Two Party System (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2010-11-03 11:56 AM in reply to: #3192559 |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Two Party System Yeah I should clarify that for those who haven't heard the term. Instant runoff voting systems let you rank the candidates in order of your preference. If no candidate has a majority, the last place one is removed and the vote is tallied again. This way, if your preferred candidate doesn't win, your vote automatically weighs in for your next best choice. |
|
2010-11-03 12:25 PM in reply to: #3192809 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Two Party System bzgl40 - 2010-11-03 11:28 AM TriRSquared - 2010-11-03 7:57 AM IMO this is what we need: 1. Term limits (2 terms you are out) 2. Campaign finance reform: Right now unless you are a (multi) millionaire you have very little chance of being elected. 3. Limited campaign terms. You can campaign for 4-6 weeks before the election. You have to stop the Friday before elections. Vote Tuesday. 4. If you hold an office you must resign the moment you choose to run for another one (incumbents are obviously the exception here but it'll only happen once, 2 term limit). 5. The President, VP etc.. should be forbidden from campaigning for their party. You have a job to do. Be the President, not a cheerleader for some Senator. 6. Get rid of free heathcare and ridiculous retirement packages for political offices. Oh my god, we almost agree. I do not believe in term limits though. Voters should set the limits. I would hate to have someone who is actually doing a good job not able to run again simply cause of a time line. I'm indifferent on 4,5 but the rest I think is key Considering that has not happened in the last 40-50 years I don't mind running that risk. |
2010-11-03 12:31 PM in reply to: #3193213 |
Elite 4235 Spring, TX | Subject: RE: Two Party System TriRSquared - 2010-11-03 12:25 PM bzgl40 - 2010-11-03 11:28 AM TriRSquared - 2010-11-03 7:57 AM IMO this is what we need: 1. Term limits (2 terms you are out) 2. Campaign finance reform: Right now unless you are a (multi) millionaire you have very little chance of being elected. 3. Limited campaign terms. You can campaign for 4-6 weeks before the election. You have to stop the Friday before elections. Vote Tuesday. 4. If you hold an office you must resign the moment you choose to run for another one (incumbents are obviously the exception here but it'll only happen once, 2 term limit). 5. The President, VP etc.. should be forbidden from campaigning for their party. You have a job to do. Be the President, not a cheerleader for some Senator. 6. Get rid of free heathcare and ridiculous retirement packages for political offices. Oh my god, we almost agree. I do not believe in term limits though. Voters should set the limits. I would hate to have someone who is actually doing a good job not able to run again simply cause of a time line. I'm indifferent on 4,5 but the rest I think is key Considering that has not happened in the last 40-50 years I don't mind running that risk. It's an understandable concern though. I just feel that regardless of how good of a job someone is doing, after 10+ years in office, the sense of entitlement and lack of connection to their consituency is inevitable. Time to get back home and reconnect. Maybe run again in another capacity in the future. |
2010-11-03 1:10 PM in reply to: #3192954 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Two Party System scorpio516 - 2010-11-03 1:11 PM Canada has 4 major parties in parliament - even Bloc Quebecois hold 1/6th of the house of commons and no one cares about them outside Quebec We do have four major parties in the House of Commons and another national party who gets a fair percentage of the votes. The breakdown from the last election was (popular vote with a national turnout of 59%): Conservative - 38% Liberal - 26% NDP - 18% Bloc - 10% Green - 7% Other - 1% However, if you look at the seats that are allocated to each party, we get: Conservative - 143 (46%) Liberal - 77 (25%) NDP - 37 (12%) Bloc - 49 (16%) Green - 0 Other - 2 (<1%) This often leads to discussion regarding proportional representation, however the ruling party is not likely to be amenable to revising the system to one that would give them fewer seats. Another problem arose after the last election as it became apparent that many of the politicians don't understand the parlimentary system as the ruling Conservatives were upset when the three parties in opposition planned to band together to form a colliation government. Their defense was that a majority of Canadians had voted for them (which was clearly untrue) and that a parlimentary system was never designed to allow a colliation to take power. Shane |
