Are both parties necessary? (US political system)
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=45835
Printed Date: February 03 2025 at 08:41
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Are both parties necessary? (US political system)
Posted By: Failcore
Subject: Are both parties necessary? (US political system)
Date Posted: January 31 2008 at 03:51
| 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. |
Replies:
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 31 2008 at 07:09
|
I should probably start a thread and call it ask a political junkie. Speaking as a US American political junkie, I think our system is in severe need of reform. Now that presidential candidate field has narrowed to four do we really have anyone promising real changes rather just vague generic change? The candidates who promise to shake up the system and challenge the powers that be never seem to get anywhere. I think we'd be better served by about four strong parties or at least a proportional representation system. Having said all that, I don't think you have provided me with a poll choice that fits. If you had to pick one of those options for me based on what you said which one would it be? ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: January 31 2008 at 16:45
| Maybe the bickering one. I guess I shoulda put in an other. |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: January 31 2008 at 16:56
|
Bickering's a good thing. It slows the rate at which the people you supposedly elected to represent you can ruin everything you've achieved.
------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: January 31 2008 at 17:12
| I would be frightened to have either party be the only choice. |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: February 01 2008 at 13:39
|
We need more....how about 5 or 6 equal parties, that way this tired, old cookie-cutter system will go away and we'll get candidates that actually have THEIR OWN opinions. ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: GoldenSpiral
Date Posted: February 01 2008 at 14:42
|
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. ------------- http://www.myspace.com/altaic" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/altaic ALTAIC "Oceans Down You'll Lie" coming soon |
Posted By: Atkingani
Date Posted: February 01 2008 at 15:30
|
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?
------------- Guigo ~~~~~~ |
Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: February 01 2008 at 15:36
|
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. ------------- "Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain |
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: February 01 2008 at 19:19
ACTUAL OPINIONS?!?!?! The reason we have the two-party system in place right now is to eliminate those! The American public HATES opinions. One must THINK to come up with opinions. And if there's anything the American public is good at, it's not thinking. Why think when you can just put a check next to either the "D" (or "R") that mommy and daddy always picked when they voted? -------------   |
jimmy_row wrote:Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 03:44
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. |
Posted By: everyone
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 04:00
| There are more than two parties. Vote your conscience and your beliefs. THIS IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST OR WHO HAS THE MOST CASH. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 04:11
|
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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 06:03
Well one of the big problems is that these day our elections actually are turning out to be just a matter of popularity and who has the most cash. Shouldn't be that way, but it is. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 06:17
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/ - 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 - 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 - 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. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 06:25
South Park episode 119, that's all I'm going to say about this. 
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa/aotm-2025-1/vote" rel="nofollow - 2025 Monthly Release Poll Listened to: 
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 06:28
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. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 09:50
| Aqua Teen always stops short of actually make a point. In fact the point of the show is to be pointless. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 10:13
^ that's good to hear because I haven't seen a single episode.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa/aotm-2025-1/vote" rel="nofollow - 2025 Monthly Release Poll Listened to:
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 10:32
with only one party the USA would soon cease to be a democracy. for a democracy you need to have a choice. so yes, both parties are needed. the political system of the USA is in need of some maintenance though. the Democrats and the Republicans are very much alike, so there is not really much of a choice. it is the choice between Coca-Cola and Pepsi; but some people like to drink apple juice instead -------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 11:15
| The US needs more large parties, I think. Or no parties at all. |
Posted By: Atkingani
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 12:12
|
One of the best ways to have more parties could be the adoption of the 2nd shift IMHO. All parties may have candidates in the 1st shift and it's good to spread their messages.
In our presidential elections in 1990, the Social-Democrats ended the 1st shift in the 4th place but they sold their message (btw I didn't buy it) and won in 1994 and 1998 (with no need of a 2nd shift since their candidate got more than 50% in the first round). ------------- Guigo ~~~~~~ |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 12:51
As a fan of the show I am absolutely certain your life will be better if you avoid the show at all costs. My name is shake-zula, the mind coola... ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 12:58
"I'll show you politics in America right here: 'I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs....' 'Well, I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets! 'Go back to bed, America, your government is in control!! Here's Love Connection, watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer!!'"
 ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 14:35
The point is usually implied. In Gee Whiz, they lampoon religiosity (comparing it with schizophrenia, noted by the fellow jumping off the billboard), critique censorship and political correctness ("Gee, I'm sure glad that wasn't blood!"), et cetera. They typically do make points, but it can sometimes get lost in the rapid-fire slapstick so common in the show. ------------- Hail Eris! 
|
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: February 04 2008 at 08:15
| Yes they imply points, but then they usually intentionally derail. I think they are in some ways making a point about shows that try to make points. Hence my statement "the point of the the show is to be pointless." |
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: February 04 2008 at 08:17
For the most part I think your being paranoid, although I'm sure major industry tries to manipulate both parties to a degree. However, I don't think there's some X-Filesesque Syndicate at the top controlling it all. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 04 2008 at 15:45
That's exactly what they're counting on... ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: February 04 2008 at 16:01
Massive fraud. http://blackboxvoting.org - http://blackboxvoting.org |
Posted By: Atkingani
Date Posted: February 04 2008 at 16:07
Ok, it happens... but considering that here we have 3 or 4 Communist Parties that are always yelling "Foul" and they ahd been silent it's because the level of "blackboxvoting" should be lesser now then when we used common paper ballots.  ------------- Guigo ~~~~~~ |
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: February 06 2008 at 22:07
|
I must tell you, seeing it from Argentina, a country with so many political partys as notes in a Petrucci solo, it´s quite odd to see USA has only two
------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?" 
