Political Debates discussion

do you think the two party system that america uses is the right strategy? do american citizens benifit form having a country divided?

discuss!

Alan wrote: "very, very interesting political concept to think about... i don't think it is the right strategy, but i can't see how it can change in the near future - it is just so deeply interconnected with th..."

i agree. it has many layers and the transition would definitely be a big one! the two party system has always been a huge part of american politics and im so curious to see what a change would do.

the main issue i have with the two party system is the fact that citizens can tend to vote for candidates based soley on the party they identify with and not their actual policies.

I believe we should have more candidates to choose from. in the 2016 and 2020 elections we had to choose between not-great and absolutely-awful. if there were more candidates in the final election (so not as many people getting eliminated in the opening debates) people would have their voices more heard as they may not necessarily agree with either candidate. but I see no problem with the two party system.

The two party system has always worked in America. For better or worse, we prefer the two party system. On one hand, it prevents extremes from running the country, but on the other hand it prevents other views from entering the discussion.

I think it's the best we can do right now for our current status. Prevents authoritarianism.

You may not be a fan, but until you come up with something better, I hate to say it, but you're stuck with it.

Spriya wrote: "I think it's the best we can do right now for our current status. Prevents authoritarianism.

You may not be a fan, but until you come up with something better, I hate to say it, but you're stuck w..."

Many other countries who are far less authoritarian than the US have a multi party system

Alan wrote: "very, very interesting political concept to think about... i don't think it is the right strategy, but i can't see how it can change in the near future - it is just so deeply interconnected with th..."

Ranked choice voting would probably help as well as unrestricted ballot access and access to debate forums

Matthew wrote: "Alan wrote: "very, very interesting political concept to think about... i don't think it is the right strategy, but i can't see how it can change in the near future - it is just so deeply interconn..."

Some states have that right now in at least their primaries. It bears watching.

Matthew wrote: "SMany other countries who are far less authoritarian than the US have a multi party system..."

The United states has a multi party system now.

I think it is so very cool that we inaugurated our first ever woman, and a WOC, Vice President today! - )

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "SMany other countries who are far less authoritarian than the US have a multi party system..."

The United states has a multi party system now."

Not in any meaningful reality of the word "multi"

The Two Party System, as it is colloquially known, is a charade.

It is a WWE wrestling match between two entities that work for the same Billionaire (f**k Vince McMahon).

I think that's a brilliant analogy of what Dem vs Rep (two wings of the same party) is.

Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "SMany other countries who are far less authoritarian than the US have a multi party system..."

The United states has a multi party system now."

Not in any meani..."

Not the fault of the system if the third parties cannot get traction.

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "SMany other countries who are far less authoritarian than the US have a multi party system..."

The United states has a multi party system now."

..."
It is the fault of the system when the system restricts ballot access, regulates third parties to the sidelines, doesn't allow third parties on to the debate stage, doesn't give third parties proper air time, a winner take all system that inherently makes people reluctant to even consider a third party, and campaign finance rules that give government benefits to the republican and democratic parties but not third parties. Two Parties--or More?: The American Party System

Matthew wrote: "It is the fault of the system when the system restricts ballot access, regulates third parties to the sidelines, doesn't allow third parties on to the debate stage, doesn't give third parties proper air time, a winner take all system that inherently makes people reluctant to even consider a third party, and campaign finance rules that give government benefits to the republican and democratic parties but not third parties. Two Parties--or More?: The American Party System..."

Every party has the right to try an gain traction and they all have to meed the thresholds. They have failed for various reasons. They are not blocked from trying. You are right a winner takes all reluctant to consider another party, but then the system is extremely stable compared to many other places with parliamentary systems. Once again the extremes do not get much traction and the system stays centered.

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "It is the fault of the system when the system restricts ballot access, regulates third parties to the sidelines, doesn't allow third parties on to the debate stage, doesn't give thi..."

Just because you have the idealistic "right" to something does not explain away how the system actively bars third parties from political power in reality. Also the system is not that stable; multi party systems in other countries do a far better job.

Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "It is the fault of the system when the system restricts ballot access, regulates third parties to the sidelines, doesn't allow third parties on to the debate stag..."

Depends on how you describe a far better job. The American system does not prevent anyone from running for any office as long as they meet criteria such as not being a convicted felon. this country has had Communists, Libertarians, independents, Progressives and many others for both local and presidential elections. the American people congregate to two main parties. I fully agree that it probably the way we were all raised, but it does not prevent anyone from any party from running for office.

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "It is the fault of the system when the system restricts ballot access, regulates third parties to the sidelines, doesn't allow third parties on to..."

The american population congregates to the two parties because the system. Like I described before. The system deliberately makes it more difficult for third parties to do anything. I describe a "far better job" as countries with less political corruption and campaign finance criminality, less damage to public socioeconomic welfare, more transparent governments and political debates etc etc

Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "It is the fault of the system when the system restricts ballot access, regulates third parties to the sidelines, doesn't allow ..."

The system was set up by the people and nothing bars anyone from trying, which has happened and failed on multiple occasions. There is word Trump might to try and set up his own party and if that happens, I bet that one fails too.

The only way this will work, is if it starts at a grass roots level and builds from there. The last few tries were a top down approach and they fail because there is no base.

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "It is the fault of the system when the system restricts ballot access, regulates third parties to the sidelines..."

Who is "the people" you speak of? And like I have explained twice already even tho the american system might not legally prevent other parties from running it gives advantages to the mainstream parties and actively bars third parties from debates, ballots access, and news attention so in reality only a fuckin moron would look at that and think "yep america is a true multi party system"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

There is a history of third party runs including 2020. You may not like it, but the citizens do not want them in large numbers a third party candidate. They are not prevented from trying. The United States is a true multi-party system with two main parties and other smaller parties. You may not like and want to rail against it, but it does not make the statement wrong. The people are the voting citizens and to a lesser extent, the citizenry in general.

Papaphilly wrote: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

There is a history of third party runs including 2020. You may not like it, but the citizens ..."

Just because there is a history of third parties running does not make my statement on how the system gives preferential treatment to the two main parties any less true. At this point you're being intellectually dishonest and purposefully obtuse

Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

There is a history of third party runs including 2020. You may not like it..."

Not everything you think is horrendous is horrendous. It is the system that was put in place from the very beginning. When the country was formed, the founding fathers split into two factions on how we should run the country and it has been that way ever since. Once again, if someone wants to take the time and build a viable third party, they should try by all means. Nothing is stopping them.

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

There is a history of third party runs including 2020. You..."

It was a system that was put in place that over time adapted to favor two parties and shun third parties. I never made a moral claim, that this was "horrendous."I just gave you the facts at how the american political system can't be considered a multi party system while it actively favors two parties and shuns out third parties in the political process. If you are okay with shutting down third parties and making it more difficult for third parties to gain any political traction then just say so

Matthew wrote: "It was a system that was put in place that over time adapted to favor two parties and shun third parties. I never made a moral claim, that this was "horrendous."I just gave you the facts at how the american political system can't be considered a multi party system while it actively favors two parties and shuns out third parties in the political process. If you are okay with shutting down third parties and making it more difficult for third parties to gain any political traction then just say so ..."

What makes you think I am against third party runs? I voted third party in 2016. I just do not think they will make it in the United States on the national level. Once again, if they want to build a true third option, it will have to be grass roots and not from the top. Just because you do not define "true third parties" as the system, it does not mean they do not exist or have not had elected officials. As for the system, it is what it is.

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "It was a system that was put in place that over time adapted to favor two parties and shun third parties. I never made a moral claim, that this was "horrendous."I just gave you the ..."

Considering the fact that you ignore the blatant reality of how the american political system obviously treats the two main parties with preferential treatment and bars third parties from ballot access , access to debates, and access to a platform and you since you ignore this it logically follows that you do not want political reformation. And since you do not want political reformation than it logically follows that you could care less about the political viability of third parties.It's called connecting the dots with logic and reasoning.

Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "It was a system that was put in place that over time adapted to favor two parties and shun third parties. I never made a moral claim, that this was "horrendous."I..."

You have an absolute right to your opinion and in this case your opinion is wrong. Every group has to meet the same requirements. There is no secret cabal preventing anyone from anything. Third parties fail because the American people do not want them. If they did, we would have viable third parties. Usually third parties tend represent farther extremes than people want to go.

The closest third party to almost get there is the Libertarian party. They were formed in 1971 and have a candidate on every Presidential race since 1972. The Green Party of the United States formed in 2001 and have had a candidate on every Presidential race since 1992.

I make no bones for or against third parties. As I have said, I voted third party. If they want to be viable, they need to make themselves viable to the American people. If a third party rises to the level of the other two, they earned it and nobody did anything to help or hurt them.

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "It was a system that was put in place that over time adapted to favor two parties and shun third parties. I never made a moral claim, that this wa..."

You're using the circular logic fallacy and purposefully ignoring the evidence that shows how the two party system benefits the parties who are already in political power.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/l...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/america-...

Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "It was a system that was put in place that over time adapted to favor two parties and shun third parties. I never made a moral ..."

Please try out new material. The circular argument does not work. I have history on my side. Did you even read what you posted? The article agrees with me.

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "It was a system that was put in place that over time adapted to favor two parties and shun third parties. I nev..."

I don't need to "use new material" when you have yet to factually debunk it.

You're right, the circular logic fallacy does not work. Which is exactly why I criticized your use of it.

You do not have history on your side. History shows how america's political system has demonized third parties and given them unjust burdens while they gave the two main parties a free pass. Hell many third party candidates were imprisoned especially during the early 20th century for violating "sedition" laws aka they protested world war 1.

Yes I read what I posted, hard to see how the authors agree with you when they state "Third parties do not exist because the two big parties don't want them to. It's bad for business and it's that simple.

There are three kinds of barriers to third parties, two of them created by the monopoly parties. The Constitution, however, is a problem. The American system is winner take all: you win a plurality of votes;"

and


"First, they set up rules where Democrats and Republicans automatically get on ballots, but third parties have to jump through petitioning hoops. There are 51 different sets of laws to get on the ballot in this country, one for every state, plus Washington, D.C. Next they make it hard for third parties to raise money. Then they sleep well at night."

The author clearly points to how the american political system can't be logically considered a multi party system in reality while it prioritized the two main parties and gives them preferential treatment.

Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "It was a system that was put in place that over time adapted to favor two parties and shun t..."

More than one party exists and more than one party runs for multiple offices. Hence multiparty. This is not hard. I named three right off the top of my head yesterday without a problem. What your complaint is that you do not like the system. So you create this non-existent argument. The fact these parties exist kills your argument.

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "It was a system that was put in place that over time adapted to favor two pa..."

The fact that these parties exist does not kill my argument, the fact that these parties exist despite the roadblocks the america political system put in place is just a testament to their tenacity. A truely multiparty political system doesn't just mean "more than one party exists"

The definition of a multiparty system is: A multi-party system is a political system in which multiple political parties across the political spectrum run for national election, and all have the capacity to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition. Apart from one-party-dominant and two-party systems, multi-party systems tend to be more common in parliamentary systems than presidential systems and far more common in countries that use proportional representation compared to countries that use first-past-the-post elections. Several parties compete for power and all of them have reasonable chance of forming government.

The american political system does not meet these requirements thus can not be considered a truly multiparty system.

Matthew wrote: "The definition of a multiparty system is: A multi-party system is a political system in which multiple political parties across the political spectrum run for national election, and all have the capacity to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition. Apart from one-party-dominant and two-party systems, multi-party systems tend to be more common in parliamentary systems than presidential systems and far more common in countries that use proportional representation compared to countries that use first-past-the-post elections. Several parties compete for power and all of them have reasonable chance of forming government.

The american political system does not meet these requirements thus can not be considered a truly multiparty system...."

