Are both parties necessary? (US political system)

I'm torn. I like balance, and the back forth flow of power between parties seems to keep extremists out of power, but at the same time It seems like it leads to a sh*t-ton of bickering and retards progress. I dunno.

Maybe the bickering one. I guess I shoulda put in an other.

I would be frightened to have either party be the only choice.

political bickering is good and necessary for a democracy... Unfortunately, I would argue that two parties is too FEW!  There need to be more opinions represented, instead of two parties that are basically the same.

To paraphrase the great thinker Buckminster Fuller, "The two party political system is there to give the voters the illusion of choice."  I hate to oversimplify but the rich rule no matter who's at the top.

Atkingani wrote: I remember reading something about the reformation of the US political system after 2000 elections, comprising: - electronic voting - equal rules for all states (since the election is national) - direct election (ending the "college") - a possibility of a 2nd shift (that could neutralize the effects of Perot, Nader, etc)   In fact, they were more or less proposing something similar we have here in Brazil (last presidential election, 2006, we had the votes' totalization around 2 hours after the sections closed). Anyway, no more talks I've read after 2004.   I don't realize why USA cannot (or do not want to) install the electronic system... Brazil with an equal area and many, many places hard to be reached have this system since 1998 - even some Natives living in deep Amazon rainforest vote electronically.   Wasn't it weird to see International Observers checking the US 2004 elections like they do for some young African democracies?

I guess that good old American paranoia is still clogging up the issue.  People are always worried that someone could hack the machines. It's not like paper is any more secure, I mean look back at the Florida debacle. I also seriously doubt that the govt. will end the electoral college, though it would make sense.
    I totally think that the whole system should be completely turned upside down and inside out. But radical change is not something that the American system deals well with. We are so used to these traditions that even though they might be archaic, the majority of people will claim that it is the only way.

I would like to think we have more actually choice of who wins the vote, but as it is in Australia, we basically have the Labor Party and Liberal party as our 'two part system' (basically the Democrat and Republican equivalents respectively). Many felt that the Liberal party had become too neo-conservative, which partly explain why the Labor party were voted in last November, signifying the general masses want for the least radical and most towards center party (Labor is much more center-left then Liberal is center-right). But one can argue in both, the rich will rule anyway, just under a Labor government the rich rule a little bit less.

Atkingani wrote: I remember reading something about the reformation of the US political system after 2000 elections, comprising: - electronic voting - equal rules for all states (since the election is national) - direct election (ending the "college") - a possibility of a 2nd shift (that could neutralize the effects of Perot, Nader, etc)   In fact, they were more or less proposing something similar we have here in Brazil (last presidential election, 2006, we had the votes' totalization around 2 hours after the sections closed). Anyway, no more talks I've read after 2004.   I don't realize why USA cannot (or do not want to) install the electronic system... Brazil with an equal area and many, many places hard to be reached have this system since 1998 - even some Natives living in deep Amazon rainforest vote electronically.   Wasn't it weird to see International Observers checking the US 2004 elections like they do for some young African democracies?

While faulty voting machines in the 2000 elections did get a lot of publicity, what went largely ignored was Republican voter shenanigans in Florida.  If you want to dig deeper, I'd highly encourage you to check out Greg Palast. http://www.gregpalast.com/

"If Vice President Al Gore is wondering where his Florida votes went, rather than sift through a pile of chad, he might want to look at a “scrub list” of 173,000 names targeted to be knocked off the Florida voter registry by a division of the office of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. A close examination suggests thousands of voters may have lost their right to vote based on a flaw-ridden list that included purported “felons” provided by a private firm with tight Republican ties."

http://www.gregpalast.com/floridas-flawed-voter-cleansing-program-saloncoms-politics-story-of-the-year/#more-937

The only reform of the four you mentioned was the implementation of electronic voting machines.  Nothing was done on a consistent national basis.  The machines that replace the old ones are easily hackable and since none of them have a paper trail, there's no way to audit or check the electronic results. 

In 2004 shenanigans in Ohio were crucial in returning W to the White House.  More about that here:

http://www.gregpalast.com/kerry-won-rnheres-the-facts/#more-1253

So in the end it's really not all that weird that we have international observers monitoring our elections.  As the beacon of democracy, we ought to be able to stand up to a little scrutiny.


Edited by Slartibartfast - February 02 2008 at 06:25

MikeEnRegalia wrote: South Park episode 119, that's all I'm going to say about this.

Sometimes referencing a South Park episode is all you ever need to say about some topics.

Just don't start making references to Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes.


Edited by Slartibartfast - February 02 2008 at 06:31

^ that's good to hear because I haven't seen a single episode.