Is a two party system really the best ides?

[AConcernedCitizen]

We are one of the last first world countries to still support a two party system. In George Washington's farewell speech he warned against two things; forming permanent alliances, and having only a two party system. He said it would lead to our downfall, and if we look at history, it almost did in the civil war. Even now it continues to divide people who might otherwise be friends. Is it really a good idea to keep this up? how come no one tries to change it?

 

[David]

We are one of the last first world countries to still support a two party system. In George Washington's farewell speech he warned against two things; forming permanent alliances, and having only a two party system. He said it would lead to our downfall, and if we look at history, it almost did in the civil war. Even now it continues to divide people who might otherwise be friends. Is it really a good idea to keep this up? how come no one tries to change it?

When did he warn against 2 parties? I'm pretty sure he was straight up anti-party.

 

[myp]

I don't know Washington's individual stance, but as David alludes to there was strong anti-political faction advocacy back then.

That aside, the issue of voting on a bill or amendment to a bill is a yes or no vote at the base of it. That means even with many parties or no parties, people have to cut deals to get things done and eventually vote yes or no on the bills. We see this a lot in other countries that have 3+ sizable parties. A point to consider.

 

[reader]

I guess, we have currently thirty-one party, all them able to participate in elections. But, main faces and policies are not changing. Ruling party's some ministers, were at the same position in the last two goverment and PM was a mayor of another party. But they still criticize past.

When the parties gone bankpurt or sealed by the Supreme Court, their member are forming another party. İt's too easy in here.

So that we have a big graveyard of liberal parties. Also many extremist communist party here increase the number.


But I can't say that it provides the diversity and polyphony as we expected.

 

[Neodoxy]

A multi-party system need not yield positive results (Ironic that Reader posts here because Turkey is actually a great example of the lackluster results a multi-party system might yield) although it's slightly more likely to because more competition abounds, although this too creates a will on behalf of politicians to restrict the opportunities of rising parties through legislation.
Anyway, the fact is that we don't have a two party system, there are dozens of parties out there, but no one cares and they only vote for the big ones. It is because of the voters that this has happened, whether or not it is a good idea. Overall I'd have to say that it's probably a bad one, however, as it greatly restricts people's voices and choices as opposed to a many-party system.

 

[David]

A multi-party system need not yield positive results (Ironic that Reader posts here because Turkey is actually a great example of the lackluster results a multi-party system might yield) although it's slightly more likely to because more competition abounds, although this too creates a will on behalf of politicians to restrict the opportunities of rising parties through legislation.
Anyway, the fact is that we don't have a two party system, there are dozens of parties out there, but no one cares and they only vote for the big ones. It is because of the voters that this has happened, whether or not it is a good idea. Overall I'd have to say that it's probably a bad one, however, as it greatly restricts people's voices and choices as opposed to a many-party system.

That may be a good thing, the last time a 3rd party made it big the whole country descended into anarchy and civil war.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

That may be a good thing, the last time a 3rd party made it big the whole country descended into anarchy and civil war.

That's not necessarily true. Theodore Roosevelt ran as a bull moose party and ha had considerable support.

Also, Neodoxy, while it is true that we have other political parties, we are still considered to be a two party system because only two parties have enough finances and power to gain popularity. And it may have been the voters fault to this originally now the two main parties have amassed such power an wealth from corporate big wigs that there isn't much we can do about it now.

 

[Road Warrior]

Anyway, the fact is that we don't have a two party system, there are dozens of parties out there, but no one cares and they only vote for the big ones. It is because of the voters that this has happened, whether or not it is a good idea. Overall I'd have to say that it's probably a bad one, however, as it greatly restricts people's voices and choices as opposed to a many-party system.

Agreed about voter's choice. If enough people chose to do so, we could have a viable third, fourth or fifth party. Another reason we do not is the structure of our Constitution, electoral college and "all or nothing" style of voting procedures.

Look at the voting procedures of those countries with multiple parties. Second round voting, ranked voting and such would produce different outcomes in elections. Imagine how the 2000 US Presidential election would have turned out if voters were able to rank their choice of Nader, then Gore. All who did so would have seen their votes for Nader go to Gore when Nader lost.

For a third party to have any chance in the US, we'd have to change both our voting system and the Constitution.

 

[jimzboy]

262- 644-9275