Two party model
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Discription: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12897
Printed Date: 13-May-2024 at 14:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Two party model
Posted By: bg_turk
Subject: Two party model
Date 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? |
Replies:
Posted By: Giannis
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 18:19
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
|
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 18:16
Remember, the US is a republic; not a democracy.
 |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date 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?
 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 18:39
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 |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 18:44
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.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2006 at 09:45
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.)
------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 16:32
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
|
Posted By: Genghis
Date 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 |
Posted By: Raider
Date 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. |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date 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) |
Posted By: Giannis
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date 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) |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date 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? 
------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date 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 |
Posted By: Raider
Date 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. |
Posted By: Decebal
Date 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 
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date 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. ------------- "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) |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 13:46
|
There are actually far more than 2 parties in the US (I belive that it's about 14),
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm - http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm ------------- "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) |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 14:21
|
There are actually other forms of government apart from capitalism and communism.... It does not always have to be at the extremes.
I think the US is closer to an oligarchism, because it is prety much only persons from the rich and powerful privileged few which ever get anywhere in politics. A country were the rulers come from a few families only is an oligarchy, is it not. ------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 14:56
"American Nazi Party", "Communist Party USA"...
------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 16:22
barish, do your politics know what century it is?
 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 22:41
|
I don't think that the two party system is undemocratic at all and it certainly does not encourage undemocratic practices! Americans, unlike many other nations around the world, are emphatically involved in politics. They might not all vote, but they sure as hell voice their opinion. Senate Committee hearings are routinely broadcast and the evening news are full of whats going on. Elections are fiercely battled out (athough its more a battle of the PR firms).
Its true that there is no place for left wing politics in the US. Finally a country that had not yet succumbed to that influence. Americans love stories of political intrigue (ie Watergate, Levinski Affair) hence the constant and relentless media coverage of the personal life of all politicians. Also, a state of the art check and balanve system in place keeps any one party from gaining too much power. If one party makes an unpopular move it will be sure to be picked up by the other. The United States managed to keep a vibrant democracy afloat for over 200 years despite the fact that the doctrine of separation of powers cannot be reconciled with the doctrine of responsible government. As the Levinski Affair, Watergate, Intelligence failure, gay governor of NJ affair, etc showed, the system works! Hence due to popular involvement, the important role the media plays in politics and due to vigorous checks and balances, no third parties are really needed in US federal politics. ------------- |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 03:28
| There used to be a party called the Whigs in the 1800s they put two presidents in power but then imploded over squabling between themselves regarding laws pertaining to slavery. |