Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Yeah, you're supposed to elect the other major party. Who did exactly the same the last time they got elected.

One party wants to hike taxes on the rich.  The other party wants to cut taxes on the rich.
One party has a pretty extensive health care reform plan.  The other party would repeal that plan if possible.
One party wants to spend more on the military.  The other party is trying to end wars.
One party keeps abortion legal.  The other party wants to end that.
One party favors economic stimulus.  One party opposes it.
One party favors using the fed to achieve full employment.  One party believes in opportunistic deflation.
One party wants to invest in infrastructure.  One party doesn't.
One party wants the federal government to support the states.  One party wants the states to play a larger role.
One party favors an assault weapons ban and streamlining gun regulation.  One party believes this is an infringement of liberty.
One party started a mortgage modification plan a couple years back and the other party launched a massive national 'tea party' to oppose it.
One party believes in fighting climate change.  The other party fillibusters all such efforts.
One party believes in regulations on banks.  The other party doesn't.
One party is in favor of abstinence only education and intelligent design.  The other party thinks those are stupid.

The last time they were in power one party cut taxes overwhelmingly for the rich, started two wars, gutted the social safety net, cut back on a bunch of regulations and passed a law banning federal recognition of same sex marriage.

The last time the other party was in power they hiked taxes on the rich, dramatically cut back on the number of soldiers overseas, created a new healthcare system for children (SCHIP) and a subsidized healthcare market for the poor, started regulating greenhouse gasses and passed laws allowing gays to serve openly in the military and protecting them from hate crimes.

...so yeah, other then then those differences and about a million other differences I could list if I had the time and inclination, there isn't much difference between the two parties.

I favor a proportional vote system as much as the next guy.  I would love to be able to favor a candidate who more closely matches my views.  But people saying that the two parties are identical is a HUGE part of why we have so many problems.  Anyone remember how everyone said there was no difference between Gore and Bush?  Furthermore, a lot of the crap that people blame the democrats for not doing they didn't do because the republicans fillibustered it despite it having a majority vote.  Don't blame the democrats for not having a time machine and going back to change our political institutions.

[MonkeyHead]

Would anyone care to give me a (short) explanation of why there are or how there came to be only 2 main parties in the USA (land of the free citizen and all that) given your long democratic history? Pretty much any other democratic state has a wide range of parties...

I fully get why the 2 that exist are happy the system that exists though, and how they can use thier power/infuence to prevent the system from changing...

[Truean]

That was... actually a pretty good post.

You do have to admit though, basically there's some basis for thinking both parties have failed. With everything you said being true, Democrats always seem to "compromise" and do nothing. This is exactly what the Republicans want....

Also I just wanted to share today's Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal Comic as I thought it was funny and relevant: http://www.smbc-comics.com/#comic

[ChairmanPoo]

Rotfl. Haven't we established before that politicians lie? Certainly, one of them claims to be more liberal than the other, and in some aspects it might be, but if you really think  that they are going to do all that stuff you said (or any significant ammount of it, for that matter) I have a bridge to sell you.

Given the huge number of things that Obama promised and did not follow through with, I thought this would be a given by now. About the only thing he did follow through was the liberalization of embryonic stem cell research (which is a very good thing). Although that almost went south as well, as the initial regulations he got out almost rendered inelligible for funding the most used lines.

[Truean]

Eh, everyone really should've known he couldn't have done all that stuff. I'm truly amazed anyone believed that.

Although he has helped out the gays, GM, passed health care, and nabbed Osama with everyone saying "o noes anything and everything costs moneys, but only when you spends it," so....

Also this: http://news.yahoo.com/tenn-protesters-defy-curfew-3rd-time-030553699.html

[RedKing]

Would anyone care to give me a (short) explanation of why there are or how there came to be only 2 main parties in the USA (land of the free citizen and all that) given your long democratic history? Pretty much any other democratic state has a wide range of parties...

I fully get why the 2 that exist are happy the system that exists though, and how they can use thier power/infuence to prevent the system from changing...

