Why do we still primarily have a two party political system?

1. 85

   Annsaloposted 8 years ago

   Why do we still primarily have a two party political system?
   
   I would think people who really want change would eventually stop voting in the same types of people. Yet over and over they keep voting for the same 2 parties. 3rd party candidates are not given media attention, don't get included with the debates (usually), and seem ignored by the country. This makes no sense if everyone really is tired of the usual. So why no shift yet?

   replyreport
2. 77

   lovemychrisposted 8 years ago

   It would help if candidates would have the courage to stand on principle and stop using the establishment because there's more chance of them getting elected. I think Sanders should have created the Democratic Socialist Party, and Trump should have just run as Fascist.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Annsaloposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed.

      replyreport
3. 86

   tamarawilhiteposted 8 years ago

   The US electoral college system was designed to encourage the formation of two large parties that build large coalitions, instead of small regional and special interest parties that keep the parliamentary systems in constant flux.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Annsaloposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      So why are we still only using them when the 2 parties keep letting their people down?

      replyreport
   2. 66

      ptosisposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Because 3rd party has zero chance so people vote for the lesser of the two evils.

      replyreport
4. 66

   ptosisposted 8 years ago

   
   
   Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago posted: Brits manage to accomplish in four weeks what takes a year of more to complete in America. Let’s not even talk about the difference in costs! A run off election is no big deal to them.
   
   There is a lot about British electioneering to admire. It is swift and not overly burdened by raising money. Furthermore, spouses are not elevated to celebrity status and they manage to maintain their own individual lives outside the political arena. More importantly, the British electorate is well informed, engaged in the process, and civilized when dealing with differences of opinion. Even the candidates appear to be more natural and accessible. 
   
   On this side of the puddle, elections are a pathetic circus, painfully long, and disgracefully expensive. The public is bombarded with sound-bytes and TV attack ads. Campaigns are numbing spectacles dominated by high paid talking heads bent on creating a freak show just to boost ratings. -  http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1051 … al-college

   replyreport
5. 49

   bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years ago

   Basically because of generations of Loyal Party Voters. Many of them were born into there political party of preference. It was their parent's preference and they adopted it.
   
   They probably heard the saying from their parents, "The democrats are for the poor, and the republicans are for the rich".
   What they weren't told and haven't figured out for themselves, is neither party cares about the middle class. That class was the one that made America special and now that it is dwindling into the poor class, so is the might and the pride of the US.
   
   The loyal party voter is the problem, and they survive from generation to generation because of the family. The family initiates their indoctrination into politics and religion.
   It is only the few that use their intelligence to make their own choice.

   replyreport
6. 94

   Dean Traylorposted 8 years ago

   Possibly the reason we have a two-party political system is that it's easier for voters to choose between two people (representing the platforms from their parties) in a general election rather than three or four.
   Often, a candidate represents their political party's platform. Usually that platform consists of several topics. Historically, third party candidates are one-issue candidates. Their party may focus on the environment (Green) or other agendas.
   Also,third party candidates in a presidential election usually exist to shed light on an issue that may be ignored by the big two or is the result of a candidate from one of the major parties who felt they could win in a general election rather than in a primary.
   Third parties do win, but they're in congressional/senatorial elections (such as Bernie Sanders or Leiberman).
   Another thing to consider about the two-party system is that it's stable. Even if the candidates may not be appealing, they are often closer to the center of the political spectrum. In multiple party systems around the world (sometimes where more than 20 candidates are running for office), the candidates tend to be all over the political system. This can create chaos before, during and after elections.

   replyreport