|
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: February 08 2008 at 03:47
From an outsiders point of view, agreed. Seven parties in the Swedish parliament as of now, and with US being huge, it seems strange with only two parties which have to see to the needs and demands of so many different interests. Perhaps a more representative form of government ? It's so hard to understand US politics, especially since the "deepest insights" for many Europeans come from watching the "The West Wing"! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/LinusW88" rel="nofollow - Blargh |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 08 2008 at 07:54
|
Electronic voting is just fine by me provided there's a paper trail to back it up. It is true that you can have too many political parties, but the lack of viable alternatives to the two in the US has not been a good thing for us.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: February 08 2008 at 13:48
------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: GoldenSpiral
Date Posted: February 09 2008 at 11:54
|
What the US really needs right now is the rise of a strong 3rd party. The Democrats are on the verge of self-destruction, and it's not unheard of for a party to just one day disintegrate (anyone remember the Federalists? or the Whigs?). If that happens the republicans will be left in control for too long before another party can be formed to challenge their power.
------------- http://www.myspace.com/altaic" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/altaic ALTAIC "Oceans Down You'll Lie" coming soon |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: February 09 2008 at 12:14
|
^it looks like both parties are in danger of that, moreso the GOP...they can't even come close to a consensus on who to elect - the crazy talk-radio ("ultra-conservative) wing can't stand John McCain and are really falling apart while the more level-minded moderates like McCain and are drifting away from the divisive stance of the others. Most would agree that it's time for a "new order" of conservatives after what they've done since the Regan years...and I wouldn't mind seeing a strong libertarian and Green party as well as an actual liberal party for once. ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: February 09 2008 at 14:53
| 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. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 09 2008 at 17:44
To me the Republicans seem more on the verge of self destruction than the Democrats. And speaking of destruction, the way the Republicans have stacked the supreme court they'll be doing damage to this country for years to come without having to have control the presidency, the house or the senate... ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: February 09 2008 at 20:45
|
I don't like the endless bickering that didn't use to be the case (as much), but there needs to be at least two parties. The problem with lots of parties is then you can end up with something like Italy, which is really bad.
You can complain all you want, but if there were a sizeable demand in the US for a third party, someone would fill the gap. People are increasingly distancing themselves from either party, as shown by the rise of Independents and this year the prominence of McCain and Obama; they are willing to move to something else if it appeals to them. But the fact is, there aren't many people in the US who want to make it a radical socialist paradise.
How else can a democracy work, if not by a popularity contest? Your money doesn't play as large a part as you suggest: just look at Rudy and Huckabee. Rudy spent 49 million for one delegate, and Huckabee made it this far on a shoestring.
No, you mean the Republicans. The Democrats would make large strides towards getting there, though, if the superdelegates or MI and FL overturned a popular win by Obama. ------------- "Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine." Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: Because in their hearts, everyone secretly loves the Unabomber. |
Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: February 11 2008 at 22:12
|
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: February 14 2008 at 21:18
|
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. The GOP base is fracturing (see: Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Dobson, and Ann Coulter vs. McCain), and you can't have a party if you don't have any people. The Whigs (I think) disappeared and were replaced by the Republicans, and the same could happen again. The Democrats would only have a major problem if the Superdelegates overturned a popular vote win by Obama, because Obamanation would be really pissed and possibly leave ala Nader in 2000. ------------- "Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine." Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: Because in their hearts, everyone secretly loves the Unabomber. |
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: February 15 2008 at 03:02
| I always thought Dr. Dobson meant well, just his head was off in the weeds somewhere. |
Posted By: obiter
Date Posted: February 18 2008 at 21:05
|
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 ------------- An té nach mbíonn láidir ní folláir dó bheith glic |
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: February 18 2008 at 22:40
any other form of religious fundamentalim = evil fanaticism |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: February 19 2008 at 05:03
| 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. |
Posted By: Hirgwath
Date Posted: February 19 2008 at 16:34
|
I am very grateful for the two-party system. It keeps things from moving too quickly in one direction, because there will usually be a balance. For instance, in my home state of North Carolina, we have a Democratic governor, state senate, and a few more Democratic national representatives. However, we voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and both of our national senators are Republican. This keeps things from lurching around or radicalizing.
------------- Skwisgaar Skwigelf: taller than a tree. Toki Wartooth: not a bumblebee. |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 00:35
|
You can't have a show for the public unless you have at least two puppets er I mean parties
Most people think we live in a democratic society, ummm...ok
 and do you all realize that the US presidency has been in control by all but two families since 1989 (Bush, Clinton) and before that George H.W. Bush was the vice president for Reagan (1981-1988). The bigger the lie the better the show.......ha ha ha
wakey wakey people. |
Posted By: Salvo_
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 02:22
|
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Shrum - hamstrung their own campaigns , but you're being insane. There's a difference between questioning and looking for Illuminati thermite charges on the WTC. ------------- Member suspended |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 04:02
It's ok, never mind, forget I said anything, go back to sleep.
|
Posted By: Salvo_
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 09:04
|
Calling your opponents ignorant and apathetic is not a good way to debate, only a good way to look like a patronizing jerk.
Give me some evidence, or stop spewing your insanity. I have given you concrete reasons for the events you have observed, you have given me wild unfounded assertions. ------------- Member suspended |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 10:13
|
Screw the political parties. Let's just party. Whoohoo!!!
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Salvo_
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 11:23
 ------------- Member suspended |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 14:48
|
You can't possibly be suggesting that we party like a bunch of commies?
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Salvo_
Date Posted: March 22 2008 at 01:43
|
The Communist Party is the best party! ;-)
Sacred, I'm still waiting for your evidence. ------------- Member suspended |
Posted By: SpaceMonkey
Date Posted: March 22 2008 at 05:20
|
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: March 22 2008 at 11:51
but it always seemed like half of the people that went in, never came out... ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |