Do you think we need more than two major political parties in the USA?

1. 44

   retrobanditposted 13 years ago

   Do you think we need more than two major political parties in the USA?
   
   Do you think the country would be better with more parties represented on a bigger scale?

   replyreport
2. 74

   Cow Flipperposted 13 years ago

   I will say this... we need a better system than the one we have but for now it is the best it will be. Two parties Dem and Rep that are the majority, they run things because they hold power. It will take a change in public consciousness to actually make that happen.

   replyreport
3. 61

   zduckmanposted 13 years ago

   there are more that 13 political parties, but we have been brainwashed into thinking that it is a 2 party system. The key here is campaign finance reform to level the playing field so that the big 2 can't get so much corporate funding. The airwaves are public, therefore...each candidate should get equal air time to express their opinions and voice their platform.
   wehave been brainwashed to think that we have a choice...left or right...when they are really both corporate puppets doing the bidding of the oil, big Pharma, and chemical corporations as our cancer rates rise and ailments like Autism become more and more common. I don't know what it will take for us to stand up like Egypt did and say we have finally had enough.

   replyreport
4. 71

   ptosisposted 13 years ago

   
   
   This is just from the Presiden tial Electoral voting system:
   
   It's true that everybody thinks that our system - however flawed - is the best in the world - but  the Electoral College was originally intended to evade the people's vote and is a direct legacy of slavery - (3/5 compromise: black man's vote counted as 3/5 a vote from a white man.
   
   Interesting game theory about how to count the votes - all have problems and all have ways to 'game' the system.
   
   http://hubpages.com/hub/Intro2Games
   
   The study of formally defined voting systems is called voting theory - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system

   replyreport
5. 73

   MrMaranathaposted 13 years ago

   I think we need to have a Pre election that reduces the field to the top two candidates, and then Only the top two would be voted on in the final.
   
   Biased Media should be Blocked from giving any opinions or coverage for 72 hour "Cooling Off Period" prior to the Final Elections to allow people a time to think for themselves without just going along with  what the Television crowd says is the right thing to do.. right candidate to vote for...
   
   Without the nagging things like "What sort of a Moron would vote for......." and any other ways that the Media would push popular votes...
   
   Also... Since we are on the subject... we would need to revamp the system and do away with the electoral College.

   replyreport
6. 88

   Bibowenposted 13 years ago

   We have more than two parties. However, America has (roughly) always been a nation of two dominant parties. This is largely because of our system of plurality voting which rewards first place winners; second place and below get cancelled out. So, if you want a more inclusive system, like many of the European nations, you'd have to change the electoral system to one of proportional representation.
   
   Although the two-party system is on the way out in many places (even Britain is having a hard time sustaining it), the two-party system has its advantages. It tends to yield a more stable political result: you know who the winners are immediately after the election. You tend to get more moderate candidates and not extremists. It's also easier to understand: some of the multiparty systems have become very complicated. The plurality system of voting is straightforward: if you get more votes than your competitors, you win.

   replyreport
7. 59

   Beege215eposted 13 years ago

   I believe we would be better off without any "parties".  Let each contender stand on his own platform, let him or her speak their own truths, let each of them be found worthy or not on their own merit.  Politics be darned. I don't care if you are a republican or a democrat, I care about what you believe, truly believe. I care about what you want to do for my country. I care about honor and justice and responsibility.  I don't care about party politics as usual. I don't care about some great big political point of view. I care about the country as a whole. So throw the politics out and bring in the honor, the truth, and the responsibile.

   replyreport
8. 60

   Pollyannalanaposted 13 years ago

   Yes yes yes! These two know to much on each other to ever trust either and they really can't keep the other from doing real damage. We need a clean sweep and get all those old guys out just siting collecting a pay check to old to even think, except about women and vacations at our expense. Well we will have a new one soon, one way or another!!

   replyreport
9. 74

   someonewhoknowsposted 13 years ago

   The big contributors would have to decide between more than two cadidates and that means less money per candidate or they would have to contribute more money to each one

   replyreport
10. 61

    Matt in Jaxposted 13 years ago

    It would be a good idea to have more "major" parties, but I doubt that any additional parties could be funded properly enough to attempt to compete and branch into national, state-wide, and city-wide elections.

    replyreport
11. 60

    Yankee Rebposted 13 years ago

    NO -we need 2 parties - just not the 2 that are in power now!

    replyreport
12. 0

    thegeckoposted 13 years ago

    It's a difference between overt and covert (loosely used here) negotiations between political groups.
    
    In the US (covert), many different political groups rally behind the Democrats or Republicans and work with those parties to get their agendas through. Much of these deals happen within the party itself.
    
    In many Europeans countries (overt) where winners earn a percentage of the seats, those different groups usually must align themselves with one of the two larger parties to pass their agenda. It's just more obvious who the bigger players are because they hold a seat.
    
    Would us switching matter much? Probably not. In both systems, two parties fight for power.
    
    There's always a chance a third party will come along and trump one of the current ones. It's happen before and it could happen again.
    