OK you can stop now. You are sinking your own argument. Define it however you wish, it does not make you right.

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The definition of a multiparty system is: A multi-party system is a political system in which multiple political parties across the political spectrum run for national election, and..."

Please prove to me how I am "sinking my own argument" or is this just another concession of you admitting your own logical shortcomings? This isn't me defining a multi party system however I wish, it is the literal international professional consensus on the meanings of and differences between a one party, two party, and multiparty system

Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The definition of a multiparty system is: A multi-party system is a political system in which multiple political parties across the political spectrum run for nat..."

I have provided everything I needed. You can read it or not, You can accept it or not. I will take the system we have over all of the others. You do not like the fact that a third party has no draw, that is fine.

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The definition of a multiparty system is: A multi-party system is a political system in which multiple political parties across the political spec..."

I have read what you gave provided. Your opinion on "what you will take over all others" is irrelevant to the facts on how to US is not a multi party system. Sorry but facts do not care about your feelings.

Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The definition of a multiparty system is: A multi-party system is a political system in which multiple political parties across..."

Keep playing the broken record. It does not make it right any more than any other opinion agreeing with you.

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The definition of a multiparty system is: A multi-party system is a political system in which multiple politica..."

I'm not right because more people agree with me, nor am I right because I have repeated myself. I am right because the evidence and logical reasoning backs up what I am saying.

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The definition of a multiparty system is: A multi-party system is a political system in which multiple politica..."

PapaPhilly's just upset because he realized he's actually a Democrat. He'll get over it

Jason wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The definition of a multiparty system is: A multi-party system is a political system in whic..."

I have voted Democrat more than once.

Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The definition of a multiparty system is: A multi-party system is a political system in whic..."

You are not wrong because more people disagree with you than agree with you. You are just wrong. As for any opinion piece, it is their view and that does not make them right either.

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The definition of a multiparty system is: A multi-party system is a politica..."
Nobody said more people disagree with me? Where is that coming from me? If I am wrong, prove it with evidence and logic

Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The definition of a multiparty system is: A multi-party s..."

The entire history of the United States proves you wrong. The fact there is always more than one party putting candidates up for election does not seem to sink in with you.

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The definition of a multiparty system is:..."

The history of the united states repressing third parties proves me right. A simple google search proves you wrong. You seem to conflate a two party system with the multi party system, you also seem to conflate the ability to run with the ability to run on equal grounds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-p...

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The definition of a multiparty system is:..."

"The fact that there is always more than one party running putting up candidates up for election does not seem to sink in with you." Just because they run does not make america a multiparty system

In politics, a two-party system is a party system in which two major political parties[1] dominate the political landscape. At any point in time, one of the two parties typically holds a majority in the legislature and is usually referred to as the majority or governing party while the other is the minority or opposition party. Around the world, the term has different sense. For example, in the United States, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Malta, and Zimbabwe, the sense of two-party system describes an arrangement in which all or nearly all elected officials belong to one of the only two major parties, and third parties rarely win any seats in the legislature. In such arrangements, two-party systems are thought to result from various factors like winner-takes-all election rules.[2][3][4][5][6][7] In such systems, while chances for third-party candidates winning election to major national office are remote, it is possible for groups within the larger parties, or in opposition to one or both of them, to exert influence on the two major parties.

Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The definition of a mu..."

I read the Wikipedia post and do not agree with it. Nothing prevents anyone from forming any party. Even the Communists had presidential candidates when it was not safe for them. You do not like the fact the third parties traditionally do poorly. That is not the fault of any nefariousness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-par...

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The de..."

Third parties do poorly because America has a two party system that gives preferential treatment to the two main parties. Other countries with multi party systems have third and fourth parties even that do far better.

Eugene V. Debs: Citizen and SocialistPapaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The de..."

The last major presidential candidate who was a communist was imprisoned..for being a popular communist..so much for "history proves me right"

Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The de..."

Just because you can form a party does not mean America is a multi party system, a multi party system means more than just allowing those parties to exist.