Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Actually, nothing was set up to benefit the 2 parties, or any parties for that matter. The founding fathers disliked parties and there were none when they created the constitution.
|
While this is corret, I was not really talking about the Constitution. I was talking about the rules governing the legislative process in the House and Senate. Those were put in place gradually over time and have been adapted by the 2 major parties to benefit themselves while making it difficult for those of other parties to have any real influence. Just one example of this is committee chairmanship. By rule of both bodies, the majority party gets the chair of all committees. Now consider that the chair has vast control over the committee itself and that it is very difficult to get legislation before the full House or Senate with first having committee approval. Then there are committee assignments and a host of other things.
No, the Constitution does not recognize or add in the two party system but the two parties have made sure that the other rules do add the current system.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Actually, it's a fault of how we count our votes, according to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_Law">Duverger's Law</a>.
|
I had never heard of this concept before but I think we are saying the same thing. Our Federal system of democracy dictates that how we count votes is the Single Member District Plurality which means we follow this law by default. Nice read through that link and a great site in general that I had not seen before. Thanks for pointing me to that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Precisely. With a change to instant runoff voting, it would be much easier for third parties to gain power because it would eliminate the entire basis for the "wasted vote" mantra.
Thanks to instant runoff voting, or some similar voting reform, if one were to become unhappy, they could easily vote for a different [party which they agree with more instead.
|
Yes, this would make a difference but it still isn't really what I was driving at. First, even in countries with multi-party systems it is rare that you see a party win majority power (or even be the leader in putting together a ruling coalition) that is not one of the two most centerist parties. Centerist parties will, by definition, appeal to more people. A party closer to the fringe is just that, closer to the fringe and there fore has fewer supporters. While they may be able to swing enough centerists in a single election to win, they would have to carry those same numbers continuously in following elections to remain in power. This is unlikely unless they give up part of their fringe platform and move to the center. The only way for them to stay in power otherwise if for public opinion to swing drastically to their end of the spectrum and thus make what was once the fringe into the new political center.
I also think that some form of term limits for both houses of Congress would help with the current lock on the system by the two major parties.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thefictionweliv
However due to voting reform it could likely gradually become a 3/4 party system instead of representing a broad spectum of Americans as Rep/Dem do voters could choose a candidate that actually represented them more as an individual than a generlization. Having more viewpoints in the public eye also leads to the better handling of a situation as you have more ideas and communication flow, rather than the do the slight opposite of what they said mentality of the Rep/Dem party. Having 3/4 different parties in the House and Senate would be a more productive entity.
|
True but I think this will take more than just voting reform. I believe this will require a change in how a lot of the business of government is done. Under current House and Senate rules, it would still be possible for the party with the largest representation in each to control an excessive amount of the business done there. In fact, they would control much more business then their precentage of representation might otherwise allow for.