2010-11-03 1:18 PM in reply to: #3192559 |
Elite 3460 Slackerville, USA | Subject: RE: Two Party System I think the only way the two party system will work is if we have a balance of power between the two so no one party can take total control and do anything they want. Hopefully this would force the two parties to cooperate instead of fighting and blaming the other party. Yeah, I know that part is a fantasy but one can hope. |
2010-11-03 1:22 PM in reply to: #3193395 |
Elite 4235 Spring, TX | Subject: RE: Two Party System pdbman - 2010-11-03 1:18 PM I think the only way the two party system will work is if we have a balance of power between the two so no one party can take total control and do anything they want. Hopefully this would force the two parties to cooperate instead of fighting and blaming the other party. Yeah, I know that part is a fantasy but one can hope. That balance also makes it impossible for anything to get done!!! Bottom line is that as long as we have this system that only really allows two parties to have any influence, then we don't have a government that is even remotely representative. |
|
2010-11-03 1:59 PM in reply to: #3193405 |
Champion 5868 Urbandale, IA | Subject: RE: Two Party System AndrewMT - 2010-11-03 1:22 PM pdbman - 2010-11-03 1:18 PM I think the only way the two party system will work is if we have a balance of power between the two so no one party can take total control and do anything they want. Hopefully this would force the two parties to cooperate instead of fighting and blaming the other party. Yeah, I know that part is a fantasy but one can hope. That balance also makes it impossible for anything to get done!!! Bottom line is that as long as we have this system that only really allows two parties to have any influence, then we don't have a government that is even remotely representative. This is mostly becasue our representatives act like a bunch of 5th graders. Put yourself in a situation at work where you are solving a problem in a group. Three of you lean one way the other three lean the other way on a solution. Now, your boss is not going to accept a "do nothing" approach, so you are going to work together and concede on some things to each other. Ultimately, you get a solution to the problem that everyone can deal with. You do this becasue you don't want to lose your job. Our representatives don't generally have to worry about this part, so they are not willing to make concessions to solve a problem. |
2010-11-03 2:04 PM in reply to: #3192737 |
Expert 715 PA | Subject: RE: Two Party System TriRSquared - 2010-11-03 10:57 AM IMO this is what we need: 1. Term limits (2 terms you are out) 2. Campaign finance reform: Right now unless you are a (multi) millionaire you have very little chance of being elected. 3. Limited campaign terms. You can campaign for 4-6 weeks before the election. You have to stop the Friday before elections. Vote Tuesday. 4. If you hold an office you must resign the moment you choose to run for another one (incumbents are obviously the exception here but it'll only happen once, 2 term limit). 5. The President, VP etc.. should be forbidden from campaigning for their party. You have a job to do. Be the President, not a cheerleader for some Senator. 6. Get rid of free heathcare and ridiculous retirement packages for political offices. HOLLA!!! |
2010-11-03 2:58 PM in reply to: #3193501 |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Two Party System Our representatives don't generally have to worry about this part, so they are not willing to make concessions to solve a problem. It's even worse than that. The act of compromise itself can cost you an election these days because you'll lose your heavily polarized base of voters. Most of the incumbents that were booted in this election cycle were moderates. |
2010-11-03 3:26 PM in reply to: #3192703 |
Master 2701 Salisbury, North Carolina | Subject: RE: Two Party System AndrewMT - 2010-11-03 10:47 AM NXS - 2010-11-03 9:38 AM If the Republicans do not heed to the rally call of smaller gov., less spending and personal responsibility, the party will be history and a new party that embodies those philosophies will emerge to take its place aka tea party. People did not vote for republicans last night, they voted against Democrats and their socialist agenda. This is not about the current parties or elections or administrations. This is about a system that limits our choices for elected officials and tries to fit everything neatly into a two buckets when reality is much more complex. It doesn't matter if it's Republican, Democrat, Tea Party, Libertarian, Green Party, etc. Those will all change over time, as our history has shown. Regardless of who the parties are, the system encourages that number to stay at two. As far as last night goes, I agree with you 100 % NXS. It will likely be the same type of anger next time around, unless changes are made. AndrewMT, yep having to choose between 2 main parties is a big compromise. These 2 systems are big snowball cash machines and it's going to be hard to dismantle either, much less both. |
