thảo luận The US Two-Party System

smoore23 posted on Nov 04, 2008 at 12:28AM
I'm sorry if this has already been posted, but I just wanted to say some things.

All along I thought I was going to vote for McCain. I disagree with most of Obama's opinions, so I figured I'd vote McCain.

Well, ever since it was announced that Sarah Palin would be his running mate I've had to rethink some things. I like her at first, but the more I read about her, the less I like her. We more or less have the same values, but hers are more 'extreme' than mine. I just feel like she turns off a lot of people.

So, I did a little research, and I decided that Bob Barr (Libertarian candidate) is a better choice for me.

However, the whole 2-party system angers me. The third party candidates (especially in this year's election) have no chance of being elected.

And since I am registered to vote in Texas, where a quarter of the people there think Obama is Muslim, my vote for Barr is useless. I am 99% sure McCain will win Texas.

For me, the 2-party system turns me off the idea of voting. Why should I stand in line for hours or spend my time filling out an absentee ballot when I know my candidate has no chance of winning?

I know most people here on Fanpop are Democrats and they might disagree with what I'm saying and that's fine. That's often why I don't voice my opinions too much here. I feel like I am up against people who have completely opposite views as I do... However, that's a whole other topic.

So, anyway, what are your views on the two-party system?
last edited on Nov 04, 2008 at 01:43AM

thảo luận 6 các câu trả lời

Click here to write a response...
hơn một năm qua Cinders said…
There are many debates about this. In general, dualisms and dichotomies tend to be the strongest groups: good and evil, fast and slow, big and small, etc, etc, etc. I believe the US two party system finds that this is the simplest and strongest way to go about this.

But as a consequence, there are a lot of people who only loosely affiliate themselves with a party, because they only agree with that party a little bit more than they agree with another.

DrDevience has mentioned on several occasions that she prefers Sweden's multiparty system to the US's way of doing things, and perhaps in that manner, more people can find a candidate which they support, that actually has a chance at becoming president.

At the moment, I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. I understand your frustrations with voting for a third party candidate. To be honest, I think Sarah Palin has damaged McCain's campaign more than it's helped it. Sure, he's energized the base, but he's lost several moderates and independents because now he's "too conservative." I myself didn't think McCain would be a bad choice for the presidency (though I've always supported Obama), until he chose Palin as his running mate.

I kind of wonder why third party candidates even bother. It's highly unlikely they will win... Maybe if one year, a third party candidate put a lot of money on campaigning, they could have a shot. And why aren't these other candidates included in presidential debates, if they're running for the same office? Isn't that curious?
hơn một năm qua amazondebs said…
yeah i like how the person with the most money wins everytime what a fair system.....or perhaps that's just a coincidence

i agree i think a multiparty system would work better i also think there should be some restrictions regarding the money and the media attention
hilter reincarnate could have a shot at becoming president with the right sponsors and spin doctors
hơn một năm qua Cinders said…
Except Obama spent far less on his campaign than McCain.
hơn một năm qua amazondebs said…
I thought obama had far more investers though
hơn một năm qua hooch-is-crazy said…
Actually, nearly all the time, there are only two major parties at one time in most countries, voting Barr would be a little like a brit voting Monster Raving Looney, they won't get the Prime Minister, I know the USA is a lot more two-party, but there are very few elections where there are 3 candidates with simalar chances of winning.
hơn một năm qua Sappp said…
Well, at the moment there are 10 party's in our second chamber. There are 150 seats in the second chamber, so you need 76 seats to govern.
Right now the government is made up by a coalition of CDA (christen democratic) 41 seats, PvdA (social democrats) 33 seats, and the Christen Union (christian-social) 6 seats. The CDA and PvdA needed the Christen Union to have a majority: even thouh it is a very small party, it is now part of our government.

I think a multi-party state gives new party more opportunity to grow. In 1994, the SP (socialistic party) came into the second chamber with two seats. In 2006, they got 25 seats, making them the third party in the second chamber, right behind the two governing party's, and before older party's as the VVD (conservative liberal) and D66 (progressive liberals). In just 12 years (which normally are only 3 terms) they rose from small opposition party to a real force in national politics. (though still opposition... but it's a lot easier with 25 seats).

Also, I think the multi party system allows some very specific party's to have some influence.
Since 1922 the SGP (reformed christian party, véry christian) always has had 1, 2 or 3 seats.
At the last election 'The party for animals', guess what they are about?, gained two seats, and have been badering the ministers with questions ever since. (Ow, how I loathe this party).

But we don't elect our prime-minister. In the negotiations about the coalition, the party's involved decide who becomes prime minister (and every other minister). Usually, the leader of the largest party becomes prime-minister and the leader of the second party becomes minister of finances or defense.
I would perhaps like a choosen prime-minister: but on the other hand I have no real problems with how it is now.

last edited hơn một năm qua