Are both parties necessary? (US political system)

You can't possibly be suggesting that we party like a bunch of commies?

Screw the political parties.  Let's just party.  Whoohoo!!!

Salvo_ wrote: Unless you have some actual evidence of widespread electoral fraud, don't say such dumb things.   20 years isn't that long with 4 year terms, and dynasties make perfect sense without asinine conspiracies. Once you've already been in power, it's much easier to mobilize the political machines to work in your favor, and among the voters, name recognition is one of the primary reasons people choose a candidate. Because some people are just dumb.   You say that it's quite a coincidence, isn't it?, but it's a stupid thing to say once you think about how it's actually fairly likely that someone's son would make a go after his father has been President, and only for one term, and that most presidents have served 2 terms, removing the suspicions around Clinton's and Bush's second term. They have definately played dirty politics, and part of it was being lucky enough to face lame opponents who hamstrung their own campaigns, but you're being insane. There's a difference between questioning and looking for Illuminati thermite charges on the WTC.

Just to make things clear (without yelling at anybody): Italy is NOT in a state of chaos because there are a lot of parties, but because Italians as a whole seem to be unable to see beyond their own individual interests  - which makes them unable to get along with each other. I lived almost six years in Finland, where there were quite a few parties, and the situation was nowhere as bad as it is in my own country. Personally, I am not in favour of having dozens of parties, but I don't think having just two is necessarily the answer. The problem is not just related to quantity, to the quality of the offer.

hmmm

one party state = totalitarian dictatorship ... evil
two party state ,,, freedom, truth & liberty
multi-party state .... chaotic evil mess...

makes pefect sense

christian fundamentalism = ok
any other form of religious fundamentalim  = evil fanaticism

makes perfect sense

Pluralism may not be that bad, but I was just making the point point that it could be much, much worse than our current system. I don't closely follow Italian politics either (and I'm sure GR will yell at me), but everything I've seen has shown that the Italian government is in a state of near chaos because of all the infighting parties constantly changing power and alliances.

No, Independants mean that people are not willing to closely affiliate with either party because they are centrist or just don't like them. If people really wanted something very different, Ron Paul would have won, or some hardcore socialist would have arisen. They have not; therefore, I must conclude that the major parties more or less represent the political will of the American people, barring a few disagreements that everyone must have with a system of compromise. A pluralistic system would remove that within the party compromise, but people would still have to compromise to get anything done.

Edited by Ghandi 2 - February 09 2008 at 20:46

There should be no parties.  It should be a collective of various people that wish to be elected based on their beliefs and personal records (experience, and so on).  I mean they're basically the same party anyway.