Considering that they are usually the MAJORITY in most if not ALL of these countries, mainly US I am talking about, it would make sense that they would be holding alot of the higher parts of the governemtn sheerly because of numbers.

We ARE the majority.  And if we weren't, how could we hold so much power. 

And if you were hoping to have a jewish or athiest president or leader, good luck.

Dont worry, all his posts are really scitzo and make no sense.

Personally the electoral college and the two party system I feel is the least democratic thing a country could have.  How can two near identical parties be any better than one?  Its not.  Washington said this country should hav eno political parties, although I dont think there should be none, i think the more, the merrier.

 I've suffered from depression since I was a teenager and I just would like someone to talk to. I am trying to get on disability right now. I had a hearing and i'm waiting for a response. I have no car and I live in a small town with hardly anything so i'm not able to get to a therapist or doctor. My family doesn't listen to me or understand me and think i'm stupid for trying to get on disability when i should be working. I've tried to work and I just can't. I get very little support and I'm always arguing with my family and most of the time i feel like slitting my wrists and ending this misery! I just would like someone who understands what i'm going through!

I don't like two-party systems myself. However, since the constitution makes no mention of them - and indeed the founding fathers were anti the whole idea of political parties, it's interesting how they actually come to arise.

There are a couple of reasons. The technical one is the 'first-past-the-post' voting system in single-member constitutencies, a system shared by Britain, which has also suffered from two-party rule. Multi-party systems almost invariably use some form of proportional representation for electing parliaments or congresses. You can't easily do that in a presidential election of course, though you could have a re-run system like Louisiana does for senators (and France does for Presidents).

Possibly more important though, and this also applies to Britain, is that the majority of people who vote do so from habit (when they do vote: around half of Americans don't). They vote the same way every time, twisting the issues to justify their choice, rather than making theit choice based upon the issues - or even on the candidate's qualifications.

As a result parties perpetuate, except in very rare circumstances of social upheaval.

The people who actually vote rationally in elections form a small minority. So how can one argue that a system that provides for the majority of voters (saving them having to think) is undemocratic?

It would surely be elitist and oligarchic to have a system that was preferred by the minority that are looking for a rational political system?

The two-party system hasn't been foisted on people. It's their democratic choice.

(And, incidentally, I do think the primary system helps the situation in the US. I'd like to see something more like it used in the UK.)

Itapevi, I see that you are in depression. I was in depression one and a half year ago and I could get rid of it. I don't know if I can help you, but if you want you can send PMs to me. I'll be glad to listen to you... and please take the thought of suicide out of your mind...

As for the topic, I think the Anglo-Saxon type of government is a pseudo-democracy. You have to elect your leaders among two main parties, which dominate the national politics. Especially after the end of the Cold War very few parties could present alternative social and political projects. Neo-liberalism dominates the world. You aren't allowed to question capitalism. So peoples elect their leaders according to their personal characteristics.... Also, most important decisions are taken by the multi-national financial capital owners. So the representative liberal democracy is in crisis. And the government  by the "demos" is an illusion...

Europe is largely the same case. Let's not try to reinforce the Europe-American rivalry. I don't believe in it.

Hispanics and blacks now outnumber white Americans. Maybe you should do your research more effectively. 

Er, ehhmmm. Your off bud. Whitey is still numerically the predominant racial identity in the US.

African Americans are about 10% of the U.S. population; Hispanics about the same, but with a higher birth rate and immigration rate.  The vast majority are of European ancestry, Protestant or Catholic.  W.A.S.P.s predominate in the south, but are vastly different from New England and New York WASPS in both background and outlook.

Catholics predominate in many industrial/urban areas; Protestants in those more rural, but there is enormous interaction and intermarriage among them (including my own family). 

In the Anglo-Saxon type of government there are two or three dominant - traditional parties. Ex: Republicans - Democrats or Conservatives-liberals-workers' party. You cannot imagine that any other parites can be effective in the government. In the continental European style of government more parties, which can be also very marginal, can be effective at some degree. But I think, in terms of democracy, there isn't a much big difference. As  said in my previous post, especially after the cold war, few parties could present an alternative social and political project. The left wing parties accepted neoliberalism without questioning and they only wanted a softened version of it ( You know the "Third Way" syndrom). Again as I said in my previous post, the representative liberal democracy is in crisis, because you elect your governors within certain boundaries but the vital decisions which determine the world's fate are taken by a few global actors (especially the owners of financial capital). That's why I think that today the concept of democracy is very illusive and deceiving... I mean no more the "demos" rules about the vital issues...  

