The Two-Party System

[Neopergoss]

In the US, there are only two main political parties. How do you feel about that? Would you ever vote for a third party? Why or why not?

Personally, my opinion on this has changed a lot since Obama has been president. Perhaps I was too young and naive to understand politics before, but I was really excited about his election. I have been incredibly disappointed -- not because it's been too hard for him to follow through on many important campaign promises, but because he isn't even trying. The way the Democratic base has been ignored by party leadership has convinced me that the system itself is fundamentally flawed. I plan to vote for a third party in the next election, even though I think the Republicans are a lot worse than the Democrats. In the long run, if Democrats can rely on votes just because they're a little to the left of Paul Ryan, they'll go as far to the right as possible. This is what we're seeing right now. We need to signal to them that they need to be more responsive -- Republicans are very responsive to their base.

[UTAlan]

I have always voted Republican, but in recent years I have seen a number of great independent candidates. The biggest reason I've never voted independent is that I hesitate to use my vote on someone I am confident does not have a chance of winning.

[OldTrees]

I am willing to vote independent even when they have no chance of victory. Why? Because by sacrificing my vote I move the situation 1 vote closer to enabling someone else to have a real choice between 3 candidates. Although by itself a raindrop is nothing, in masses it is an ocean.

For those that support one of the two main political parties I have a question:
"What benefit does having a political party instead of distinct candidates have?"

• I have seen politicians compromise their morals to remain in good standing with their party.
• I have seen parties hinder/prevent cooperation and compromise.
• I have seen parties use propaganda instead of reason to gain followers.
• Even worse I have seen the parties (in America) create dependence on the party in their base.

Obviously the main political parties as they exist today are not a net benefit to society.

[Neopergoss]

I think even if a third party never gets anywhere, supporting one can have a lot of influence on a major party. I think that far from "throwing away a vote," a vote for a third party can actually be much more influential than a vote for one of the main candidates. It's a tradeoff, though -- you risk having the worst candidate win because you didn't support the second-worst, but in the long term you affect political dynamics. I think that unless we keep this long-term goal in mind, we're screwed. I'm actually worried that not enough people do.

[Astrocyte]

Re: changing the system through votes -- I wish I could agree with you guys, but if Ross Perot (please tell me I'm not the only one in this thread who remembers Ross Perot) getting 19% of the popular vote in '92 didn't change anything, then votes alone are never going to change anything. The only thing the two parties hate more than each other is the possibility of anything changing the game. (E.g., the nonpartisan and third-party-friendly League of Women Voters getting pushed out as the presidential debate organizer, replaced by a "nonprofit" that's organized, funded, and run by the two parties.)

I have chosen instead to donate and volunteer for people and causes I believe in. I realize that most people (especially in the current economy) don't have a lot of spare time and money for this, but until I'm able to throw around millions of dollars to support my favorite people and causes, it's the only thing I can do that has any chance of really helping.

Edit: This is not to say I'm happy with the system or that I think either of the two parties are super great. If it were up to me we'd have modern Germany's government structure.

[YoungSot]

I'd agree with the "vote for who you want, not who will win" approach in general. The more ppl take that approach, the more likely that third parties actually become viable someday.
And agreed voting doesn't do much to change the system (but it's easy so we might as well). In the long run a government always tends to reflect its citizens. So the best way to enact real lasting change is to work toward educating ppl on a grassroots level. You can't just change the government, you have to actually change the people.

In the long run, if Democrats can rely on votes just because they're a little to the left of Paul Ryan, they'll go as far to the right as possible. This is what we're seeing right now. We need to signal to them that they need to be more responsive -- Republicans are very responsive to their base.

Interesting. We right-wingers say the exact same things about our politicians (just with the right/left and Dem/Rep switched).

[WrekX]

I would find it grossly offensive if someone wasn't willing to vote for another party.

A 2 party system where the parties won't work together is a 2 party system that won't work. This by extension go's to all parties.

[mightyforest]

Hi,

I'm not an US citizen so I really can't comment on the OP. However, I'd like to offer my own view on politics in general (a defeatist point of view)

C&Ped, but out of my own NTS notepad so completely original:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Naive view of Politics:

The problem with politics is people who think they can fix things (type A) run while the people who recognize how messed up things (type B) are are too busy trying to figure out how to fix things

Then type A gets into office and realises the horrors of the real world and hires type B who isn't completely done with his studies yet.

