Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
bg_turk
Sultan
Joined: 28-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2347
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Two party model Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 14:55 |
I have always been facinated by the fact that the two party model of
the USA has remained unchallenged for as long as the USA has existed.
My knwledge of American history is poor, but as far as I know the
Democratic and Republican party have always ruled the USA.
Do you think that a third party will ever be able to climb to the top,
and what is it that is stopping third parties from gaining influence
and subsequently power at the moment? Why do Americans always vote for
Republicans or Democrats?
Also doesn't this model lead to undemocratic practices? We all know for
example that the single party model that existed in the USSR was
hindering democracy. To what extent is the same applicable to the
bipartite system of the USA?
|
|
Giannis
Baron
Joined: 25-May-2006
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 17:29 |
USA never had a leftist past. So, it's very difficult for a communist or a socialist party to take the third place.
Furtermore, US was always the land of oppurtunity (at least until 1980), it's the dream of a capitalist, no need for leftist ideas.
Maybe in future a ''green'' party could climb the top, but I finded rather difficult.
I don't find it un-democratic because there are also and other minor parties. If the people decides to get rid of the democrats or the republicans, then they can vote for another party like the one that Michael Moore favoured a few years ago (I can't remember the name, but I remember they had a black cantitate for president).
|
Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
|
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 18:19 |
Originally posted by bg_turk
I have always been facinated by the fact that the two party model of the USA has remained unchallenged for as long as the USA has existed. My knwledge of American history is poor, but as far as I know the Democratic and Republican party have always ruled the USA.
Do you think that a third party will ever be able to climb to the top, and what is it that is stopping third parties from gaining influence and subsequently power at the moment? Why do Americans always vote for Republicans or Democrats?
Also doesn't this model lead to undemocratic practices? We all know for example that the single party model that existed in the USSR was hindering democracy. To what extent is the same applicable to the bipartite system of the USA?
|
The two parties have huge networks of support, and garner most of the twenty-four hour news cycle's attention; thus, they are able to strangle beginning parties before they really get off the ground.
Though there have been a few examples of viable third parties, as well as different two-party systems (federalists vs. democratic republicans; whigs vs. democrats), I believe that the speed with which information is conveyed today prevents our thorough understanding of that information, and thus makes it harder for a third party to get off the ground.
Undemocratic? Undoubtedly.
-Akolouthos
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 14:08 |
If the libertarians would stop fighting at the national level and focus more and garnering votes within individual states, they may very well become a viable third party.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 18:16 |
Originally posted by Akolouthos
Originally posted by bg_turk
I have always been facinated by the fact that the two party model of the USA has remained unchallenged for as long as the USA has existed. My knwledge of American history is poor, but as far as I know the Democratic and Republican party have always ruled the USA.
Do you think that a third party will ever be able to climb to the top, and what is it that is stopping third parties from gaining influence and subsequently power at the moment? Why do Americans always vote for Republicans or Democrats?
Also doesn't this model lead to undemocratic practices? We all know for example that the single party model that existed in the USSR was hindering democracy. To what extent is the same applicable to the bipartite system of the USA?
|
The two parties have huge networks of support, and garner most of the twenty-four hour news cycle's attention; thus, they are able to strangle beginning parties before they really get off the ground.
Though there have been a few examples of viable third parties, as well as different two-party systems (federalists vs. democratic republicans; whigs vs. democrats), I believe that the speed with which information is conveyed today prevents our thorough understanding of that information, and thus makes it harder for a third party to get off the ground.
Undemocratic? Undoubtedly.
-Akolouthos |
Remember, the US is a republic; not a democracy.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 18:30 |
Akolouthos:
How do we explain the existence of a "two party system" in the US from the 1790s up until now? No mass media in Jefferson's or Lincoln's time.
Does it have anything to do with some peculiar American "thing?" What might have attracted many millions of immigrants to participate in it?
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 18:39 |
How do we explain the existence of a "two party system" in the US from
the 1790s up until now? No mass media in Jefferson's or Lincoln's
time. |
That's true. Also there are many countries where the mass media have a big influence, but that are still multiparty democracies.
I think the electoral system is the number one cause that the US is a two party state
Edited by Mixcoatl - 23-Jun-2006 at 18:40
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 18:44 |
Originally posted by bg_turk
I have always been facinated by the fact that the two party model of the USA has remained unchallenged for as long as the USA has existed. My knwledge of American history is poor, but as far as I know the Democratic and Republican party have always ruled the USA.
Do you think that a third party will ever be able to climb to the top, and what is it that is stopping third parties from gaining influence and subsequently power at the moment? Why do Americans always vote for Republicans or Democrats?
Also doesn't this model lead to undemocratic practices? We all know for example that the single party model that existed in the USSR was hindering democracy. To what extent is the same applicable to the bipartite system of the USA?
|
I had a professor of political science who maintained that "all politics is local," and that there are not two parties in the US, there are 102...the national caucuses and those of each state. Politics in Wisconsin and politics in Mississippi are vastly different. Same for Maine and California, and Pennsylvania and Utah.
This can be an excellent discussion. Have you looked at hugoestr's link to the Federalist Papers in the topic above? There is a lot of foundation there.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jun-2006 at 09:45 |
Originally posted by Mixcoatl
I think the electoral system is the number one cause that the US is a two party state |
Me too. It has had much the same effect in Britain too. The first-past-the-post system encourages people to vote against a party and to do that they pick the biggest opponent. Voting for a third party is seen, by most people, as wasted.
