Why the two party system?

1. 61

   JerryJupiterposted 12 years ago

   Why the two party system?
   
   I'm living in the UK and trying to keep up with politics around the world, and something has always puzzled me - why the two party system in the US? From my research it seems that having only 2 parties is good for is to restrict choice into polorized options - due to the lack of marketing for the partys. I feel that with the TV, radio and internet nowadays the two party system is defunct and is hurting the nation. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

   replyreport
2. 81

   Wayne Brownposted 12 years ago

   It seems that it is a case more of outcome than intent although I am sure there are those in high places in both parties who like it that way.  Given that the Demcrats represent liberal thinking and Republicans reflect the conservative slant, there are not too many other places to go except to pick and choose from either side which does not seem to attract a plurality of voters.  We have seen the effect of a three party approach in the past...it is basically that effect that put Bill Clinton into the White House.  Folks like to blame it on George Bush Sr. and his "no tax" committment but it was really a case of Ross Perot bleeding off the vote on the conservative side which gave Clinton the election.  We do have the Liberaterian Party in the USA but, like the "Green Party", it has not really gained any significant momentum...thus the two party system continues by default. WB

   replyreport
3. 60

   Josakposted 12 years ago

   Well I agree the two part system in the US restricts voter freedom and prevents genuine change, on the other hand the reason why it exists in the USA and so many other countries is that there are fundamentally two directions a political party can go, left and right (there is also authoritarian vs libertarian but constitutions usually guarantee a certain level of these) so parties will develop to represent the left and right at the point that people are comfortable with, of course the party on that side is not necessary of that side, take the democrat party for example, it is not actually a left wing party but more moderate right on the global field.

   replyreport
4. 57

   WD Curry 111posted 12 years ago

   Very astute. You would think it is the system devised by the founders or structured by the constitution. It evolved rapidly around certain leaders and philosophies. Parties may come and go, but there are always two who dwarf everyone else. Right now, it should be obvious that these two factions are not adept at successful government. They have forgotten that the people are the ruling class around here.
   
   I am an independent, and we rarely have anyone to vote for, unless you want to waste your vote on a fringe candidate with good ideas to make a statement in a void. Right now, registered independents are close to 25% of voters. On TV political forums and the like, the question is always which of the two main party candidates will the Independents vote for.
   Maybe we are closing in on producing one of our own.
   
   We like Buddy Roemer. He was in state politics in Louisiana before retiring from public life to start a bank. It is a small regional bank. The FDIC under Timothy Franz Geithner (with advisement from Deutsche Bank and others) has been closing regional banks, "stiffing" the stockholders for their assets and giving them to the "too big to fail" TARP recipients for the cost of the paperwork. Roemer's bank stood strong against this successful ploy to centralize the banking system under the auspices of the Federal Reserve Bank. Roemer did not foreclose on his customers. He restructured loans and worked with regional business to keep afloat. It has paid off, and they are scratching their way back.
   
   I like Roemer's approach. He is sick of big money calling the shots. He will not take more than $100 from each donor. The parties don't take him seriously. People up North don't have much respect for Louisiana. They forget that the Bank of New Orleans had more investment money than anyone before the civil war. It's all in New York now, and they don't know how to handle it. Anyway, I'm voting for him and sending $25 to the campaign. He may not get elected, but we are hoping to pave the way for a real representative party.
   
   Voters have plenty of freedom. We haven't been using it.

   replyreport
5. 0

   Old Empresarioposted 12 years ago

   I wrote an essay on Hubpages called The Four Political Parties of the United States. That pretty much sums up the political climate here.

   replyreport
6. 60

   tammybarnetteposted 12 years ago

   Great question. Honestly I believe these two parties have deep pockets in order to fund their campaigns. If the playing field was even and the commercials and hoopla would cease to exist then the independents and centrist would have a voice.

   replyreport