3 ms·

We have evolved into a two-party system because it fills a need: convenience. When most don't bother to vote, and even fewer vote with a functioning knowledge

by mcknz 16y ago

We have evolved into a two-party system because it fills a need: convenience. When most don't bother to vote, and even fewer vote with a functioning knowledge of the candidates, there is no need for a third party. This makes things easy: red versus blue, good versus evil. Like two football teams. There is a enough distinction (arguably) between the two parties that one may confidently align themselves with one or the other. With extremely rare exception I vote party over candidate, not so much because I like the party, but because I dislike that party less. The only way the current party system can be broken is if the system itself breaks -- it's going to take systemic political and financial failure to see any difference.

beagle3 16y ago
> We have evolved into a two-party system because it fills a need: convenience. No. Americans have evolved into a two party system because it suits those two parties, and they were strong enough to make that happen very early on. Did you notice that the distinction between parties (gay marriage, abortion, government size) doesn't ever get addressed even though control has been switching between parties regularly? (And if it does, it's in the court and not in congress, e.g. Roe vs. Wade?) That's because both puppets, sorry, parties are actually catering to a ruling elite, rather than the voters. And it's good for those parties to have issues that let voters identify with them (to the point of feeling unable to vote for the other guy). If these things were actually addressed, they'd have to deal with the real things like economics or policy. Which is kind of scary for them. I agree about the only possibility of breaking is from the inside, though.
- mcknz 16y ago
  A little of both perhaps -- Americans like the simplicity their overlords provide. Except for some of the wackos at the fringes, it's all really political theater. Candidates say what they have to say to appeal to their "base" while they go about the business of making the lives of their own special interests easier. The honest/sincere ones just get beaten into submission. I remember a story about how Ted Kennedy basically went ballistic over some issue in a committee meeting, but when he was finished, and the attention diverted, he gave a sly wink to his Republican counterpart.
- cma 16y ago
  >Did you notice that the distinction between parties (gay marriage, abortion, government size) doesn't ever get addressed even though control has been switching between parties regularly? Healthcare?
  - beagle3 16y ago
    I agree, healthcare has actually been sort-of addressed. (And by sort of, I mean that while it is a move in the right direction, it is possibly the worst in terms of cost, and is a freebie to the healthcare industry; it does nothing to actually solve any underlying problem). But are you aware that these healthcare plans have been debated since the '30s? For all practical purposes, 80 years to solve a problem in a half-assed way is in line with my original claim.
mcantelon 16y ago
The two party system is definitely convenient, for the interests represented by lobbyists if not the electorate. "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy." - Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope Quigley was an influential thinker and historian, and cited as an influence by Bill Clinton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley#Influence_on_Bill_Clinton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley#Influence_on_Bi...
- mcknz 16y ago
  I believe that describes the system we currently have. We shift between Republicans and Democrats on a fairly regular basis, without any action toward meaningful long-term solutions to our problems.

by mcknz 16y ago

beagle3 16y ago

> We have evolved into a two-party system because it fills a need: convenience. No. Americans have evolved into a two party system because it suits those two parties, and they were strong enough to make that happen very early on. Did you notice that the distinction between parties (gay marriage, abortion, government size) doesn't ever get addressed even though control has been switching between parties regularly? (And if it does, it's in the court and not in congress, e.g. Roe vs. Wade?) That's because both puppets, sorry, parties are actually catering to a ruling elite, rather than the voters. And it's good for those parties to have issues that let voters identify with them (to the point of feeling unable to vote for the other guy). If these things were actually addressed, they'd have to deal with the real things like economics or policy. Which is kind of scary for them. I agree about the only possibility of breaking is from the inside, though.

mcknz 16y ago
A little of both perhaps -- Americans like the simplicity their overlords provide. Except for some of the wackos at the fringes, it's all really political theater. Candidates say what they have to say to appeal to their "base" while they go about the business of making the lives of their own special interests easier. The honest/sincere ones just get beaten into submission. I remember a story about how Ted Kennedy basically went ballistic over some issue in a committee meeting, but when he was finished, and the attention diverted, he gave a sly wink to his Republican counterpart.
cma 16y ago
>Did you notice that the distinction between parties (gay marriage, abortion, government size) doesn't ever get addressed even though control has been switching between parties regularly? Healthcare?
- beagle3 16y ago
  I agree, healthcare has actually been sort-of addressed. (And by sort of, I mean that while it is a move in the right direction, it is possibly the worst in terms of cost, and is a freebie to the healthcare industry; it does nothing to actually solve any underlying problem). But are you aware that these healthcare plans have been debated since the '30s? For all practical purposes, 80 years to solve a problem in a half-assed way is in line with my original claim.

mcantelon 16y ago

The two party system is definitely convenient, for the interests represented by lobbyists if not the electorate. "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy." - Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope Quigley was an influential thinker and historian, and cited as an influence by Bill Clinton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley#Influence_on_Bill_Clinton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley#Influence_on_Bi...

mcknz 16y ago
I believe that describes the system we currently have. We shift between Republicans and Democrats on a fairly regular basis, without any action toward meaningful long-term solutions to our problems.