People may not consciensly think about religion, but it is a major factor.   There was a poll that asked, would you vote for a Jewish or Athiest candidate for president.  The vast majority said they would not, and it is completly understandable.  Religion is what bases many of the candidates platforms.

And according to The Economist Hispanics will by 2020 be the majority of Americans.

You have no knowledge, my friend. Ethnics in the USA

white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2% (2003 est.)
note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American descent (including persons of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.)

Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Also, I can't remember the last time anyone gave a crap about the religion of a political candidate in an election of any importance....Maybe Kennedy in 1960, but he won as a Catholic......Certainly no WASP. I heard that in Kennedy's time, people thought that he would take orders from the Pope on what to do .

Americans don't make the best Catholics.  They have never liked being told what to do!  

While that's true in principle, de facto the Anglo-Saxon countries do tend to have two parties that alternate in power, in the US since the 1860s and in the UK since the 1920s (and before that you can go back to the 18th century).

Perhaps it should be put more broadly, saying that countries that inherited their political traditions from Britain tend to have two parties (including Ireland and India for instance). It's not just ex-colonies: two-party Germany and Japan copied the UK in their post-WWII constitutions.

I'm not sure why this should be. I guess it would make a thread on its own.

Fact:

Nice pictues! Could you please tell us their purpose. Is it because you are proud to be a journalist or something?

Of course there are many differences. At least UK is a kingdom! Also presidency, constitution issue (no written constitution in the UK), etc.  You know, it's just a rough classification... US and UK usually have some different ways of doing something. Just an example: the social sciences. For instance, they rely more on statistical data rather than theoretical comments, etc... But you know all these classifications are rough. I don't see much difference between the styles of representative liberal democracy. I explained my reasons before... 

 hmmmmm

Seko !! what did you say?

To be Honest iam one of ITAPEVI's posts biggest fans

Did you mean kotumeyil?

If you meant so, What's the relevance? "PASHA IS sahte AMERIKALI" means "pasha is a fake American" and of course I am not! And why do you write in Turkish? I'm really confused!

Both of them went for systems in which the head of state is distinct from the head of government, and the head of government is responsible to (and elected by, and must be a member of) the lower house of parliament (which has two houses).

It's true that that system had historical antecedents in both countries, so it may be coming it a bit strong to say they 'copied the UK' rather than saying they 'adopted constitutions similar to that of the UK'.  But it is at least arguable that during the second Reich and the Meiji period they were to some extent consciously copying Britain.

But the coalitions have been some grouping of two major parties and two very minor ones, one of which is very recent. That is in fact also true of the UK, in which the Unionists, for instance, have always been minority partners of the Conservatives.

Minor parties get more play with proportional representation, as I pointed out initially.

Which two would they be?

These were the results of the last French presidential election (numbers are percentages of votes in the two rounds):

Doesn't look much like a two-party system to me.

They haven't fluctuated in the UK since the US was formed any more than they have in the US. since 1830-odd a minor party has become a major one just once in the US and once in the UK.

Yes, but the lead is held always by Congress or the BJP.

Huh? Stick to the question and maintain your composure. Show us the behaviors of a professional journalist, with integrity and class.

But even Chirac's party got less than 20% of the vote in the first round. The first THREE parties (including le Pen)  only had 53% of the vote.

It's true that in the second round of presidential elections one andidate is usually rightish, and the other leftish. However, under the Fifth Republic there have been six presidents, every one of them from a different party.

De Gaulle  UNR - Union for a New Republic

Pompidou  UDR - Union for a Rural Democracy

D'Estaing  UDF - Union for French Democracy

Mitterand  Socialist

Chirac       UMP - Union for a Popular Movement

Yes that's what I said.

No it hasn't. The Republican party was founded in July 1854 in Jackson, Michigan.  It eventually replaced the Whig party, which had had four presidents since 1840 (one not serving a full term).

There was even a period when the US was de factor a one-party state. In 1824 all the candidates for president came from the same party, Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans, which provided all the four presidents in a row from 1800-1828.  Andrew Jackson won the 1828 election for the new Democratic party, which isn't far off when the Conservative party was formed in the UK.

Generally speaking the two countries are about the same in their record of fluctuations.

Edited before replied to to add the list of French Presidents.