The system is not broken. Its just that the politicans are not doing their jobs.
Our system created the greatest, richest, most powerful nation in the history of mankind. And you would trash it just because some yahoos have been shirking their responsibilities? Thats crazy.
Trash, no. Rework, yes. And we're hardly the greatest nations in history falling apart after a bit over 2 centuries. If we're sill around 1k years from now and aren't a 2nd rate power, hen maybe. As it stands, we're just a footnote in the grand scheme of things.
The constitution doesn't limit to two parties - you don't know what you're talking about.
First of all, thats a lie. I would like you to link me to a quote by Powell where he says that.
Second, Einstein, I am talking about 1996, before Bush was even president.
Do you ever look at your ballot every four years? There are several candidates and several parties on the ballot every four years: Libertarian, Green Party, Communist Party. Remember Ross Perot?
Sure and how man of them get media attention? Major endorsements? Raise more then a few thousand dollars? Have political adds? Get more then 1k votes? It's not illegal to be a 3rd part candidate but sch a person won't ever be president. Rep. Paul switched to the Republican Party for a reason.
You see them on ballot but not in Debates ...
It is a joke in the name of democracy. The parties that you have listed are only for the ballot but are never taken seriously for debates etc. Fool the world to make it look like a democracy. It is a kingdom like Saudi Arabia which is shared between Dems/Repugs who differ on patty things like abortion, religion etc. One looks inward to spend on domestic agendas and taxes to reduce deficit and another spends on wars with no taxes to create record deficits.
It is a joke in the name of democracy. The parties that you have listed are only for the ballot but are never taken seriously for debates etc. Fool the world to make it look like a democracy. It is a kingdom like Saudi Arabia which is shared between Dems/Repugs who differ on patty things like abortion, religion etc. One looks inward to spend on domestic agendas and taxes to reduce deficit and another spends on wars with no taxes to create record deficits.
Last edited:
Which is why we need a new constitution or a least an amendment to get rid of 1st Past the Post elections.
The above is yet another idiot mantra of the leftwing.
In some parliamentary democracies, a number of parties will be elected due to proportional representation. One of the things this can cause is unstable government - eg Italy's 50 governments in 50 years. In multi-party legislatures, compromnise is effected between parties. In the two party system, the compromise happens inside the broadly-representative two parties. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.This is a fake issue (yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn :sleep
The above is yet another idiot mantra of the leftwing.
This is a fake issue (yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn :sleep
The 2 party system led to civil war, worker uprisings in the years after the Great War, stagnation in the 80s and 00s and the current deadlock that has our nation falling apart. We need outside the box thinking and we can't get that with neo-liberals/cons monopolizing power.
As usual from you, a bunch of over the top claims with nothing to back them up. You complain I don't give links backing my arguments (so you can tutor yourself) - you don't even give arguments.
To pick one of your ficticious claims - the two party system per se had NOTHING to do with the civil war - in fact the period immediately before the war saw the dissolution of the long-existing Whig party, with dozens of parties emerging in the resulting vacuum. Of these, the republican party emerged as the opposition to the democrat party, for the very reason that it had the broadest appeal. The precipitating cause of the civil war was the likely emergence of new states from the western territories, and the south's realization that they would probably be non-slave states and that would end the north-south balance in the congress, to what they saw as their disadvantage.
This had been a threat for decades (Mason-Dixon Line anyone?) yet had never resulted in war. It wasn't until the radically abolitionist/unionist Repubs came to power that it all went to shit.
Nonsense - the Compromise of 1850 >>NARROWLY<< avoided war, and that was ten years before the creation of the republican party. And you're drifting - first you say the two party system was the cause, then you say the republican party. Further, to call the republican party abolitionist when it came to power is simply false. There was an abolitionist wing, but A. Lincoln himself repeatedly reiterated that he just didn't want slavery to expand into the new territories, that he believed it should be left alone where it already existed, because he thought it would eventually wither away there.
........and then to the richest, most powerful, most free nation in man's history, a nation that everyone is trying to get IN to.
A civil war in Mexico spilling over into America, an on the ropes economy, protests and/or riots in most major (and quite a few small) cities, a non-functional gov't, talk of secession (with serious legislative actions to back it up over the last 3 or so years), an increasing number of terror attacks, the number and membership of illegal militias is on the rise, a growing number of Americans heading north to Canada and fewer immigrants and all of this after a bit over 2 centuries, historically insignificant. If we fall apart now or survive but never recover from our current slump we'll go down in history as a footnote. We'll be recorded as a strong and rich nation at our height but that coverage will be a short 2.5 page chapter in a HS history book, like the Roman Empire during the middle ages. Known but ignored.
Similar threads
