Politics What is happening????

Pan, I don't think I missed your point. I had a counterpoint that suggested there is an illusion of choice. You can say, "Well, anyone can get on the ballot!" I say, "What good will that do?" In practice, there are two parties. At least in Canada, more than two parties function with at least a modicum of political clout in parliament. In many ways, there are as many as four parties at one time vying for influence despite there being two historically domineering parties that form leaderships.

When was the last time a party other than the Democrats or the GOP had a real say in Congress? How about a real impact on voting? Was it before or after the country finished abolishing slavery? (Yes, it was really that long ago.)

Um...it's either two or fifty? C'mon now. The problem with a two-party state is that it limits choice. Coalitions governments/oppositions are normally done on a task-based initiative and aren't meant to be long-term. Coalitions often form only under certain conditions. There are agreements and compromises that occur that wouldn't otherwise. Either way, it represents more than a binary political influence.

Again, this is tied into the illusion of choice. What are the odds of socialists, libertarians, communists, etc., actually having any political clout in Congress? The closest we've seen in recent days is a single independent social democrat and a handful of libertarian (wannabes?) who had to fly the Republican flag (i.e., toe the Republican line).

Look north of the border. Canada has social democrats, liberals, conservatives who actually have voting influence in parliament, and it occurs under at least five or six parties at any one time, coalition or no coalition. Look south of the border. Mexico looks to be electing a social democratic president, in a congress that has no fewer than seven parties.

North America is rife with political pluralism, with the exception of the United States.

The real choice, as always, comes down to Democrat vs. Republican. It's going to take a political upheaval before anything truly changes. It may eventually happen (the GOP have shown evidence of its potentially imploding permanently).

Until the Republicans let the Democrats be liberals again, there will be very little choice in American politics. The only functional political sphere is that which operates between centre-right and the right. It's not quite a monoculture, but it's damn close.

Pan, you're running the risk of being an apologist for what appears to me is a relatively dysfunctional political system. It's not Somalia, but it sure as hell isn't as flexible and pluralistic as many other developed nations.

 

This is true, the parties are not banned or avoided by the system,
but they are ignored by the masses...who have a tendency to vote for what they are used to...it's simpler for them to think that way.

The media is also guilty in this, as we've seen in the GOP primaries...anyone they don't find interesting are ignored.
Huntsman was exceptional in comparison to his rivals...yet was barely given any play time.
(in truth, only his pretty daughters or his speaking Chinese were used as media fodder.)

Romney only got by, because he already had an established base...which didn't change, up or down...and he didn't bring attention to himself.
That and his funding helped him along...including to attack his primary opponent exclusively and to exhaustion.

There are 3rd party candidates, yet they are looney...only if a substantial sane player were to do it...could it potentially succeed.
A good example would be New York's Mayor Bloomberg...who has the money, clout, name and policies that could carry the day.
But no one of substance...is coming forward.

Ross Perot had a chance before he picked a very strange choice for VP candidate...and went overboard himself.

If the US is going to have another significant party, then it would have to field and succeed in quality politicians.
Otherwise, people are going to go "old hat", what they are used to.
Americans are really not deep or complex thinkers politically as the Europeans are...
but then again, they really never have had to...they are isolated in relative terms...Europe's history is MUCH more complicated.

 

I didn't cut out rebuttals; I didn't ignore any. What I left out were examples based on your core points, which I left in. I didn't feel the need to quote your examples because it gets cumbersome to have so much text. People can easily go back to read them if they need to.

Sure, in the past there were third parties affecting presidential elections, but how close to actually winning were these third parties? Perot? Nader? Paul? Were they tough contenders? How close were they to winning? It's my understanding they were long shots that showed up rather short. Correct me if I'm mistaken. Some would wonder why they even tried.

Which is it? We need to go back before the Civil War to find more than the two parties in power. Beyond that, it's a few candidates here and there that make high-profile runs that go virtually nowhere. The biggest one, I'll give you, is what happened with the Tea Party movement in 2010, but that ended up piggybacking off of the Republican Party. That's not a third party; that's a Republican movement essentially.

What? It has nothing to do with what you said? You were going on about how you guys can choose to change the government if you want. Yeah, sure, if you want to go from Party 1 to Party 2 (whether president or Congress). What kind of choice is that? You then go on and with a broad stroke compare that to African/Middle Eastern/Asian nations. Do you want me to list nations within those regions with more political pluralism? I'm sure there are several. So to say that the argument is "fucking ridiculous" and "truly has NOTHING" to do with what you stated is false. I strongly disagree with you.

I guess it's of no consequence then. Maybe one day an American president will be neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Maybe if they take the money out of politics.

I'm not going to hold my breath on either count.

Are you saying I'm dishonest about my opinion? Or are you talking about what people say about war vs. accidents? I'm not sure where that is coming from.

 

This sounds like a mixed blessing. What happens in a two-party system when one party goes cuckoo?

