Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

LWB51 · Feb 19, 2004, 05:04 pm

The Republican and Democratic Parties have had a strangle hold on the American political system for over one hundred and fifty years. There must be and end to this so-called "two party system" in order to realize any meaningful change in our political system. The problem lies in how to effect these changes without resorting to drastic measures ie. civil war. One of the ways that might work is to ignore the two major parties entirely. That is don't vote for anyone who is affiliated with either of these two parties. I now open the forum up to those of you out there who have some thoughts on the matter. what is your view?

damnrad · Feb 19, 2004, 05:17 pm

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LWB51,)
The Republican and Democratic Parties have had a strangle hold on the American political system for over one hundred and fifty years. There must be and end to this so-called "two party system" in order to realize any meaningful change in our political system. The problem lies in how to effect these changes without resorting to drastic measures ie. civil war. One of the ways that might work is to ignore the two major parties entirely. That is don't vote for anyone who is affiliated with either of these two parties. I now open the forum up to those of you out there who have some thoughts on the matter. what is your view?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Been there, done that. It doesn't work. The stranglehold continues. For 2004, it's Anybody But Bush, so I'll work for and vote for the Democratic nominee.

AnonT · Feb 19, 2004, 05:47 pm

There's a couple reasons we have a two party system.
First, our plurality/winner take all election system. People only take an office with the highest vote total. In some other democratic republics, they use proportional representation, where if a party gets 60% of the vote, they get 60% of the seats, instead of 100%, and the "losers" still get to divide up the other 40%. That encourages third parties (in some cases, almost too much), whereas in our system, if people don't like the person/party who's most likely to win, they're likely to choose someone slightly less bad just to keep that person/party from winning.
There are ways to avoid this and still use a winner-take-all system (which keeps our politics more individualized and prevents parties from having too much influence), such as ordinal (ranked) voting or cardinal (approval/disapproval rather than 1 vote) voting. IRV is probably the best known form of ordinal voting, although it's kind of flawed, and Condorcet voting works better. Check http://www.electionmethods.org for more.

Gah.... I can't remember the other reason right now. I know there is one. I knew I shoulda stayed awake in my political parties class.....

james? · Feb 19, 2004, 06:17 pm

Thanks for the info anon. Oridnal and cardinal voting sound pretty interesting. As for how to change the system? We can't.

AnonT · Feb 19, 2004, 06:56 pm

If we elect people who are willing to look into alternative voting methods, we can.
When election time comes around, vote third party for election commissioners and secretary of state (the secretary of state in most states runs elections). They're generally willing to look into ordinal or cardinal voting if they think it will help open up the system.

Impenitent · Feb 20, 2004, 01:35 am

remember the fun in florida? could you imagine having a ballot with 20 candidates and parties for each position? hanging chad city... people don't think enough to understand the nuances

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 20, 2004, 07:10 am

The "two-party system" is a misnomer. In the US there is one ruling party, which is bifurcated into two sub-cults for propaganda purposes. The Repooplicans are supposedly for free markets, less "government," the rule of law, military domination of the world (Iraq, Grenada, Panama), traditional family values, and the constitution.

The DemocRATs are supposedly for regulation of the economy, "government" bennies for the disadvantaged, the rule of law, military domination of the world (WWI, Korea, Vietnam), gay marriage (but not polygamy, for some reason), and the constitution.

The ruling party picks the guys they want to be your "leaders." Then, you get to vote for them, or any of the marginal parties' candidates the ruling party paints as a "wasted vote," and "fringe groups."

After the "election," the leaders of the two sub-cults get back together and decide how to rule everyone. If they agree with the choice of the most voters (hardly ever the majority), they let the results stand. If the voters choose badly, the ruling party can have the election overruled by a judge.

Voters can then go home, keep paying taxes and obeying the loony commands of the ruling party, and if they object to the evil shit the party does, they are told, "Don't worry, you can have another shot at us in a few years. For now, the people have spoken, and we're merely representing them when we invade Iraq and squander your dough on frivolous, insane programs like buying retirement homes for retired laboratory test chimpanzees. Just shut up and pay your 'fair share'." Some people even call this "democracy." I call it a scam.

