The incumbent party and an opposition with a constructive agenda would suffice. I don't disagree with a third party, but under our Westminster system in Australia that has resulted in a hung Parliament, I'm not sure how it would fit your system, I would need to think about it.
We used to have a three party system with the third party holding the balance of power. However last year the third party became the balancing part and now we have really a two party system- them in government and them not in government. Unless of course them in government think that someone who was with the other party is quite intelligent and gifted and then they get them to work with them in government although obviously they are from the them not in government party!
I agree, it is a one party system, has been for a long while, decades.
I am not so sure about a 3 party systenm, but there are numorous parties situated within the structure of the Democrat party itself, and Progressives are a cross-over that infects our system for sure.
We definitly have to re-claim the Republican Party and pull back to the right... it is the only choice I see. We have been drug too far to the left by the Socialist commie lovin Democrats and Progressive right.
Two, three, five or one hundred. It won't make a difference until you change the system. Corporations will simply buy every candidate. Get them out of the mix and the politicians will have to change their tune and please the people who voted them in, not the big businesses who paid for them to get there.
Yes, I realize we have two parties and you are suggesting three. My point is that will change nothing in Washington. It would feasibly make matters worse. As long as the manner in which candidates obtain financing remains intact you will never see positive change. It cannot be a government of the people, by the people or for the people as long as big business continues to call the shots.
We have several political parties in this country. It's true that we always end up choosing between The Big Two. Sadly, the major parties serve the interests of their own business deals with huge corporations far and above any actual "public service." Y'know, that which they are actually elected to do? Their corruption is well-served, too, by the fact that most of the public is duped into thinking that one side or the other actually gives a rat's patoot about them. That the other side are wrong and are what's killing the country. If only MY side gets control back, then things will be alright.
It's a crock. The U.S. has been spiraling out of control for decades and anyone who has said anything about it has been considered "unpatriotic" (when the Republicans are in office, anyway). We're blinded by our petty little arguments while we are milked dry. We rage over stupid, inconsequential crap while our freedoms, ideals, and future are squandered away in deals that "we the people" have absolutely no say in. Politicians today are merely looking toward the next election. Both sides do it with equal vigor. Whenever we actually get someone who seems honest or hungry to actually change things (notice that these people always belong to some obscure political party orare independent candidates), they are laughed at because they don't possess the slick, TV-friendly, sound-byte spewing, archetype that we as a society have come to accept as the only template from which a leader can be extracted.
Most of us, in fact, all of us must rely on history in order to prove what the past has claimed to be true. The idea is that we try not to repeat mistakes, whenever possible, and moving forward is most important to the future. If society and culture has shown us we've made mistakes, then a three party system could be beneficial to America. Also, the idea that reparations should lead to the forming of a new party leaves little political basis for that supposed third party involvement.
The United States needs to move forward, not backward. Thank you Uninvited Writer! Progress happens whether good or bad.
According to what you wrote, if MANY people's homes were on fire, you'd simply let them burn. You want everyone you don't like to be in hell or "out of here" so that you can have your own little world the way you want it. And just because the world isn't the way you want it means you have to condemn everyone else who disagrees with you. Your world must be an incredibly awful place to live. No wonder you're so miserable you have to attack anyone who disagrees with you.
How's all that working for you?
As for two party systems: pointed out earlier is that we have several parties. It's just that the present two dominant parties have the power to control. The Tea Party was an effort to break up that power and redistribute. It was only partially successful and is now waning because it's a haven for every conservative loon in this country. They are fighting against themselves. Perhaps in time, if they can truly get organized, they may have a solid power base, but not until.
I agree, and of course that's true. Who wants to lose power? No one. But obviously we do need a balancer, otherwise there is more and more room for corruption. Any organization, especially political ones, are extremely aggressive about gaining and retaining power. One of the important reasons for the three branches of govt. To balance. But even then, it isn't a silver bullet. But it would so much more disastrous if it wasn't there.
Being extreme has nothing to do w/ politcial or religious views! If it does, then it should be an opinion, not a factually-based rant, as many have pursued. The idea is that a political change is necessary, had been officially elected to office, and that if we do not unify we will fall. I am tired of the negativity in some of these posts. If we are intelligent, we should work together instead of blasting out ridiculous and impulsive comments. While TMMason is a Republican (I assume), I always enjoy his responses and answers because, short or long, they make sense! A three-party system is America hasn't been attempted, and neither has mandatory seating requirements in Congress.
I began this forum and it was terrific. Cagsil took the time to create a false profile under truechristian and has botched this interaction. I apologize to the contributors of this forum. We were on to something before a couple bad apples messed it up. I will start another thread with the same name as its forum title. Thanks a lot Cagsil...or truechristian or whatever.
Nice try. I do have two accounts, but my other accounts also says "Cagsil" on it.
Do try to refrain from making defaming remarks against my character as a person. You can be held accountable, since you apparently refuse to hold yourself accountable, by making the remark in the first place.
The truth is, we need a new three party system. Regardless of the opinions, we need a different politcal arena to debate politics. The idea that only two sides exist to debate is usually ridiculous, and a 3-party system would alleviate this.
I've read countless numbers of threads about partisan political talking points over the years. They range from abortion, gun control, immigration, social justice, healthcare, protected classes of people, voting...
Should we abandon the two party system?Over the past 8 years (maybe longer) I've notice a growing confusions as to what the two part system actually accomplishes. Personally I feel that we should dismantle this system...
Sometimes it seems that with the two party systeem there is a gang or mob mentality. Whether you are on one side of the fence or the other with party backed candidates like Sarah Palin or extreme leftist...