As a side note though you have to consider that Germany, with proportional representation, nevertheless has evolved more or less as a two party system, in that only one of two has a hope of getting a majority.
(An interesting piece of trivia about France is that every President of the Fifth Republic has come from a different party.)
|
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 16:32 |
Originally posted by pikeshot1600
Akolouthos:
How do we explain the existence of a "two party system" in the US from the 1790s up until now? No mass media in Jefferson's or Lincoln's time.
Does it have anything to do with some peculiar American "thing?" What might have attracted many millions of immigrants to participate in it?
|
I would consider that quite different from the two party system we have today, and especially in the context of the polarized atmosphere of the past decade. I believe it would be quite impossible, for example, for a third party candidate to capture the presidency now. I am, however, willing to admit the possibility that I may be wrong.
As for the U.S. being founded as a Republic and not a Democracy, all I can say is thank God! I would, however, prefer it to be more in the mold of how the founders viewed it--although not because they viewed it that way, but because I think it would run more smoothly. Initially, the two (and occasionally three) candidates were not selected by the people.
-Akolouthos
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 20:43 |
The greatest reason is that the United States uses single member winner-take-all districts, which prevents almost all parties but those which have a chance of winning a majority from becoming very large and powerful. If the USA adopted proportional representation, you would probably see the emergence of the Libertarians and Greens as coalitition partners of the Republicans and Democrats respectively.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Raider
General
Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 03:26 |
It depends how many ruptures are in the society. In two party systems there is usually one main. I cannot doubt that if there would be a demand in the US society for a 3rd political force there could be a 3rd party. Two party systems in my opinion are democratic, though I personally like to choose from more possibilities.
|
|
Spartakus
Tsar
terörist
Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 05:32 |
The 2-Party Model is not a democratic Model,it's an oligarchic Model.And usually in a 2-Party Model,the 2 parties are both corrupted.
|
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
|
|
Giannis
Baron
Joined: 25-May-2006
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 06:06 |
Since the people wants to be ruled from the same 2 parties, it's democratic. No one forces american citizens to vote for democrats or rebuplicans.
|
Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
|
|
Spartakus
Tsar
terörist
Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 06:09 |
When i cannot vote the CPUSA for about 40 years for security reasons and i am forced to vote the 2 in power,then that is not democracy.
|
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 07:14 |
Choosing either a capitalist party which is for gay marriage or another capitalist party which is against gay marriage.
Is this what you call democracy?
|
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 08:48 |
Ofcourse.
If the "people" didn't want Capitalism anymore they can form their own party with alternative methods of governance, the problem is they don't attract enough supporters to create any sort of power.
Now wat happens next is actually the worst part, they are allowed to create and try to rally for their party but if they fail they then have the cheak to say, we don't have a democracy, the reason? just because their party can't attract the masses. Sorry but that's a pretty poor reason, it would be better to blame yourself than the system which allows you to create a party.
In a Communist system even thinking to create a Capitalist party would definately be taboo and forbidden.
Communism is over guys, its a decadent oppressive method of rule which decieves people into thinking lifes gonna be all equal and great when really its just a dictator treating the masses like robots. Its funny that people who were actually under Commi regimes don't rant and rave about how great it is and if you ever visited a country under the Soviets it was a sorry sight, you would have left feeling depressed.
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
|
|
Raider
General
Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 09:51 |
Communism/dictature and multi-party system do not exclude each other. There was a multi-party system for example in the former Eastern Germany.
Edited by Raider - 29-Jun-2006 at 09:52
|
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 12:33 |
Regardless of what some people say, the US comes closest to an oligarchic republic, not a democracy. There are actually far more than 2 parties in the US (I belive that it's about 14), but it is only the 2 major parties which have the corporate backing which is needed for fundraising the hundreds of millions of dollars essential to winning an election. Herein lies the problem: the electoral system is about 200 years out of date, and winning 10,20,30, even 40% of the vote in a riding (or a state in the case of the presidential election), means that you get absolutely no benefits from your campaign, even if 40% is quite a substantial show of support from the voters. The party that finished second in a riding or a state, gets no representation. When one considers the very large size of the ridings, and the amount of money needed for the campaign, one realizes that winning a riding is extremely difficult withour corporate funding. Many American voters thus end up voting with one or the other major party, because there's a feeling that their vote would be wasted otherwise. If the system were reformed to allow for some form of proportional representation, then perhaps we'd see the other parties gaining some ground. But I doubt that that's ever going to happen, since an electoral reform would contravene the interests of the 2 parties which would have the power to reform it in the first place.
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
Spartakus
Tsar
terörist
Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 13:41 |
If the "people" didn't want Capitalism anymore they can form their own party with alternative methods of governance, the problem is they don't attract enough supporters to create any sort of power
After seeing the Anti-Communist propaganda of the "Communist Threat" for about 3 decades(in the 1980s things were more quiet) how do you expect people to vote the Party?Italy was brought to the edge of Communism,but the US intervented in order to secure it into the Capitalistic Block.Imagine what would happen in the US.
In a Communist system even thinking to create a Capitalist party would definately be taboo and forbidden.
We are not talking about Communism as a system.What we are talking about is the freedom to choose and vote whatever Party i want without being threatened or controlled for my desicion,which in the end is what proper democracy means.
Edited by Spartakus - 29-Jun-2006 at 13:43
|
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
|
|