It really depends on the political environment. Minor parties that form coalitions normally do so with conditions, and they usually maintain their relatively minor clout. It often still comes down to the number of seats/number of votes. In the end, multi-party systems tend to bring more pluralism. This is how Canada's political spectrum is much wider than America's.

In Canada, the left has representation, albeit a bit less so than the right. I'm under the impression that the working class in Canada gets more "air time" in government than do the working class in America. This is because of parties such as the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois (who both hold seats in parliament), who tend to focus much of their platforms on support for organized labour and everyday workers. This is beyond the typical liberal-leaning platform items. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that kind of talk gets you red-baited in American politics.

Both have advantages; both function. The parliamentary system has an executive intertwined with the legislative, but it's also responsible to that legislative, meaning that it requires its support for power. This is how you get non-confidence votes that put governments out of power.

Both systems have their checks and balances; they merely operate differently.

Classic.

 

If I were to venture a guess, Canada too is a marginally right of centre country. You have a history of prime minsters that makes it look like we have a two-party system too, trading between a liberal and a conservative government. I think politically the U.S. and Canada aren't that much different. The U.S. is probably marginally more conservative. One difference is that we don't have the same history of opposing evil communist empires that you do, so socialism isn't such a faux pas. Yet, the only real socialism here is social democracy, which is essentially liberalism with socialist tendencies, a politics that doesn't seek revolution but instead seeks to work within capitalism. But trust me, there are many conservatives who revile the NDP as "damn socialists" and the Liberals with the same disdain that many American conservatives have for Democrats.

I would guess that a social democratic option in the U.S. would be taken up with at least a minority of American voters to the degree of it garnering at least a few seats in Congress. And over time, it may lead to what the NDP has done, which is garnering a strong third voice in government despite not forming a majority or a minority government.

I strongly believe that campaign finance reform is an important first step to fixing what's wrong in American politics.

 

Could we have a party that is...

Socially libertarian (stay out of our personal)
Strong military, but expect efficiency & frugality
A flat tax, with few loopholes
Lower corporate, but no havens allowed, period.
Very few subsidies
A safety net, within reason
Healthcare (businesses just don't really want to do it anymore)
Financial pool for infrastructure
Strong police force, but enforce rights for citizens
Strong capitalism, but some enforced regulation
Corporations are not citizens.
Free speech does not equate to money
No filibuster
Must pass a budget
Invest into technologies
Increase spending on established tech depts. (NASA, NOAA, etc...)
National ID
More efficient immigration, if you work, pay taxes, and jobs aren't taken from citizens...you can stay
Investigation into fraud more
Investigation into excessive fees more
Enforcement of the Monopoly policies, less mergers
and so on...


I'd vote for that party...a little bit of this, a little bit of that...from both sides and more...

 

I'm pretty sure that multi-party systems typically trend towards centrism, as it forces parties to work together for a functioning government. Have a look at the dynamics of Canada's parties compared to the more limited kind between the Democrats and Republicans.

Going beyond a two-party system might not be practical in the U.S., but there certainly are disadvantages in being stuck in that system. With an anemic political left, it's difficult to keep the right in check. Time will tell if the U.S. will trend back to the centre. There is an odd kind of inertia response in your politics when there are only two forces at play.

I was thinking the same thing. Well, not expressed that way. But I like how you expressed it.

 

With all due respect, you seem to be taking a few aspects of multi-party politics and amplifying them, ignoring the majority.

First, you're talking about the National Front in France's presidential election. The legislature is a different story. Also, separatist parties are nothing new. They represent minority voices. And despite what you state about Ireland, Scotland, Israel, etc., I find it interesting that you didn't offer such interesting counterexamples as, I don't know, Japan, Italy, Germany, and pretty much all of Scandinavia. Just to name a few.

In most of these cases, the true extremists don't really have that much power.

Two-party systems are pretty rare. Most of them are de facto. You make it sound like multi-party systems are a dangerous thing, opening up the door to extremism. If that were the case, America would be one of the few islands of moderate/progressive politics in a crazy world of fascist electorates and iron-fisted dictators. I don't see it that way. You've provided some good examples of extreme politics requiring a counterbalance, but you've hardly formulated a warning against multi-party systems.

Seriously? Has it really gone that far?

 

In that case of Israel, the government was formed through a coalition. That makes the "ruling party" 44% of the vote. Even within Canada, minority governments have been formed by holding only 40% of the vote...within a single party.

Also remember that Ariel Sharon's Likud formed a government holding less than 30% of the vote. And in 1977, Likud made history by forming the first right-wing government after 30 years of left-wing rule...with 33.4% of the vote.

This kind of thing isn't new.

Also, the idea of right-wing extremists holding as much as 12 to 15% of the power in a government shouldn't be that surprising. But the odds of their getting to the point of forming a government a slim. It would take some kind of crisis, in which case it doesn't matter how many parties are a part of the political system. In extreme situations, extremism usually finds its way.