2010-11-03 3:42 PM in reply to: #3193598 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Two Party System spudone - 2010-11-03 2:58 PM Most of the incumbents that were booted in this election cycle were moderates. If they voted for the Stimulus and/or Healthcare bills, I would argue they could hardly be considered "moderates". |
|
2010-11-03 4:48 PM in reply to: #3192559 |
Master 1795 Boynton Beach, FL | Subject: RE: Two Party System My prediction is that we will have a 3rd party president by 2020. The moderate members of both parties are being thrown out when they should be the welcomed change. |
2010-11-03 5:19 PM in reply to: #3193690 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Two Party System I would like to see the rise of the Pomegranate party. Literally, a party comprised of the fruit provided by deciduous shrubs. Consider the advantages: Pomegranates would not raise taxes or their own wages-- in fact, we would save money by not paying them at all. You'll never catch a pomegranate soliciting sex in an airport bathroom or fooling around with a congressional page in their office. Pomegranates do not vote for pork; they do however compliment pork nicely as a puree or compote. No pomegranate to my knowledge has ever sent anyone to war. Pomegranates are largely non-partisan, although they do tend to favor sunshine and clean water. If the people so chose, we could always squeeze and make flavorful martinis with their juice. Pomegranates in 2012! Couldn't be worse than what we've got. |
2010-11-03 7:31 PM in reply to: #3192676 |
Champion 4835 Eat Cheese or Die | Subject: RE: Two Party System NXS - 2010-11-03 9:38 AM If the Republicans do not heed to the rally call of smaller gov., less spending and personal responsibility, the party will be history and a new party that embodies those philosophies will emerge to take its place aka tea party. People did not vote for republicans last night, they voted against Democrats and their socialist agenda. I do think you are correct that this election was not an endorsement of the republican party, but a rejection of the democratic party. But my rejection is not because of the socialist agenda. I believe in smaller government, less spending, personal responsibility and a sustainable socialist agenda. I reject the republican party because they have not embodied those ideals they claim to stand for. If they were truly small government I could accept that they tend to have different social beliefs then I because the social issues would be left to the states and I could choose to put people who share my social beliefs in power at the state level and allow the republicans federal power to reign in spending and reduce the size of the federal government. I reject the democratic party because they have not stood up and taken advantage of the opportunity they had to make our social support system sustainable and effective. Instead of creating a robust nationalized health care system that took the burden off of employers they forced through a watered down piece of crap. If you are given the power to push through legislation, why not push through something you really believe in? |
2010-11-03 7:58 PM in reply to: #3194009 |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Two Party System Instead of creating a robust nationalized health care system that took the burden off of employers they forced through a watered down piece of crap. If you are given the power to push through legislation, why not push through something you really believe in? On top of that they bent over backwards to help bankers, Wall Street, AIG, etc just like the Republicans did, while mostly ignoring a 10% unemployment rate for the rest of us. That's what pissed people off. So yeah maybe voters were against the Democrats, but expecting improvement from the Republicans is a stretch. But people have short memories. |
2010-11-04 8:00 AM in reply to: #3194037 |
Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Two Party System I think our two party system works fairly well. We form our coalitions in the primaries, After the primary, each party then runs to wherever the middle happens to be.
|
|
2010-11-04 8:03 AM in reply to: #3194464 |
Elite 4235 Spring, TX | Subject: RE: Two Party System dontracy - 2010-11-04 8:00 AM I think our two party system works fairly well. We form our coalitions in the primaries, After the primary, each party then runs to wherever the middle happens to be.
