22 2

What is your take on the 2 party system?

Obviously, I am talking about the American system, but it can include Britain as well. Due of course to labour and Tories always being in control. Me? The democrats are closer to my ideology, but I recognize their corruption and corporate alliances are sometimes too extreme for me. But as a general rule I always vote for the democrats over any republican. I would vote labour in Britain, especially if the current labour leader were the leader at the time of my vote.

Teslacoilsmith 6 Feb 12

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


I would like to get money out of politics (publicly financed campaigns), and if ballot integrity could be ensured, some sort of ranked choice voting system.


I’ve heard about ranked ballots as a solution to the extreme positions that result from the current primary system.


I feel that the republicans and democrats are opposite sides of the same coin. Both are corrupt and really only interested in maintaining their power. To paraphrase a movie line, they spend more time keeping their jobs, than they do actually doing their jobs.
That said, while they take turns being on top, the democrats do tend to take the welfare of American citizens more into account than the republicans, who only give it the barest of lip service.


The duopoly is perhaps the greatest threat of all to the future of America. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any wherewithal nor desire to turn the direction of government away from the destructive path they themselves have set it upon. Furthermore, the mindset of the American people is such that they continue to believe that the Ds will fix things or the Rs will fix things and the problem lies with the other side, not their side. No-one realizes that it's really only one party, with fringe issues artificially separating the two. They need each other, and they know it. That's why everyone makes a lot of noise, but nobody enacts REAL change. They just fiddle with the knobs to give the appearance that they care about their constituents and are working to make things better.

Until the duopoly is defeated and the American voter has other choices this will not change, but only continue to get worse.


Corrupt to the core.


The two party system has become problematic in US due to the cost of running for public office. Politics has become all about how much money you can raise to run, and the reality is that if you want to run for office you have to kiss the party's ass, follow their lead, and not have any independent viewpoints if you want the party's support. Lobbying efforts are about how much cash the lobbyist is willing to invest if you are willing to work for their positions. I agree with the right of redress, but not in cash.

The US is a de facto plutocracy, government by the wealthy. The median net worth for a Congressman in 2015 was $456K and for a Senator 2012 $1,008,767, these are many multiple times higher then the median net worths of citizens in this country. The last campaign for the Presidency cost $2.3 billion which I think is insane.

If we want to live in a Democracy our representatives must agree to campaign on an equal/fair playing field which means that people who run for Congress, Senate & President ought to be publicly financed on a budget with no allowance for any outside funding or funds out of budget. Of course it may be impossible to achieve since the rich rule.

If this were possible I think it would mean that people who merit the position they are running for are more likely to win and that our Democracy might be secure, and not rotting away.

cava Level 7 Feb 12, 2018

So true. My point made eloquently.

The nation has got to put money out of campaigning. If for the few months--yes, months like Britain--politicians had free access, no one would go broke and necessary messages would get out.


As Carlin noted, they're there just to give you the impression that you have a choice.


The two party system has baked itself into the process. The system had been rigged over time to preclude parties other than Democrats and Republicans. Primaries, caucuses, ballot requirements based on percentage of votes cast and other rites of politics are designed to discourage rather encourage other parties.The Republican party is so fractured that it can't even govern at the federal level. The Democrats have a major two way split that may be a disadvantage in its quest to obtain Congressional majorities.

Super delegates and caucusing should go to hell.


I like the instant runoff system, it allows for as many candidates as are wanted.

Lauxa Level 5 Feb 12, 2018

I'm more of a fan of issues and solving problems and not a party follower. But two parties are necessary to avoid run-away government, which could become a dictatorship of one party doing as they please.

Makes sense.


Justice Democrats. They take zero PAC money.

They’re primarying neo-liberals like Pelosi, and Feinstein. They’re going after Republican seats like Ryan and Cruz.

Marz Level 7 Feb 17, 2018

I don't think parties are corrupt. I think people are corrupt and they can appear anywhere, from the little league treasurer to the President.

The two party system keeps shoving people into tight boxes.

Say someone is a Republican, but pro choice. For some reason, that is considered a heresy in the modern GOP.

Or a pro gun rights Dem. Again, that makes you a DINO or Dem in name only.