It's more or less been like that since the beginning. Started off as the Federalists and Anti-federalists, over the issue of strong central government (federalism) vs. weak central government and strong state govenrments (confederalism).

http://www.historyshots.com/Parties/index.cfm for a very cool chart of the evolution of political parties in the US (although some of the dates are a bit off). In the 1816 election, the Federalists got absolutely crushed by the Democratic-Republicans (the descendants of the Anti-federalist party) and an era of states' rights (and near one-party rule) prevailed for the most part up into the late 1820's, which set the stage for the Missouri Compromise, wherein each state got to decide the issue of slavery for itself. In the 1822 election, the Democratic-Republicans had a record 88% of the seats. The Federalists dissolved as a national party by the next election. However, nature abhors a vacuum and right on cue, the Democratic-Republican party had a huge internal schism at the same time over who to run for President (and it was basically four guys from the same party all running, because the Federalists were kaput). This led to the formation of the Democratic and Republican parties we know and loathe today. As you can see from that chart, there have been various third parties at different times, but none of them have ever been all that successful. Probably the closest would have been in the late 1800's and the very early 20th century, when you had things like the Progressive Party, the Socialists, the Prohibition Party, etc. But even then those never got more than 1-2% or so support nationally. And since it's a winner-take all system and not a parliamentary one, third parties are basically relegated to a handful of local seats and virtually no national presence.

Eh, everyone really should've known he couldn't have done all that stuff. I'm truly amazed anyone believed that.

Although he has helped out the gays, GM, passed health care, and nabbed Osama with everyone saying "o noes anything and everything costs moneys, but only when you spends it," so....

Reminds me of this:

[mainiac]

Rotfl. Haven't we established before that politicians lie?

What?  All of them?  All the time?

Would anyone care to give me a (short) explanation of why there are or how there came to be only 2 main parties in the USA (land of the free citizen and all that) given your long democratic history? Pretty much any other democratic state has a wide range of parties...

I fully get why the 2 that exist are happy the system that exists though, and how they can use thier power/infuence to prevent the system from changing...

It has to do with the linear nature of the political spectrum in most western democracies including the post-civil rights era US combined with the fact that the US has a first past the post voting system in a non parliamentary configuration.

Basically nearly all the time it is accurate to say "Abe is to the left/right of Bob politically" because people's views tend to be consistent across the issues.  People who are liberal or conservative on say taxation tend to be liberal or conservative on healthcare and welfare and gay marriage, etc compared to the ideological median voter.  Given that setup, most of the individual members of congress matter very little in determining what laws get passed.  All that matters is the handful of swing votes in the middle.  So the difference between electing a typical democrat and the most liberal member of congress is basically zero.  Given those circumstances, tactical voting makes a lot of sense.  Why would I waste my vote on a green candidate when he won't vote for anything that can pass that the democrat wouldn't have voted for?  The democrat is more likely to get elected then the green.  And if people do vote for 3rd party, they are just splitting the votes of their coalition which penalizes them under our first past the post setup.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Would anyone care to give me a (short) explanation of why there are or how there came to be only 2 main parties in the USA (land of the free citizen and all that) given your long democratic history? Pretty much any other democratic state has a wide range of parties...

I fully get why the 2 that exist are happy the system that exists though, and how they can use thier power/infuence to prevent the system from changing...

There are only two parties in the USA because we function under a "first past the post" system, where winner takes all upon gaining a majority. There is no proportional victory system in place, and this keeps third parties down. It's also worth noting that this doesn't give the two parties complete invulnerability, originally the main parties were the Democrats and the Federalists. The Federalists collapsed in 1820, leading to the Democrats taking over the government entirely by 1824. The Whig Party then assembled to form an opposition, and collapsed in 1840, being replaced by the fledgling Republican Party, whom were the liberal party at the time. The liberal-conservative slant of the Republicans and Democrats switched places in the 1940s. There have also been incidents where third parties have caused problems for the Republicans and Democrats, such as when Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party came in second, splitting Republican votes and allowing the Democrats victory in 1914.

[GlyphGryph]

There are only two parties in the USA because we function under a "first past the post" system, where winner takes all upon gaining a majority. There is no proportional victory system in place, and this keeps third parties down.

Mind you, you don't NEED a porportional system to make third parties electable, and it has its own drawbacks. But it is pretty much every aspect of the current system combining that makes third parties unlikely.

First: Exclusive Voting -
You can vote for one person with 100% support for any given position. Approval Voting, IRV, Condorcet, etc. all provide an opportunity for third parties to build momentum and develop a nation presence despite other countervailing factors, but our system stymies it.