That assumes voters can be described as left, middle or right. What you just described is exactly the problem with the system. It's completely non-representative because there's always an either/or binary choice for democrat and republican. I'd wager a lot of money that the majority of Americans cannot be accurately placed on a linear political spectrum like that. |
2010-11-04 8:25 AM in reply to: #3194471 |
Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Two Party System Andrew, I understand what your saying. The primary coalition model assumes that the coalitions For example, one of the last great shifts in American politics So you had all of these working class Catholics for example, Of course, this is all just my opinion. My suggestion for those who don't feel they have a political home, |
2010-11-04 3:20 PM in reply to: #3192855 |
Extreme Veteran 465 Atlanta, GA | Subject: RE: Two Party System drewb8 - 2010-11-03 11:45 AM TriRSquared - 2010-11-03 8:57 AM IMO this is what we need: 1. Term limits (2 terms you are out) 2. Campaign finance reform: Right now unless you are a (multi) millionaire you have very little chance of being elected. 3. Limited campaign terms. You can campaign for 4-6 weeks before the election. You have to stop the Friday before elections. Vote Tuesday. 4. If you hold an office you must resign the moment you choose to run for another one (incumbents are obviously the exception here but it'll only happen once, 2 term limit). 5. The President, VP etc.. should be forbidden from campaigning for their party. You have a job to do. Be the President, not a cheerleader for some Senator. 6. Get rid of free heathcare and ridiculous retirement packages for political offices. It's like you read my mind and wrote it on the interwebs. Except for: 1) I'd put it at 3 terms for senators and 9 for HOR, 5) Meh. No problem with them campaigni, they are the leader of their party 6) They should get the same healthcare and retirement benefits as any other federal employee - and have the same premiums. But to be honest, I have no idea what their system is now. I have always wondered. Does the president's party have to offset the cost sof a president campaigning, or is it totally funded by the taxpayer? It is scary how much it costs for the president to go on a trip. |
2010-11-04 6:12 PM in reply to: #3192559 |
Expert 838 West Palm Beach, FL | Subject: RE: Two Party System I think the reason you have so many folks disaffected by the political process is that we have two parties that reflect a very narrow part of the political spectrum. While Democrats and Republicans fight to keep each other out of power the one place where they work in concert is to keep other parties out of the process. |
2010-11-04 7:22 PM in reply to: #3195834 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Two Party System Spleen - 2010-11-04 5:12 PM I think the reason you have so many folks disaffected by the political process is that we have two parties that reflect a very narrow part of the political spectrum. While Democrats and Republicans fight to keep each other out of power the one place where they work in concert is to keep other parties out of the process. In order to win the primary a candidate these days has to have increasingly extreme views, however to win the general election they then have to abandon many of the extreme positions they took in the primaries and tack to the center. Which leaves the voters with a choice of two candidates they don't trust due to their changing positions and see they're getting either hypocrates and/or liars no matter who they vote for... |
|
2010-11-05 10:02 AM in reply to: #3192559 |
Master 1681 Rural Ontario | Subject: RE: Two Party System There is no right answer here, its a trade off. The Three (or more) party system - (i.e. Canada) allows for more flexibiliy in choice. If you happen to be a social liberaterian but fiscal conservative you don't necessarly need to compromise by being limited to two diametrically opposed parties. The problem is that you end up with non-majority parties having to form coalitions. This makes it tough to get bills passed - and in extreeme cases where you have dozens of parties (i.e. Italy or Israel) and end up in paralysis. Two party system (i.e. USA) means that you always have a clear majority in the house and senate (though not necessarly the same party is the majority). Efficient but leads to polarization, and the two parties end up playing partisan politics, diametrically opposed on every issue. The one party system has some benefits as well. more efficient in decisivness and action. Little loss of effectivness due to transitions and election campaingns, and much cheaper. It has worked very well for some places: Japan 1945-1990, Singapore 1968-today, China 2000-today. This system only seems to work for countries moving from developing to developed status - then the lack of choice and 'autoritarian' aspect becomes a big drawback. |
|