State laws make it so hard to get on the ballot. But, do we want ballots with thousands of names?

I keep thinking there will be a third way moderate party.


I feel with proper education, something the current "representatives" fear, we can dispense with the representatives and their corporate driven corruption. We can then represent ourselves. We can make bills and laws to govern ourselves. Keep the Constitution and amend them appropriately to support the people as the true government of this country. I'm tired of the "Oh, they don't like my bill, let's just shutdown, nonsense. This is juvenile and unprofessional.

Gohan Level 7 Feb 13, 2018

Only two parties is bullshit. If we had to be run by two or three parties at once, like Britain, there would, at least, be more voices in the debates. We should have three or four parties, and all have the same standing--no pushing independents out.


I don't understand the American system of voting, I hate the 2 party system, in Oz there is little difference between them on issues that matter to me, and they both support each other to prevent minor parties from gaining ground. Must be a people thing, football, baseball and most team sports only have 2 teams playing on the field at once. Imagine how much more interesting it could be. A pentagonal football field, 5 goals, 5 teams.



I don't agree with every viewpoint from either party. I probably am more on the democratic side than the republican. However, I do see some ideas that are republican that I agree with. Even though I don't think the republicans follow their own parties ideals anymore. I do however, believe that the two party system is necessary to keep the system in check. Otherwise it would be completely out of whack in one or the other favor.


I really wonder why voters have to be registered with a political party to vote in the primaries.

My ideal, would be that only politicians register as party members. Voters themselves would not be officially a part of any political party.

In the primaries all voters would get to vote for the one candidate they liked best from each political party (vote once for each political party), and the winners would go on to the general elections (vote once for each office).

I believe this would eliminate most of the extremists from each party, making those elected to be mostly moderates, which would mean they are able to actually work together more and there woudl be less government gridlock and government, in general, would work more efficiently.

I like this idea, I'm going to repost it by itself on the discussion boards.

And, hopefully, there would be no monkey bragging about his own image and body instead of debating the issues.

Voters don’t have to be registered with a party to vote in primaries in Michigan. You do only get to vote for one party in the primary, though. Last year a neighbor and I talked about whether we should cast party ballots for a republican (anyone other than Trump) just to try to keep a terrible candidate off the ballot.
I also proposed (mostly joking) that we should be able to trade our regular vote for a negative vote. That is, rather than cast a ballot for one of the dozen other candidates, to use our vote to cancel one vote for Trump.


I find the practice repulsive and completely ineffectual. I find government in general to be predatory and corrupt by nature.


Both parties are owned by corporations these days. It is very sad, but it's also true.


they voted labour in last year but didn't let corbyn [ very progressive a la sanders] take power even though he won the popular vote. can anyone say proportional representation


Australia had it, the two main parties still like to pretend it is the natural order but it's been a while since any party had control of both houses. They have to form government with support of the minor parties so it's on the way out. The party system is inherently corrupt when you think about it, as members are supposed to represent their constituents not tow the party line, so please remind me again what the parties are for exactly?

Kimba Level 7 Feb 12, 2018

Representatives are supposed to speak for their districts, their people--not the party.


It's the system we've got in the USA, for better or for worse, and it's not likely to change.

What does need to change is the polarization that is fueling things. Rivals and adversaries are not enemies; disagreement is not treason.

Neither "side" of the ongoing national shouting match is really doing well at demonstrating an understanding where the other "side" is coming from, and as a people we seem to think that whoever argues with the most passion, or the most volume, or the largest Amen chorus behind them, is who should win. Both sides are also guilty of deciding on what result they want out of a policy question first and then cherry-picking evidence afterwards to support that position.

Now, in my opinion one side is a bit more guilty of that sort of dogmatism than the other side, as a matter of degree, but neither side is innocent.

We can certainly break down into two large camps that gather together various smaller focused interest groups and government may well be facilitated by that. It's the polarization that's bothersome, not the configuration into two large opposing coalitions.


I come from the land of more-than-two-parties. One thing that that teaches everybody is negotiations, This move slower, and ideologies are a bit more fluid. Since Americans are not trained in negotiations nor being patient, my guess is that a three party system would be hopeless.

Well, refusing to compromise just because also makes things very slow, so no difference there.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:23574
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.