Close Topic Options

Us Two-party System

For the past century, two parties have been at the forefront of the political campaigns: Democrats and Republicans. Despite the fact that numerous other parties exist and are active across the nation, no other party has managed to surpass the popularity of either the elephant or the donkey.
In the recent election, the Libertarian party, one of the largest so-called "third parties" in the US, achieved about 3% of the vote - not nearly enough to tip the scales in its favor.

Do you think the two-party system is simply a result of national opinion, or is there something else behind their tremendous popularity? Should some measures be implemented to eliminate the party systems of the US, or do parties give a definitive advantage over previous systems?

In the original system, the way George Washington and other founding fathers envisioned it, the candidate with the most votes would become the President of the United States. The person with the second-most votes would become the vice-President. This would ensure that parties would never come into popularity, since a person would most likely be in office with someone out of their party.
However, that changed when it was decided that the office of vice-President should have its own spot of the ballot. Should be go back to the original system, or is it better to be able to vote for a President and vice-President who seem to get along?

System Two-party Us

I think the Vice President and the President should be from the same party. The Vice President simply represents the President in his absence. To represent someone properly, you must share their views. If the country votes a particular "platform" into office the other platform shouldn't be allowed to take over in the President's absence. What about when the President dies in office, for example?

Us Two-party System History & Civil Business Politics

I think the reason most people stay with one of the two major parties is that they feel their voice will not be heard in a third party. It seems easier to work toward electing a fairly reasonable candidate who has a chance of winning, rather than expending more effort just to get a third-party candidate on the ballot. I'd rather work within my party, which is already powerful, to make it better. Getting an alternate party to function and gain enough popularity to be powerful would be too much work for too little result.

System Two-party Us

I think it may have some to do with each party's popularity, and more than likely due to their long life--they've been around for most of American history in one shape or another.

I don't think either party would like to see another party surface to challenge their power. I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy"--just something that has arisen naturally out of the survival of power.

What I find upsetting is the steps both parties take to squeeze out any other voices. Setting aside personal opinions of Nader, he wanted in on the presidential debates, but Dems and Reps both worked to make sure that didn't happen. I think that's one source of the problem: media exposure. It's my feeling that most people may not know that they have other choices, may not understand other platforms. I think if more media time was afforded to other choices, then maybe their popularity would increase. In order to understand why other parties don't get exposure, there needs to be some discussion of who owns the major media outlets. Something like 3-5 companies own 40-60% of the media? Maybe it isn't that bad, but you get the idea.. It's difficult to summarize it all.

So, more exposure for other options wouldn't be a bad thing, but there are obviously obstacles for a small party that wants to make a difference in the national election. I'm actually a registered Green, and we've concentrated most of our efforts to the local level as a result of these obstacles.

System Two-party Us

Microsoft and GM, two very large companies, control NBC. ABC is largely controlled by Disney. I think that CBS is independent, as is CNN. Throw in Fox, and you pretty much have all of the news that people watch.

During the election, NBC displayed the voting results for the Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians. I think that they are one of the few, if not the only, major network to broadcast results for a third party.
Incidently, Ralph Nader received more votes than Michael Badnarik (Libertarian).

Here in Indiana, the Libertarian candidate registered to be included in the debates. Reportedly, both the Democrat and Republican candidates threatened to be no-show if he was allowed into the debates, but later both candidates denied ever saying it. The debate went on with three candidates.
In the Mississippi debates, Badnarik was effectively barred from entering into the debates.

Us Two-party System

In general, the 2 parties agree on what the populus agrees on. The differences come down to what they dont agree on and it is pretty easy for one to be for something and the other not to be for a certain issue. That makes it really easy for only 2 parties to exist.

The other reaon is people's general reluctance to change. For the longest time there has only been 2 major parties, why do I have to embrace this 3rd party. I hope no one takes too much offense, but much of the populus is like sheep and like to be hearded. The 2 parties have done a very good job as sheppards!

This coming from a Independant.

Vincenzo

Us Two-party System

I personally am an anarchist. I vote Libertarian because they most closely represent my views. From an anarchist standpoint, I can very much sympathize that most Americans are like sheep. There are very few people who actually revolt against the mainstream, especially in these days when what used to be the underground rebellion is now becoming mainstream, like punk rockers.

From a "what-if" perspective, I do not think most people could handle it if somehow a third-party candidate was elected to a major office. Although it is not entirely uncommon for third-parties to hold minor city, county, and sometimes even state-level offices, we have grown far to familiar with major offices being held by either a Democrat or a Republican. In fact, the two parties views are so similar, as someone pointed out, that some people now refer to mainstream politicians as Republicrats.