Why?

[Genesis]

As we all know here there are pretty much 2 major party systems here in the U.S. I have a question though...why do you all think the american public is increasingly dissatisfied with the party system, and what evidence is there to support this assertion?

...after answering this question how has the party system managed to overcome all this and continue to grow even stronger?

[August1991]

Assume there's a spectrum of voters. To win, both parties need the person in the middle (50% +1) to win. The two parties approach that person from either end of the spectrum.

This leaves everyone dissatisfied.

The American system is more mature and sensible than this patch-work, weird "progressive-conservative" mixed vegetable system we have in Canada.

[Black Dog]

Assume there's a spectrum of voters. To win, both parties need the person in the middle (50% +1) to win. The two parties approach that person from either end of the spectrum.

This leaves everyone dissatisfied.

The American system is more mature and sensible than this patch-work, weird "progressive-conservative" mixed vegetable system we have in Canada.

Give me a break. How can two parties legitimately represent the views of the entire population. The American two-party duopoly is simply outdated. The Dems and Republicans are essentially the same. The only differences are cosmetic. Is it any wonder, then, that voters are increasingly apathetic when presented with the choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee?

In a true democracy, more choice is better.

[August1991]

The American two-party duopoly is simply outdated. The Dems and Republicans are essentially the same.

Outdated to you maybe, but a consequence of presidential, one-guy wins democracy.

To win, a party (candidate) needs 50% plus one more vote. Both candidates search the middle voter but from different directions.

Both candidates wind up sounding pretty similar in the end.

Compare this to Russia and Canada. Or how about Israel? The US looks "democratic" to me. Why? Well, in the US, if they don't like the bugger, he (she) is easy to toss out. That's true democracy. (Compare this to Canada, Israel, Russia. Coalitions, ridings, blah-blah.)

What about Nader? US third parties? Well, they'll be left in the dust. A protest vote, maybe, to send a message, but they ain't gonna win and change things for four years. They'll influence nothing. (Think of Gore.)

Bottom line? Democracy is all about - it's only about - getting rid of the sucker in a civilized way. (Think Nixon, Brezhnev, Bush Snr/Jnr, Saddam, or the Liberals.)

Who said, "For God's Sake Go!"? Why?

[KrustyKidd]

Give me a break. How can two parties legitimately represent the views of the entire population. The American two-party duopoly is simply outdated. The Dems and Republicans are essentially the same. The only differences are cosmetic. Is it any wonder, then, that voters are increasingly apathetic when presented with the choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee?

In a true democracy, more choice is better.

Got that right. Why can't we have run offs? A way to whittle away the wheat from the chaff? If that was the case then we might find politicians who cater to us rather their own parties.

[August1991]

Why can't we have run offs? A way to whittle away the wheat from the chaff? If that was the case then we might find politicians who cater to us rather their own parties.

The French system! Two tours! Well, the Americans have it. Primaries, and then November.

The methods of voting are endless. Even Constitutional rules. Senates, Parliaments, blah, blah.

Democracy? Bottom line? Is it possible to get rid of the sucker in a painless, civilized manner.

Consider Brezhnev, Castro, Mao, Hitler August 1944. If it requires a bomb, then it's a bad system. (Nixon left by helicopter.)

[KrustyKidd]

Nixon left by helicopter.

LOL. Starting to like you.

[Black Dog]

To win, a party (candidate) needs 50% plus one more vote. Both candidates search the middle voter but from different directions.

Both candidates wind up sounding pretty similar in the end.

I'm confused. How is this possibly a good thing? So instead of having a range of candidates or parties representing a range of views, you end up getting to choose between the lesser of two evils. How is that a choice at all?

[August1991]

I'm confused. How is this possibly a good thing? So instead of having a range of candidates or parties representing a range of views, you end up getting to choose between the lesser of two evils. How is that a choice at all?

Whoever said democracy was about choice? As far as I'm concerned, democracy can only be about getting rid of the buggers. When people realize the guy's a nutbar, how do they get rid of him? "Democracy" provides a peaceful, civilized way to tell the guy to leave the stage.

The rest is merely detail.

But you want truly weird?

Consider these questions:

First, why bother voting? (Your single vote will change absolutely nothing, let's be honest.)

Second, the person who gets to be US Pres gets to control (more or less) an annual budget close to $1 trillion. Bush has raised about $100 million to get control of $1 trillion during four years! So, why don't politicians spend more to win?

[Black Dog]

Whoever said democracy was about choice? As far as I'm concerned, democracy can only be about getting rid of the buggers. When people realize the guy's a nutbar, how do they get rid of him? "Democracy" provides a peaceful, civilized way to tell the guy to leave the stage.

Wrong. Without choice (and a clear difference between political options) you don't have a democracy.

First, why bother voting? (Your single vote will change absolutely nothing, let's be honest.)

Because I can. Voting is only one element of a healthy democratic society anyway.

Second, the person who gets to be US Pres gets to control (more or less) an annual budget close to $1 trillion. Bush has raised about $100 million to get control of $1 trillion during four years! So, why don't politicians spend more to win?

Well, $170 million is a awful lot of money. And I'm sure if there was a way for politicians to raise billions of dollars to campaign, they would.

[d4dev]

Voting is only one element of a healthy democratic society anyway.

Actually voting/not voting. Even if I don't vote, I'm expressing a clear choice, since I may not support the views of any of the candidates standing for elections.

[Black Dog]

Actually voting/not voting. Even if I don't vote, I'm expressing a clear choice, since I may not support the views of any of the candidates standing for elections.

I look at this way: I may not like my options. I may not agree with any of the candidates. However, if I don't vote, I know there's probably someone out there with whom I violently disagree who'll be using their vote. So if my one vote cancels out one vote for, say, Stephen harper, I'll be satisfied.

Finally, if you don't like your options on voting day, why not work to get someone in who you can support?

[d4dev]

I look at this way: I may not like my options. I may not agree with any of the candidates. However, if I don't vote, I know there's probably someone out there with whom I violently disagree who'll be using their vote. So if my one vote cancels out one vote for, say, Stephen harper, I'll be satisfied.

Agreed. But what if I don't disagree violently with anyone?

Finally, if you don't like your options on voting day, why not work to get someone in who you can support?

That's idealistic, but not possible. I have much better things to do than go around campaigning for someone who I know is not going to win.

[Black Dog]

But what if I don't disagree violently with anyone?

Then surely you coukld find a candidate you could support, even if they don't have a chance.

That's idealistic, but not possible. I have much better things to do than go around campaigning for someone who I know is not going to win.

Then you can't very well bitch about the state of politics since you can't be bothered to participate in it or work to change it

[Michael Hardner]

I have a question though...why do you all think the american public is increasingly dissatisfied with the party system, and what evidence is there to support this assertion?

The "public" has been molded into an aggregate of consumers. Opinions aren't formed the way the founding fathers intended, but rather, through advertising.

Since "the customer is always right", who can blame people for refusing to compromise ? The entire concept of compromise seems to be lost on most people, yet it is the key to western democracy. This, IMO, is at the root of the polarization, apathy, ignorance of the electorate.

[Galahad]

The "public" has been molded into an aggregate of consumers.  Opinions aren't formed the way the founding fathers intended, but rather, through advertising.

How very sad.

What's even sadder still, MUCH SADDER, is that I, TOO, am affected.

Help meeee Michael, help meeee.