Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Are two major parties enough?

emphaticallystatic.org — ... on certain issues, my views line up with the Democratic party and on others, they match the Republican party. How then do you make a choice? Why then would you?

Bury

wahgnube 1 year 50 days ago

8 diggs
digg it

blored, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1No. Canada, France, Britain, Switzerland, ... more than two parties = equally balanced government.

Sidenote: Only two parties have won power (in recent memory) for both Canada in Britain. Britain goes long periods with only one party in power.
Xuvious, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2A third party is impossible in the US.

The two "big" parties have stolen everything. Even the ability to get on the ballots in every state, through ballot access laws. To get on a ballot is nearly impossible and always an uphill battle that nearly breaks a third party.

Until we get some judges who have the balls to rule against the ruling elite in the two parties it will never get to the point where a third party can make it.
- wahgnube, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This is what I was curious about. (I am not American.)
  
  So, (only) two big parties is just "how it has become?" How is that fair?
- Xuvious, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2They created laws that say that a party must get a percentage of the electorate to get on the ballot. In some states it is as low as 1 or 2% of the last gubernatorial election. and some are so high it's nearly impossible and no one but the two parties actually get on the ballot.
  
  Ballot access laws, arguably, have a purpose. Some say to keep "frivolous" parties from crowding the ticket. But this a total ***** argument as we are all Americans and must have the ability to gain access to the ballot box. And if those who make arguments in favor really wanted the elections to be fair they wouldn't make it so damned repressed that no one but the two big parties can gain access.
  
  Ballot access laws are an affront to liberty as they now stand.
  
  Fairness has been forgotten in American politics. At least, until a real patriot gets into office, like Ron Paul. And we need more like Paul in congress too.
wahgnube, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Splendidly explained; thank you. I was not aware of this minimum entry bar that the candidates had to cross before showing up on the ballot. I was under the (mistaken) impression that the process was so expensive, that only the "major" players could afford to participate. (In some sense, also weeding out the "frivolous" parties. As in, if you're going to spend millions of dollars on something, you have to be serious, right?)

At least, that's what I gathered from so many news networks harping about how many tens-of-millions each "major" candidate has raised.

Here's to hoping enough people back straight-shooters like Dr. Paul.
- Xuvious, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Really it isn't a candidate issue, it's a Party issue. It's the Party that had to muster the signatures. They have to do this by going out and canvassing at stores, malls, fairs or anywhere the property owner will let them. Which makes it even harder to do because if the property owner doesn't like your Party, or someone running under your Party, then they can remove you from the premises.
  
  If you are very wealthy then you can hire your own canvassers and run under the "Independent" ticket. But I don't know of a case where this has occurred.
  
  A major costs of a third Party is the ballots access because they have to pay for the people to go out and get the thousands upon thousands of signatures. If these laws were loosened then a third party could compete in the political landscape. Of course the other major costs are airtime and other advertising, but all parties are treated pretty equally in this area because you're not dealing with the Government.
  
  Of course there are other areas where third Parties are screwed in America. And that's access to media. We used to have a set of laws called "The Fairness Doctrine" where a TV station would have to air other politicians if one politician were able to be on a program. This was pretty good at keeping the airwaves sorta balanced. Bush and Clinton completely buggered that up and now the main stream media doesn't even have to recognize that a particular Party or person is even alive. Since the FD is gone we've seen the rise of people like O'Reily, Limbaugh, Buchanan and others who spew all kinds of crap without having to tell another side to the story.
FyreGoddess, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It doesn't matter how many political parties there are, Americans put far too much stock in labels and not enough in individual stances.

Voters in the US have been conditioned to believe that a third-party vote is a "wasted" vote. They have been conditioned to believe that the ONLY way to make your vote count is to choose the lesser of 2 evils. Hell, the majority of voters in the US don't do their research and wind up voting for the incumbant or the one whose campaign was the least odious.

It doesn't matter how many major political parties there are, the real chore is in teaching voters how to do independent research and think for themselves. It's an incredibly daunting task.
- wahgnube, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I was under the impression this might be the case. Everyone I've spoken to seems to identify themselves as a Republican or a Democrat---independent of how they personally stand on different issues vs. how their supposedly-representative candidates stand.
  
  The two people I've spoken to who vote for "the independent," do so purely because they are dissatisfied with both the major parties, and not because they particularly align with the independent candidate's point of view. I found this rather surprising, and this is what led me to write this piece.
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@FyreGoddess: Mathematically speaking, your vote *IS* wasted, and barring a spontaneous and amazingly unlikely mass-third-party-voting, your vote for a third party generally lowers the odds you'll get what you want.
- FyreGoddess, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Actually, third party voting increases the chances of your party being automatically on the ballot in successive elections and increases the chances of them getting funding.
  
  It also means you voted for someone that you believe in, rather than forcing you to vote outside of your conscience.
  
  Bush or Kerry? No thanks, I'd rather make a statement than have ANY amount of responsibility for that particular mess. There was no way that I could spin it so that either of them were "what I want". And the reality showed that the "winner" hasn't been what people want either.
Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The problem is fundamentally about our voting mechanics. Any plurality voting system (where biggest fraction takes all) will devolve into a two-group system over time.

The REAL way to shake up the political landscape is NOT to vote Green, Libertarian, etc. At least, not directly.

What we need is to push for voting schemes that increase pressure on the big two, whomever those two may be. That meanas Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) or Condorcet or some similar method.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Are two major parties enough?

Login or register to add a comment