8 ms·

"Because the other side doesn't have a viable candidate" Glorious two party system, how is that even remotely called democracy by anyone?

by MrDosu 11y ago

adventured 11y ago
There's no correlation between having a lot of parties and a sound, well functioning political system. See: Italy, and a dozen other examples from Europe over the last 70 years If your culture is rotten, your politics will be rotten, regardless of whether you have 2, 5, 27 parties.
- mcv 11y ago
  A multi-party system does not guarantee that there will be no political problems (particularly not if it polarizes into what's effectively a two-party system), but a two-party system is practically guaranteed to not represent minority opinions, and very likely to degenerate into a "vote for the lesser evil".
  - soylentcola 11y ago
    Not to mention the issues of access you run into when money and influence are able to build up behind one or two campaigns. Two insanely massive parties are basically like competition between two massive marketing budgets. Trying to compete against the Republican or Democratic parties is like trying to start a new cellular carrier from scratch to compete with Verizon and AT&T. Sure, if you managed to get enough "viral" support and maybe some wealthy investor you could mount a campaign big enough to get into a debate but the frameworks that have grown around the two-party system make it very difficult to take advantage of any popularity boost. Trying to compete with the two established parties in a "winner takes all" system would require working against the entire political system which is overwhelmingly made up of people in those two parties.
  - paulhauggis 11y ago
    "but a two-party system is practically guaranteed to not represent minority opinions," It's designed this way. Many minority opinions are minority because they are bad and should never be implemented.
    - mcv 11y ago
      So you think the US political system is doing fine? Disenfranchising minorities is a bad way to run a democracy.
- mrweasel 11y ago
  >There's no correlation between having a lot of parties and a sound, well functioning political system. Absolutely true, but it is remarkable that the Danes had 10 parties to choose from at our election for parliament last week and the US is supposed to be able feel represented by only two parties. Denmark is pretty much as homogeneous a society as it is possible to be in a modern world and yet we have 10 parties, granted many have very similar policies. It's completely unrealistic that a country of 320million people should feel that their views should represented by two large parties, when 5.5million people in a small Scandinavian country need 10 parties (9 of which managed to get seats in parliament)
  - 1_player 11y ago
    > Denmark is pretty much as heterogeneously a society I think you mean homogeneous.
    - mrweasel 11y ago
      Ooh, yeah of cause, thanks.
  - kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
    The US does have more than two parties. Most ballots have anywhere from 3 to 6. It's just that nobody votes for them unless they happen to nominate someone from the big two.
    - happyscrappy 11y ago
      When the Green party gets a lot of votes those votes come from the Democrats and the Republicans win. Conversely with libertarians.
    - mrweasel 11y ago
      I do understand that there's more than two parties, I should have made that clear. The US system is more or less a "winner takes all" system, leaving small parties little or no change for representation, even if they do represent a large percentage of the population. It is pretty much the same "problem" the UK has. If the Americans are happy with the system, then then there's no issue, but if a large population group feels unrepresented then I don't think it's a fair system. There's a valid point to be made in terms of the size and diversity in the US might pose a problem for a parliamentary style of government, in as so fare as a plethora of parties could gridlock legislation.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  "a sound, well functioning political system" is not the goal, or we'd all adopt the single party run like a corporation model from Singapore. The goal is to represent all the citizens' wishes as best as possible when taking decisions about issues of common interest. And the more power is concentrated in unaccountable parties, the less chances we have at doing that. Italy may have more than 2 parties, but they are already moving towards a less democratic system where only 2 of them matter. They are already at the point where the only way to access significant positions is through a party. Independents are heavily penalized and mostly eliminated from the picture. Then there's the lack of internal democracy in those structures supposed to democratically represent the people. Party members are forced to respect party lines instead of what they personally believe, and in some cases the party line is dictated by a single person - the founder/CEO/father-figure of the corporate party (Berlusconi, Grillo, etc.).
- MrDosu 11y ago
  How is this answer even related? I never mentioned multi party systems lead to a well functioning political system. You are arguing against a point no one made.
danmaz74 11y ago
There are primary elections for both parties, aren't there?
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  Some of them are caucuses organized by the parties themselves with slim guarantees of a fair electoral process. It's really the closest thing to election by acclamation in a unique communist party without being such a clear departure from democracy. This way it's the most limited choice possible: like the school bully who asks you whether you want to be hit with the left fist or the right one :-)
- MrDosu 11y ago
  Yeah and it's also the only country in the world where those elections lead to the same couple of families winning every time...
  - briandear 11y ago
    Every time? Hyperbolize much? Bush and the John Adams family are the only families to have more than 1 President in them. How about we stick to facts? As far as "only country in the world.." How many countries of the world have Royal families? How many of those were elected? Someone explain why the British Royal family gets a single pound in tax-payer money. What does the King of Sweden actually do again? Let's be intellectually consistent instead of just bashing the U.S. because it's fashionable.
    - vacri 11y ago
      Someone explain why the British Royal family gets a single pound in tax-payer money. Speaking of intellectual consistency, the British taxpayer gets more money from the royal family than the family gets in taxes. The government administers estates owned by the royal family and takes the revenue - the net cash flow is about £100M annually from Lizzie and crew to the UK taxpayer. This isn't soft measures like "enhances tourism". It's direct income from the estates. If the UK gummint were to cut them off, the Windsors could take back control of their estates, and the gummint would be that much in the red. Continuing in the vein of intellectual consistency, the UK is a representative democracy - the people who pass law are voted in by citizens. The monarch does not make law, so elections for the monarch are meaningless in the context of law- or policy-making. You can hate on the royal family all you want, but it doesn't change that they contribute more financially than they get, and they don't get to make law. And the UK has a multipolar political system, though it's stupid FPTP voting method gives it a lot of similarities to a two-party system. Ultimately though, your hated royals actually inhabit a country with more political choices for the proles than the US has. King of Sweden... I'm less familiar with.
rayiner 11y ago
What about the results of the two party system make you think it hinders democracy? Bearing in mind that the average voter is basically my mom? We have pretty much exactly the government my mom wants. Harsh drug laws, extreme jail sentences, generous social security, lots of regulatory protections, etc. Probably the only light between her and Obama is she dislikes his foreign policy (she's from a Muslim country, which makes her exceptional there) and dislikes the trend towards legalized gay marriage and weed (positions well represented by the republicans, who she sometimes wants to vote for). Her biggest disagreements are with laws that derive from Supreme Court dictates (e.g. free speech protections). These positions derive from an coherent worldview--one that has a low opinion of individual humans and values authority and the idea that people need to be told what to do for society to function smoothly (a common viewpoint not just here but across Asia). So again, what about democracy in the U.S. isn't working? We have pretty much exactly the kind of government you'd expect given the views of our voters.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- MrDosu 11y ago
  Well, in my country multi party systems basically work like this: Unresolved issue comes up, party forms specializing in said issue, if party gets support big parties integrate unresolved issue, issue is now resolved. And you got it completely around! In america your mom gets the government she is been told to want. That is why you have a two party system. Barrier to entry is "spent multi hundred millions on media control, if that's not possible you wont get votes, ever" and that's well backed by facts.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    My mom didn't grow up here, and she doesn't speak English as a first language so she barely consumes U.S. media. The idea that her viewpoints are the result of media indoctrination is ridiculous. The area that the media hammers hardest (foreign policy) is the one area where she disagrees with the government, and she opposes things the media is broadly in favor of (gay marriage, decriminalized marijuana).
knodi123 11y ago
it's the most democratic presidential election system in the entire country