--Jackney Sneeb

Feb 20, 2004, 01:35 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	remember the fun in florida? could you imagine having a ballot with 20 candidates and parties for each position? hanging chad city... people don't think enough to understand the nuances "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 19, 2004, 05:04 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
LWB51 Sedimentary Rock Posts: 4	The Republican and Democratic Parties have had a strangle hold on the American political system for over one hundred and fifty years. There must be and end to this so-called "two party system" in order to realize any meaningful change in our political system. The problem lies in how to effect these changes without resorting to drastic measures ie. civil war. One of the ways that might work is to ignore the two major parties entirely. That is don't vote for anyone who is affiliated with either of these two parties. I now open the forum up to those of you out there who have some thoughts on the matter. what is your view?

Feb 19, 2004, 05:17 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LWB51,) The Republican and Democratic Parties have had a strangle hold on the American political system for over one hundred and fifty years. There must be and end to this so-called "two party system" in order to realize any meaningful change in our political system. The problem lies in how to effect these changes without resorting to drastic measures ie. civil war. One of the ways that might work is to ignore the two major parties entirely. That is don't vote for anyone who is affiliated with either of these two parties. I now open the forum up to those of you out there who have some thoughts on the matter. what is your view?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Been there, done that. It doesn't work. The stranglehold continues. For 2004, it's Anybody But Bush, so I'll work for and vote for the Democratic nominee.

Feb 19, 2004, 05:47 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	There's a couple reasons we have a two party system. First, our plurality/winner take all election system. People only take an office with the highest vote total. In some other democratic republics, they use proportional representation, where if a party gets 60% of the vote, they get 60% of the seats, instead of 100%, and the "losers" still get to divide up the other 40%. That encourages third parties (in some cases, almost too much), whereas in our system, if people don't like the person/party who's most likely to win, they're likely to choose someone slightly less bad just to keep that person/party from winning. There are ways to avoid this and still use a winner-take-all system (which keeps our politics more individualized and prevents parties from having too much influence), such as ordinal (ranked) voting or cardinal (approval/disapproval rather than 1 vote) voting. IRV is probably the best known form of ordinal voting, although it's kind of flawed, and Condorcet voting works better. Check http://www.electionmethods.org for more. Gah.... I can't remember the other reason right now. I know there is one. I knew I shoulda stayed awake in my political parties class.....

Feb 19, 2004, 06:17 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
james? Molten Ash Location: Minnesota Posts: 84	Thanks for the info anon. Oridnal and cardinal voting sound pretty interesting. As for how to change the system? We can't.

Feb 19, 2004, 06:56 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	If we elect people who are willing to look into alternative voting methods, we can. When election time comes around, vote third party for election commissioners and secretary of state (the secretary of state in most states runs elections). They're generally willing to look into ordinal or cardinal voting if they think it will help open up the system.

Feb 20, 2004, 07:10 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	The "two-party system" is a misnomer. In the US there is one ruling party, which is bifurcated into two sub-cults for propaganda purposes. The Repooplicans are supposedly for free markets, less "government," the rule of law, military domination of the world (Iraq, Grenada, Panama), traditional family values, and the constitution. The DemocRATs are supposedly for regulation of the economy, "government" bennies for the disadvantaged, the rule of law, military domination of the world (WWI, Korea, Vietnam), gay marriage (but not polygamy, for some reason), and the constitution. The ruling party picks the guys they want to be your "leaders." Then, you get to vote for them, or any of the marginal parties' candidates the ruling party paints as a "wasted vote," and "fringe groups." After the "election," the leaders of the two sub-cults get back together and decide how to rule everyone. If they agree with the choice of the most voters (hardly ever the majority), they let the results stand. If the voters choose badly, the ruling party can have the election overruled by a judge. Voters can then go home, keep paying taxes and obeying the loony commands of the ruling party, and if they object to the evil shit the party does, they are told, "Don't worry, you can have another shot at us in a few years. For now, the people have spoken, and we're merely representing them when we invade Iraq and squander your dough on frivolous, insane programs like buying retirement homes for retired laboratory test chimpanzees. Just shut up and pay your 'fair share'." Some people even call this "democracy." I call it a scam. --Jackney Sneeb