's turning ragewild and both sides tend to immediatelly refute what the other side has to say.
and thats not even going into the 'doomed third party' issue where people don't vote for third parties because they are not established with a long history. our current parties stem from debates over the constitution and have changed names over and over again.
in short we have a two party system because we have always had a two party system.
it's turning ragewild and both sides tend to immediatelly refute what the other side has to say.
and thats not even going into the 'doomed third party' issue where people don't vote for third parties because they are not established with a long history. our current parties stem from debates over the constitution and have changed names over and over again.
in short we have a two party system because we have always had a two party system.
There's pros and cons to it. On the one hand, it generally causes there to be a 'lesser of two evils' feel. On the other hand, it does force politics in general to cater to the center to at least some degree.
Comment Flagged as Spam
Even my girlfriend admitted she voted against someone rather than for.
I told her that you got to vote for who you believe in, not against someone.
I voted third party, and will continue to do so.
I told her that you got to vote for who you believe in, not against someone.
I voted third party, and will continue to do so.
We have more than two parties (Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc.). Problem is, the biggest two monopolize pretty much everything about the election process from the media coverage to the funding, which they have worked to perpetuate as they're the ones who'd have to lose out first before a third party rose on the horizon. And the current political atmosphere is less about function, and more about screwing the other guys.
I think the system did work at one point. But it’s become a battle to usurp the other party’s agenda in lieu of productivity.
It sucks.
For the last few elections we've had to choose betwen Progressive and Progressive Lite.
For the last few elections we've had to choose betwen Progressive and Progressive Lite.