"Because the other side doesn't have a viable candidate" Glorious two party system, how is that even remotely called democracy by anyone?

by MrDosu 11y ago

"Because the other side doesn't have a viable candidate" Glorious two party system, how is that even remotely called democracy by anyone?

adventured 11y ago

There's no correlation between having a lot of parties and a sound, well functioning political system. See: Italy, and a dozen other examples from Europe over the last 70 years If your culture is rotten, your politics will be rotten, regardless of whether you have 2, 5, 27 parties.

mcv 11y ago
A multi-party system does not guarantee that there will be no political problems (particularly not if it polarizes into what's effectively a two-party system), but a two-party system is practically guaranteed to not represent minority opinions, and very likely to degenerate into a "vote for the lesser evil".
- soylentcola 11y ago
  Not to mention the issues of access you run into when money and influence are able to build up behind one or two campaigns. Two insanely massive parties are basically like competition between two massive marketing budgets. Trying to compete against the Republican or Democratic parties is like trying to start a new cellular carrier from scratch to compete with Verizon and AT&T. Sure, if you managed to get enough "viral" support and maybe some wealthy investor you could mount a campaign big enough to get into a debate but the frameworks that have grown around the two-party system make it very difficult to take advantage of any popularity boost. Trying to compete with the two established parties in a "winner takes all" system would require working against the entire political system which is overwhelmingly made up of people in those two parties.
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  "but a two-party system is practically guaranteed to not represent minority opinions," It's designed this way. Many minority opinions are minority because they are bad and should never be implemented.
  - mcv 11y ago
    So you think the US political system is doing fine? Disenfranchising minorities is a bad way to run a democracy.
mrweasel 11y ago
>There's no correlation between having a lot of parties and a sound, well functioning political system. Absolutely true, but it is remarkable that the Danes had 10 parties to choose from at our election for parliament last week and the US is supposed to be able feel represented by only two parties. Denmark is pretty much as homogeneous a society as it is possible to be in a modern world and yet we have 10 parties, granted many have very similar policies. It's completely unrealistic that a country of 320million people should feel that their views should represented by two large parties, when 5.5million people in a small Scandinavian country need 10 parties (9 of which managed to get seats in parliament)
- 1_player 11y ago
  > Denmark is pretty much as heterogeneously a society I think you mean homogeneous.
  - mrweasel 11y ago
    Ooh, yeah of cause, thanks.
- kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
  The US does have more than two parties. Most ballots have anywhere from 3 to 6. It's just that nobody votes for them unless they happen to nominate someone from the big two.
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    When the Green party gets a lot of votes those votes come from the Democrats and the Republicans win. Conversely with libertarians.
  - mrweasel 11y ago
    I do understand that there's more than two parties, I should have made that clear. The US system is more or less a "winner takes all" system, leaving small parties little or no change for representation, even if they do represent a large percentage of the population. It is pretty much the same "problem" the UK has. If the Americans are happy with the system, then then there's no issue, but if a large population group feels unrepresented then I don't think it's a fair system. There's a valid point to be made in terms of the size and diversity in the US might pose a problem for a parliamentary style of government, in as so fare as a plethora of parties could gridlock legislation.
stefantalpalaru 11y ago
"a sound, well functioning political system" is not the goal, or we'd all adopt the single party run like a corporation model from Singapore. The goal is to represent all the citizens' wishes as best as possible when taking decisions about issues of common interest. And the more power is concentrated in unaccountable parties, the less chances we have at doing that. Italy may have more than 2 parties, but they are already moving towards a less democratic system where only 2 of them matter. They are already at the point where the only way to access significant positions is through a party. Independents are heavily penalized and mostly eliminated from the picture. Then there's the lack of internal democracy in those structures supposed to democratically represent the people. Party members are forced to respect party lines instead of what they personally believe, and in some cases the party line is dictated by a single person - the founder/CEO/father-figure of the corporate party (Berlusconi, Grillo, etc.).
MrDosu 11y ago
How is this answer even related? I never mentioned multi party systems lead to a well functioning political system. You are arguing against a point no one made.