2 possible outcomes: 1) type B fails to solve problem - type A blaims type B and shoulders off the majority of the blunt.
                              2) type B succeeds to resolve some crisis - type A takes the credit for 'finding the right man for the job'.

Real Politics:

if you don't have funding and connections (type C) you don't get in, regardless of whether you are type A or type B.

2 possible outcomes: 1) term goes by alright - type C gets reelected/promoted for having done a good job.
                         2) major catastrophy(ies) during term - type C will say his type A opposition party could not have done any better and blames his type B        consultants for the failures. Rage quits with dramatic exit making 'prophecies' to tropical island resort.

 Unless you're type C you can't win. You can't break even. You can't even get out of the game.
 (NOTE: type D~Z were too absorbed in their own lives they never even made it into the game)

I'm type P.
----------------------------------------

Sorry if you find my comment irrelevant...

[Neopergoss]

In the long run, if Democrats can rely on votes just because they're a little to the left of Paul Ryan, Democrats'll go as far to the right as possible. This is what we're seeing right now. We need to signal to them that they need to be more responsive -- Republicans are very responsive to their base.

Interesting. We right-wingers say the exact same things about our politicians (just with the right/left and Dem/Rep switched).

Are we living in the same universe? Please explain to me how Obama constantly caving on everything and Republicans controlling everything even when they're in the minority (for example, the Bush tax cuts were renewed even before the new Congress) is somehow Democrats being more responsive to their base than Republicans. Democratic politicians openly mock their own base all the time. Here is the first example I could find. (http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/09/17/obama-mocks-public-option-supporters/)

Republicans, on the other hand, have a deep-seated fear of their base. Abortion gets top billing even when the economy is falling apart. Comprehensive immigration reform fell apart, even though very powerful, wealthy corporate interests wanted it. Harriet Mier's nomination produced immediate outcry from the base and was immediately scrapped.

There's nothing like that on the Dems' side. It's just a few progressive bloggers saying "Wake up!" and a few people listening. Most people just vote D and go to sleep at night thinking "the lesser of two evils," without probably really being informed about what's going on at all. Most Democrats follow their unresponsive representatives in government in lockstep come voting time and can safely be ignored by politicians. As much as Dems may have lobbed that criticism the other way during the Bush years, it's more true of them. I think the establishment media has a lot to do with it, but that's another story.

edit: And more generally, ever since the Clinton years Democrats have been using a policy of triangulation more geared towards keeping Democrats in power than actually passing liberal policies and this has helped shift debate further and further to the right. Now it's somehow normal that we spend untold billions on war and "defense" spending is somehow sacrosanct while aid to the poor and to the elderly are right on the chopping block -- with a Democratic president, no less.

Yeah, Democrats are so responsive to their base and Republicans just ignore theirs. *Deep breath* It's all very upsetting.

[Neopergoss]

I would find it grossly offensive if someone wasn't willing to vote for another party.

A 2 party system where the parties won't work together is a 2 party system that won't work. This by extension go's to all parties.

If you ask me, the 2 parties are working together far too much to support the policies that favor their lobbyists and not the country. Lack of bipartisanship is a beltway myth.

[WrekX]

I would find it grossly offensive if someone wasn't willing to vote for another party.

A 2 party system where the parties won't work together is a 2 party system that won't work. This by extension go's to all parties.

If you ask me, the 2 parties are working together far too much to support the policies that favor their lobbyists and not the country. Lack of bipartisanship is a beltway myth.

Way to miss the point to sound smart.

[Belthus]

The problem is that a third party, under the current system, hurts the major party closer to it on the issues. A conservative Christian party would hurt the Republicans by splitting the conservative vote. A Green party would hurt the Democrats by splitting the progressive vote.

What is needed is proportional representation (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/PRsystems.htm). If the Green Party gets X% of the vote, it should get X% of seats in the legislature. There are a few ways to implement PR, and I prefer the ways that allow people to vote for individual candidates, not just a party.