    What we really need are more responsible voters.

    replyreport
13. 70

    nifty@50posted 13 years ago

    Yes, political parties are a lot like industry, when you introduce a third player, you get a lot more competition and it breaks up what is essentially a monopoly. A strong Libertarian party would make the other two parties take notice that excessive spending for wars (Republicans) or excessive spending for social programs (Democrats), would no longer be winning strategies.

    replyreport
14. 38

    Borsiaposted 13 years ago

    Given that the 2 parties have done nothing but run the country into the toilet for the last 60 years while filling the pockets of there handlers, as well as their own, I would say that we definitely need something different.
    The party that offers real answers is, IMHO, the Libertarians.
    That is who I will be voting for.
    Consider that both parties have claimed they stood for fiscal responsibility and smaller government in every election for 60 years. Did ANY of them keep that promise? Not a single one!!
    Every administration has cooked the books to make themselves look good while lying to the American people.
    So how many times will you accept lies before you fire them?
    How many Trillion dollars in debt do we have to be before you accept that they spend money like a juvenile delinquent with a stolen credit card? And they are sending the bills to your children and their children and, yes, their children; that is how far we are in debt. $126,000 for every taxpayer in the country is the current debt, They want to raise the credit card limit and add another 2.4 TRILLION in debt.
    Obama is talking about lowering the debt by 4 trillion over 4 years, THAT IS NOTHING.
    It's like his commitment to bringing home 30,000 troops. That is less than he sent during the surge and there will be more there than when he took office on the pledge to get out.
    We have to get someone else into the position, or sink into the status of a 3rd world country.

    replyreport
15. 59

    Kaddamposted 13 years ago

    No, we can't even define much difference in the two we got.

    replyreport
16. 78

    moiragallagaposted 13 years ago

    This is an outsider's observation, as I'm not a U.S. citizen but have lived there for 6 years. The 2 party system has seemed to work fairly well for some time, it provides stability and makes it easy to identify the policies and programs you wish to align yourself with. I'm from a country with multiple political parties and we get like 11 candidates running for President, it's a bit chaotic and becomes more personality driven as opposed to issues and political platforms. The 2 party system makes it easy to identify the party you wish to vote for, at least when things were much simpler then many years ago.
    
    However, with the advent of globalization, rapid advances in technology and other changes/innovations I noticed that the issues and beliefs of U.S. citizens have become very diverse and nuanced. It appears that the 2 parties are now no longer able to provide a platform that would adequately cover the diverse electoral base of the American people. Many years ago, majority of people could easily identify themselves as Democrat or Republican. Nowadays, you got the libertarians, blue dogs, centrists, etc. You have liberals who love their guns.
    
    For an observer, it has become interesting actually how U.S. politics has evolved. Having a third or fourth major political party might be a next step in your country's evolution of your political process. The current deadlock on the debt ceiling could be considered as a reason to start examining if the 2 major political parties are still relevant enough in terms of being able to properly serve the interests of the American people.

    replyreport
17. 61

    kd4rvbposted 13 years ago

    It would be nice to have at least one more major party involved, it would sure solve the stalemate issues.  It takes more that two opinions to come up with a consensus. I don't even think either party we have now are truly representative of the feelings of our country as a whole. They sit on opposite poles striving for some middle ground that is beyond their reaches.
    
    On the other hand, they continue to exist because the people tend to vote in terms like "the lesser of two evils" or "I want to vote for this person but if I do this person I really don't want will win so I'll vote for this one instead". Such mentalities, while there is some logic to them, lend to the problem. We rarely voter for ourselves so much as we vote in groups. Be they unions, or ecological factions or what ever, we tend to pick one side or the other and hope for the best.
    
    This is the potential demise of America. The nature of our own interpretations of freedom and law driven by political greed and desire for power rather than what is best for our people has placed use at the end of our golden age. Yes, we need more parties in order to achieve competition based upon a desire to serve rather than dictate what Americans want.

    replyreport
18. 61

    jg555posted 13 years ago

    Many countries have more. One negative effect of having more is that people may not understand the differences between all of them. Having two makes it simple. However, the other people are right that we have many minor parties.

    replyreport
19. 66

    Perspycaciousposted 10 years ago

    The key portion of your question is "two major political parties."  I am aware that past elections have seen votes diluted by splinter factions such as those once called the "Dixiecrats" and "The Bull Moose Party," etc.  When we have only the "two major political parties" contesting elections, it is understandable that they limit their active attacks and promises to the few topics they hope will give them victory, and then sit glaring at each other when they get to Washington rather than working for the common good of all Americans.  I would like to see a third major party that can draw equally from the two traditional major parties, and give us more than just two perspectives on today's wide variety of our pressing national issues.
    I can imagine what power could come to a significant "Minorities Party" (for example) which could raise their own tough issues and demand that they be heard and considered on legislation and reforms that would benefit them most as voters.

    replyreport
20. 97

    watergeekposted 9 years ago

    I think those who spoke out about voter responsibility have it right. Voters themselves have to be willing to take action on their political dissatisfactions before real change will occur. I belonged to the Independent Party for a long time, until I discovered the Green Party. That one I've belonged to for about eight years, but they're only just now starting to really reach out to people.
    
    From my point of view, if we are to become a thriving part of the web of existence, we need to put the earth first. Without a healthy earth, we cannot be a healthy species. Our politics should reflect that. IMHO that would mean joining the Green Party (or one like it), but do they have the leadership? That's a key question.

    replyreport