Who here at DU thinks we need a HEALTHY two-party system in this Country

[Raven]

besides me? It used to be called the "loyal opposition" and it kept the party in power honest and open to other ideas.

[saltpoint]

1. It would be a cool idea if anybody ever tried it.

I'm not seeing people like Cantor and McConnell and Boehner as much more than pimps for the bad guys.

And I'm long-ago done pretending that modern-day Republicans have the public's interest at heart.

[Raven]

7. Agreed. This Republican Party is very, very sick but I think the

Founders of this Country anticipated something different and better.

[saltpoint]

9. Yes. If the GOP could atone for its considerable sins and return to the

spirit of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, I'd be more appreciative.

But for the time being, I don't think Tom Coburn and Haley Barbour are getting it done.

I'd like to see the rise of a socialist-leaning third party as opposed to the rehabilitation of the Republican Party. It would suggest a more left-leaning zone of governance.

[Captain Hilts]

2. I certainly do. Each keeps the pressure on the other. Without it, you get lousy candidates...

and lousy government.

I voted in VA for years. It was gross. Creepy, Bible-thumping Republicans and stooopid Democrats. Chuch Robb seemed like a smart guy - it was THAT bad!

[obama yo mama]

3. Why Only 2 Parties?

There is not much difference between Dems and Reps. We need more parties and a government made up of a coalition of those parties.

Two parties cannot represent the ideals of all of the people. We need a Labor Party, Socialist Party, LBGT Party, Hawk Party, Dove Party, etc if we truly want representation for all. My interests are not fully covered by the Dems.

[Mist]

10. Yes, we need 3 or 4 or 5 parties, minimum! Two parties=too easily gamed. nt

[pipi_k]

20. I think that even if we had a hundred parties...

there would still be people who would say their interests aren't fully covered by the available parties.


And if things aren't crazy enough now with "undecided" voters who can't even choose between two major parties, how much chaos would there be if there were even more to choose from?


And none of them would likely be able to address all of the interests of the voters. So what then? We break those parties down even further?

I dunno...seems way too complicated, and even though it might be a tad unfair to only have two parties, in the end it's probably better not to complicate the political landscape even more than it already is.

:shrug:

[tanyev]

28. Oh, I am sure that your interests are not fully covered by the Dems.

[bluestateguy]

4. I'll take a token Republican opposition of 80-100 in the House and maybe 20 in the Senate

and they can have a few governorships of some of the worthless states too. I don't mind.

[hlthe2b]

5. We could use a healthy multi-party system....

But our system is stacked for at best, two... So naturally we get the extreme RW and centrist Dems.... I wish we had a very strong green party or other more liberal party tugging from the left, but...

[TransitJohn]

6. Not me

I think any 2 party system is inherently unhealthy. What we need is 5 or more parties all getting seats in congress, that way they'd have to form coalitions to get anything done, and hopefully do the people's business.

[Raven]

8. I didn't mean to limit it to just 2, but we need at least 2 parties, not one

good one and one sick one.

[TransitJohn]

15. Hell I'd like it

if we had at least one good one! Which one are you referring to?

[sandnsea]

11. YES. Democrats and Greens.

I've been saying it for 5 years now. Push the Republicans so far right they become irrelevant, and let the Greens rise up as the "loyal opposition".

[FLAprogressive]

12. We need multiple parties. not just 2

[DireStrike]

13. Nope! We need a three party system at least.

We need to change the way we vote, with instant runoff voting or ranked list voting.

[AllentownJake]

14. We need to kill off the conservative idealogy once and for all

place them in the dust bin of history like a certain President used to say and let there be a liberal and moderate party.

[Smarmie Doofus]

16. Outside of NYS it seems to work.

Nationally, there are real differences beteween the two parties and the system as it stands encourages a degree of public participation in the decision-making process.

There's only one party in NY. Whatever you want to call it it has little in common with the nat'l DEM party and rules through PR, backroom deals and financial, shall we say, "arrangements."

Thus you have Bloomberg (GOP) employing Schumer's wife ( under maiden name) as Commisioner of Transportation ( the M$M media mysteriously underplaying, that fact; when not ignoring it completely). Bloomberg getting crossover support from DEM officials and crypto-officials and at the same time donating 500,000 dollars to keep the state legislature in GOP control.

Meanwhile the state DEM party likes the war in Iraq ( voted down a resolution calling for withdrawal) and always selects statewide candidates who support it... or DID support when it mattered.

Public participation: it's a joke here. We voted twice to impose term limits by lopsided margins. The politicians ... under the adoring yet watchful eyes of their master$$$... threw term limits in NYC out anyway. Entrenched DEMS will benefit politically along with the entrenched GOP mayor. No telling who's going to benefit financially but it's a sure bet them someone will.

"Forget it Jake; it's Chinatown."

[Greyhound]

35. It is similar in most states, only the details change. That's, IMO, the biggest problem with binary

politics. When there's only two teams allowed to play, it is way too easy for one, or any, interest to buy them both.

And that quote is do right on the money.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. You mean something other than the Bad and Not As Bad parties we have now?

It would be a novel idea but I think a multi-party (or, no party) system would be much better.

[mmonk]

18. We can't have one. We the people don't have the money.

Multiple parties would work but the two party system controls the ballot access. So we are left with voting the less of two evils.

[NNN0LHI]

19. When the other party has fascist tendencies I begin to wonder if its a good idea

[etherealtruth]

21. Two or more viable parties

No one is right (or wrong) 100% of the time.

[sufrommich]

22. Of course we should. People have legitimate philosophical

differences that should be reflected in their government.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Sure, if the two Parties

are Democrats and Greens. Republicans are clearly past the use by date, shelf life over.

[madrchsod]

24. we have just lived through 8 years of one party tyranny

yes--checks and balances

[adamuu]

25. i'd like to see it

it doesn't have to be Democrats - Republicans
It can be Democrats - Other Third Party
as long as there is not just one strong, organized, nation-wide party, that is best

[marmar]

26. Actually I think we need a healthy mult-party system.....A two-party system isn't democratic IMHO.

n/t

[Toucano]

27. We need a viariety of opposing ideas but we don't need any parties.

I would trade the politics of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch your" for the politics of "do the right thing" any day.

[madokie]

29. I think a two party system is good

I also think that a three party system would be even better. It sure would be a lot harder to dictate as these last 8 years showed us can happen.

[Enthusiast]

30. How things have changed.

It was Eisenhower that warned us about the military industrial complex. Then for several years Democrats were the party of the MIC. Role reversal. If the Republican Party fails, the same corrupting influences that ruined them will undermine the Democratic Party.

[mwooldri]

31. Introduce the Proportional Representation system of voting into this country...

... and then 3rd parties can be seen to be more viable.

The current "first past the post" system is not democratic enough: take the UK system: the Liberal Democrats for years have had a far higher share of the vote than their number of seats in Parliament warranted. This was particularly skewed in the 80's when as the SDP Liberal Alliance they had almost the same share of the vote as Labour, but only 20 or so seats in a 650-odd seat parliament (sorry dont know exact numbers off the top of my head right now).

[fed_up_mother]

32. We need more than two parties, imo, but I get your point and agree.

[Beregond2]

33. I've never understood this attitude in America

about the "two-party system," as if it were this holy institution. The founders did their best to see to it that there wouldn't be any parties at all. If we must have them, why only two? It's always seemed to me that the spectrum of opinion would be better served by five: Radical, Liberal, Moderate, Conservative and Reactionary. That's about the way parties break down in most parliamentary countries. Having only two parties pretty much guarantees that neither party will stand for much of anything; they have to appeal to too many people.

[roody]

34. Two parties are not enough.