1 option is Dictatorship, 2 options is Democracy?

[tusaki]

One option is Dictatorship, Two options is Democracy?

I've posted this before, and there were some other threads about this, but I thought of rephrasing the question.

If the outcome of a system, is that people only have a choice between two views... Wouldn't it be better to rethink the system? I don't think the polarity in american politics is healthy. This is not an attack, just an observation.

[PatrickHenry]

Could you reframe the debate? I don't get what the arguments might be...

[sixmillman]

Be carefull not to frame the discussion as
First we shoot the horse
Then we ride it into town and buy a car

[tusaki]

The outcome of the current system is that people can only choose between A) democrat B) republican. If they choose anything else, their vote will be thrown away because it will go to the victor in the state. I do not believe that this bipartisanship is healthy. People should have more choices, and more different opinions should be heard in washington. I know how the system grew from historical reasons, but the outcome is not good. the choice between 2 parties is hardly any better than 1 party.

[sixmillman]

The outcome of the current system is that people can only choose between A) democrat B) republican. If they choose anything else, their vote will be thrown away because it will go to the victor in the state.

Patently false claim

[bishop]

personally, i disagree with the winner-take-all rule. the notion of proportionality seems much more democratic imo.

[tusaki]

Originally posted by sixmillman, Patently false claim

Then what happens with it? Say, I vote green. How am I going to get heard?

[sixmillman]

You vote green
when the polls are tallied the percentages are seen
if the green message grows in popularity
the candidates will tailor their message to attract the greatest number of voters.
Some may feel constrained by the fact that this dynamic is slowly progressive but it is a necessary fact to distinguish democracy from mob rule

[Gorgo]

I think we should vote for a party. If a party gets a certain number of votes, then that party is represented proportionately. Representatives choose their leaders, and ultimately the president.

[Comrade]

Not very many states have laws that require their electoral delegates have to vote the same way as the results in their state anyways.

I don't know when the last time the thread author took a look at a presidential ballot, or ANY ballot for that matter, but rarely are there merely two choices for any office.

ESPECIALLY those at the federal level.

[samsara15]

How about limited oligarchy? Isn't that what we have in America? Point being, labeling types of governement is not easy.

[Comrade]

I've made this arguement before :)

Aristocracy. When most people hear this term, they think of the modern use of aristocracy (i.e. the nobility). Aristos means Best, and Cracy means government or rule (by) in Greek.
Rule by the Best = Aristocracy
That is what we could easily have, with quality candidates. We choose the best people to lead us with some big concessions, such as a year limit before they come under review, known as re-election.

It was arrogant rich European nobles who said, "Well, we are the best aren't we? That makes us the aristocratic class," changing the meaning of the word in modern context.

Democracy, originally being the "town hall" type of government, was rightly concluded to be an awful way to run things, because it let the heat of the moment by the uneducated masses and people with stupid opinions make rash decisions, which is why I'm glad we have elected officials instead of a town hall system. Look at Athenian history.

Samsara, we would be an oligarchy if we couldn't remove our officials ever. An oligarchy is a dictatorship where power is shared by a small group of people.
Liberals would have you believe otherwise, but Bush isn't a fascist dictator, and neither is Congress a group of dictators, simply because the only threat to their job security isn't the armed populace (meaning, revolution would be the only way to remove them).
And, of course, the spirit of America government is fundamentally different anyways.

The political system in the US is, as originally designed, the best system ever devised by man. Unfortunately, the current system is NOT the one originally intended by the founding fathers. I do not think there should be any further criteria interjected in the voting process. What should be REMOVED is the current two party stranglehold on American politics. No candidate or party should receive federal funds for any reason, period. No matching funds, not presidential re-election campaign donations on the IRA forms, no NOTHING. This would have a tremendous impact on the political landscape. Heretofore smaller parties could become more dominant more quickly. Look at how many different political parties there were before the civil war.?

[Comrade]

That's the problem though, there is that 2 party choke point we can't force any reformers through.
Still, even with 2 parties, I don't see death and ruin falling on us from the heavens.
I believe that the 2 party system IS changing. It is simply changing slowly, as it always has. I look at a history book, and I see America changing for the better, always, just very slowly, over dozens of years.
It will be several elections, maybe four to two dozen, before the most prominant 3rd party (or at least my favorite one, and the one that would be most likely to implement the reforms desired), Libertarian, becomes a force to be reckoned with, but just go back to how much of a following they are gathering every successive year, and there is already complaints of them "stealing" votes for the two major parties.

I look at a history book, and I see America changing for the better, always, just very slowly, over dozens of years.

I look at a history book, and I see America changing for the worse, always, just very slowly, over dozens of years.

All you pesimists out there should read this book.

"It's Getting Better all the Time"
by
Stephen Moore and Julina Simon

and stop all the half empty nonsense. We live in heady times. Never before have we, humans, enjoyed our current standard of living. Even poor countries live better than our ancestors ever dreamed of. Stop griping and start thinking positively or you'll always be a digruntled, depressed person.

[sixmillman]

Comarade

It will be several elections, maybe four to two dozen, before the most prominant 3rd party (or at least my favorite one, and the one that would be most likely to implement the reforms desired), Libertarian, becomes a force to be reckoned with, but just go back to how much of a following they are gathering every successive

Your dreamin

[Osborn F Enready]

IRV is the answer in my opinion. Instant Runoff Voting would cure our "spoiler vote" concept some people believe in, and it would also provide a more equal, ability for all parties to run effectively.

IRV and Open Debates, are my choices for what ails this system of voting.

All people could vote for ALL canidates, and they would be sorted and tallied instantly, with verifiable records.

[JoshuaRGodinez]

One of the most surprising things to me when I read the Declaration of Independece was the following "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed". Everything I've seen in life has pretty-much reinforced this statement. People suffer a lot of inconvenience and even loss of liberty as long as it isn't too much too often. Most people hate change and would rather try to fix something with as little change as possible. People don't even want to balkanize their states by splitting their electoral votes for President. They're certainly not ready to scrap the entire history of the 2 party system. Direct election of senators is about as far as we've been willing to go.

I don't understand the parlimentary system. I've never understood how a citizen can be happy knowing that the prime minister is someone they may not know anything about, but was chosen by his party after they got the most votes and that the citizen's party may have to pretend to support him to be part of the ruling government while actually trying to undermine his party at the same time. I know there's something I'm missing here since most democracies seem to run this way. I guess I just like the last-man-standing way to elect someone. He must be the best person for the job because he got more people to vote for him than anyone else did. Whether that's an indication of his political acumen or his actual beliefs is what we all seem to complain about.