The two party system in America is creating huge divides and people no longer care about anything but what party they are. Why is there so much acceptance of what you don't like just so the other guy loses? I mean it seems ridiculous when republicans in congress admit they are only trying to make Obama lose the election. Why doom a country just to make sure your guy wins even though his policies are the type that caused the problem? Why can't new parties rise up to replace these? America's constitution, in my opinion, is set up so that multiple parties can thrive in our country. Not like a parliament where you have to cut deals to make a government. Many different minds can discuss and find a solution that may not satisfy everyone or even anyone but does solve the problem. In the U.S. system anyone having a majority is probably a bad thing. I don't know. http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...03x403/206122_318085678275959_369599945_n.jpg http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/556142_315480038541465_2033693075_n.jpg Everyone should join my political party. I must complete my council first though. Any ideas how to make a new party work by the way?
The structure of the electoral system (Presidential system with first-past-the-post elections) strongly incentivizes a two-party structure. Once established, the two parties then have a huge incentive to marginalize any other parties. Which is to say that, no, America's Constitution is set up to prevent multiple parties from thriving, and to enshrine a duopoly instead.
curses. well why have these parties not fallen out of favor to be replaced by another? Also I can make the constitution mean what ever I want.
(Insert Title Here) The parties periodically rotate conservative and liberal labels. The Dems have been the more liberal party for the last forty-some years; 1968 stands out as a remarkable year in the last major transformation. In this sense, there is no point to dissolving and rebuilding a party. Even the new third-party organizations trying to insert themselves into the present cycle depend on seasoned beltway players for their credibility. Meanwhile, your point about the Constitution is a widely-told myth. The idea is that if the cumulative effect of various rights imply certain outcomes, those results are mere inventions. Because of this, some suggest the Constitution can be delegitimized however one wants. Watch for arguments like, "There is no right to abortion in the Constitution", or, "There is no constitutional right to be gay". These are the rejections of implicit constitutional purview that feed the myth. Where Roe or Lawrence assert an if/then consideration ("If A and B then C"), the myth of making the Constitution say whatever one wants arises from a rejection of those outcomes that specifically refuses formulaic implication. In many relevant American political issues, the rejection of such outcomes stems from an arguable loss of privilege perceived as the confiscation of a right.
Well, we have dispensed with both the Federalists and the Whigs over the years... you do know that the Republican party didn't come into existence until a bit before the time of the Civil War, right? Not unless you're on the Supreme Court you can't.
But they do care, and that's one reason why third-parties have a hard time. The other is that the two parties set the rules, and the rules are structured to make it hard on competing, growing parties. Many nations have rules that allow for "coalition governments" composed of multiple parties, and the main reason we don't is that winner take all style benefited the parties making the rules over the years. As for why we're divided, you should read: http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307377903
We have a 2 party system but its all one government.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes I do and for a country with such a short history and dozens of cultural shifts within that time it seems to me to be a very long time. I of course do know that the political parties have also changed dramatically to accommodate these shifts so as to not be replaced. Not unless you're on the Supreme Court you can't.[/QUOTE] I don't much care for the supreme court and honestly I don't think the constitution really says much at all except how the government is meant to have more power than the previous government and how elections and money is dealt with. Of course the amendments actually speak of the important thing and that seems to suggest that the constitution is also meant to change and grow with the rest of the country and world. What was I saying? Oh I can't recall so carry on.
you can have multiple political parties, but it wont do you any good. britain, canada, and many european countries have multiple parties, it does not make them any more democratic, or better. most democracies are bought and paid for by multinational corporations. if they dont like a candidate, all they have to do is pull a dominique strauss khan, and thats the end of it for him. you can create 100 parties if you want, but the one who wins will be the one with the media backing. so basically, it is the media who chooses the winner, and not the people. and the rich people control the media, therefore, most democracies are actually dictatorships controlled by a small group of elites
America is a one-party state ruled by the richest one percent. To create the illusion of freedom, The Party pretends to be two parties constantly at odds with each other. When Bush Jr. became too unpopular The Powers That Be decided a 'rebranding' was in order (i.e.' same old shit: new package') so they invited this new up and coming 'Democrat' who made such a big splash at his parties convention for a job interview. At the interview Obama nodded and scraped and said, "Yes sir. Yes sir." And The Powers nodded and frowned their approval to one another and said, "Yes, he'll do nicely."
Washington DC is to the U.S., like London is to England. All the power is centralized in one eastern coast location, and radiates in significance from it. Here lies the divisive locales. We are captives of the favoritism and advantage of early settlement. Human migration has progressed in a western direction, but the Earth spins in an easterly direction, as well as the jet stream. Power is in the hands of those breathing the farts. Those breathing fresh ionized ocean breezes must watch from the sidelines.
Half of all Americans are dependent on the government for food. Voting for someone that will replace food stamps with a need to leave the house to look for and do actual work is scary for people who do not realize freedom is not always easy. That is why real change will probably never happen in the US until it is way too late.
It is already too late. But, at least we will get change we can believe in Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Can't our political alignment be based off of ideas like happiness? Parties make me hate all out democracy even more.
Can you prove this claim? There are over 300 million Americans in this country and there are about 45 million receiving food assistance (i.e. dependent on government). Are you using this new "Republican math". Because the math that everyone else uses just does not support your claim.
Most of the 45 million or so recipients of food stamps feed their entire families with them. Children do not receive food stamps. For the record, I am Libertarian NOT Republican.
You were wrong, 50% of Americans are not receiving food assistance. That is an outlandish claim. I should be surprised that some people believe that stuff, but I am not. Additionally the food stamp program was replaced a few years ago and replaced with a program called SNAP. And yes the government does not give money directly to children, it gives it to their parents/guardians. But do you have a point? Ok, you are Libertarian. You are using the Libertarian fuzzy math.