danmaz74 11y ago

There are primary elections for both parties, aren't there?

stefantalpalaru 11y ago
Some of them are caucuses organized by the parties themselves with slim guarantees of a fair electoral process. It's really the closest thing to election by acclamation in a unique communist party without being such a clear departure from democracy. This way it's the most limited choice possible: like the school bully who asks you whether you want to be hit with the left fist or the right one :-)
MrDosu 11y ago
Yeah and it's also the only country in the world where those elections lead to the same couple of families winning every time...
- briandear 11y ago
  Every time? Hyperbolize much? Bush and the John Adams family are the only families to have more than 1 President in them. How about we stick to facts? As far as "only country in the world.." How many countries of the world have Royal families? How many of those were elected? Someone explain why the British Royal family gets a single pound in tax-payer money. What does the King of Sweden actually do again? Let's be intellectually consistent instead of just bashing the U.S. because it's fashionable.
  - vacri 11y ago
    Someone explain why the British Royal family gets a single pound in tax-payer money. Speaking of intellectual consistency, the British taxpayer gets more money from the royal family than the family gets in taxes. The government administers estates owned by the royal family and takes the revenue - the net cash flow is about £100M annually from Lizzie and crew to the UK taxpayer. This isn't soft measures like "enhances tourism". It's direct income from the estates. If the UK gummint were to cut them off, the Windsors could take back control of their estates, and the gummint would be that much in the red. Continuing in the vein of intellectual consistency, the UK is a representative democracy - the people who pass law are voted in by citizens. The monarch does not make law, so elections for the monarch are meaningless in the context of law- or policy-making. You can hate on the royal family all you want, but it doesn't change that they contribute more financially than they get, and they don't get to make law. And the UK has a multipolar political system, though it's stupid FPTP voting method gives it a lot of similarities to a two-party system. Ultimately though, your hated royals actually inhabit a country with more political choices for the proles than the US has. King of Sweden... I'm less familiar with.

rayiner 11y ago

What about the results of the two party system make you think it hinders democracy? Bearing in mind that the average voter is basically my mom? We have pretty much exactly the government my mom wants. Harsh drug laws, extreme jail sentences, generous social security, lots of regulatory protections, etc. Probably the only light between her and Obama is she dislikes his foreign policy (she's from a Muslim country, which makes her exceptional there) and dislikes the trend towards legalized gay marriage and weed (positions well represented by the republicans, who she sometimes wants to vote for). Her biggest disagreements are with laws that derive from Supreme Court dictates (e.g. free speech protections). These positions derive from an coherent worldview--one that has a low opinion of individual humans and values authority and the idea that people need to be told what to do for society to function smoothly (a common viewpoint not just here but across Asia). So again, what about democracy in the U.S. isn't working? We have pretty much exactly the kind of government you'd expect given the views of our voters.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
MrDosu 11y ago
Well, in my country multi party systems basically work like this: Unresolved issue comes up, party forms specializing in said issue, if party gets support big parties integrate unresolved issue, issue is now resolved. And you got it completely around! In america your mom gets the government she is been told to want. That is why you have a two party system. Barrier to entry is "spent multi hundred millions on media control, if that's not possible you wont get votes, ever" and that's well backed by facts.
- rayiner 11y ago
  My mom didn't grow up here, and she doesn't speak English as a first language so she barely consumes U.S. media. The idea that her viewpoints are the result of media indoctrination is ridiculous. The area that the media hammers hardest (foreign policy) is the one area where she disagrees with the government, and she opposes things the media is broadly in favor of (gay marriage, decriminalized marijuana).

knodi123 11y ago

it's the most democratic presidential election system in the entire country