Second: First Past the Post, or "Winner Takes All"
Whoever gets the most votes, wins. Alone, this isn't enough to discourage third parties, and avoid some the pitfalls of a proportional system. Combined with the exclusive voting system, however, it means any vote NOT cast for one of the two leading candidates is a vote that is effectively wasted. Strategic voting, or voting "against the other guy" is strongly encouraged.

Third: Clumping by Levels (see: The Electoral College)
Assuming that, miracle of miracles, you get 35 percent of say, a state, vote for a third party for president, giving the Dems 25% and the Republicans 40%. Exclusive Voting and Winner Takes all ALREADY make this bad, but if you got this result across every state (with the Dems and Republicans switching percentages), without clumping you'd still have a third party victory, since you'd have 3rd party at "35%", and the other two at "32.5%". Wooh! But even THIS possibility is destroyed by clumping - thanks to our system, that 35/32/32 split becomes 0/50/50, since the person who gets the most votes in a state wins the entire state. Admittedly, this has less of an effect than the previous two, and is actually a complete subversion of the actual purpose of the Electoral College. What we have is no longer the electoral college - it's a system that states have gutted and replaced with one that gives more power to whoever is in charge of the state at the time. It's yet another barrier preventing third parties from gaining power.

There's a bunch of other factors in play as well, but those are generally agreed to be the biggest obstacles.

[Vector]

I think it´s time for some... TRUST-BUSTING

BRB reviving Teddy Roosevelt

[MonkeyHead]

I dont buy that FPTP has allowed your current 2 party system to become entrenched - after all thats what we have in the UK and we have an abundance of parties, not in power but still pretty high profile... most of those fighting thier fight despite being relegated to third/fourth depending on local intrests and geographical factors behind the big boys. To the big boys, these minor parties can be a bonus if they are on side in getting votes through parliament, which can make it pretty important to a minor party to win even a small number of seats as leverage.

To me it seems like the system that has evolved in the US has stagnated due to lack of competition from different or more radical elements allowing people to make an alternative choice. 2 big parties, with clear dividing lines, forcing people that are politically in the grey area to make a least objectionable solution, even if that means abstaining. These parites are now so big that if anyone wants to get into power, they have to follow the line of one of them, as going it alone simply isnt an option.

[mainiac]

I dont buy that FPTP has allowed your current 2 party system to become entrenched - after all thats what we have in the UK and we have an abundance of parties

The UK voting system regularly leads to vote splitting.  Look at the most recent elections where the conservatives won with only 36% of the vote due to vote splitting between labor and liberals.  Or just look at the fact that the liberal share of parliament has been waaaay under their share of the vote for decades.  Or consider the fact that labour would have been the heavy favorite in 1 on 1 contest between labor and conservatives but they don't even get a share in the governing coalition.  And that is despite the fact that the UK has essentially a unicameral parliamentary system which mitigates some of the damage.

So yeah, that pretty much proves exactly why first past the post hurts 3rd parties.  Even in the UK where the third parties can differentiate themselves on issues beyond the simple political spectrum they are heavily disenfranchised.

[GlyphGryph]

I dont buy that FPTP has allowed your current 2 party system to become entrenched - after all thats what we have in the UK and we have an abundance of parties, not in power but still pretty high profile...

FPTP is a a contributing but not sufficient element for a two-party duopoly. The US has a lot of elements that insure things stay the way they are - it is merely one of them.

[kaijyuu]

I think it´s time for some... TRUST-BUSTING

BRB reviving Teddy Roosevelt

I'd vote for Zombie Teddy Roosevelt.

[Leafsnail]

The UK voting system regularly leads to vote splitting.  Look at the most recent elections where the conservatives won with only 36% of the vote due to vote splitting between labor and liberals.

They didn't win since they didn't get enough seats to form a government.  They formed a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats.

Or consider the fact that labour would have been the heavy favorite in 1 on 1 contest between labor and conservatives but they don't even get a share in the governing coalition.

...Would they?  Perhaps if you assumed that all Liberal Democrat voters would have voted Labour if the Lib Dems didn't exist, but considering the horribly unpopular state of the Labour party that doesn't seem likely.