Let's Junk the Two Party System

[InTheLight]

There's a lot of gripes about the two party system. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to outline a competing system that would be a better system of government. I'll start:

Absolute theocracy with Jesus Christ as supreme ruler and leader for eternity.

Next....

 

[billwald]

Who's "we," Kemosabe?

We have had multiple parties since the get-go. Lincoln was the last 3rd president and he was smart enough to stack the deck against them. Anyway, human greed will always win over any political/economic system. The Washington Post has a story about Hong Kong being run by billionaires in the largest theoretically Communist country in the world.

 

[Squidward]

The rules are currently set up to make it tough for a third party entrant. I think third parties have to get three times more signatures to get on a ballot. The two parties act like bitter enemies in public but are in some serious collusion. Not to mention America's mentality has become hard wired to only choose candidates from the duopoly.

 

[preachinjesus]

The OP's original comment to me is helpful for framing my reply...so here it is...

What you are proposing is similar to a coalition government. That would be fine, but no legislation would ever get passed. We'd have to rewrite the constitution. Do we want to go there?

I don't know if its a coalition government so much as a diversified government. I doubt that legislation wouldn't be passed. That isn't a good argument against my point. You have no evidence that legislation wouldn't be passed. If anything it would strengthen the legislative process. Less would be done by Congress (which, btw, I consider a good thing.) Only the truly robust and helpful would get through. That is a big mark in favor of a diversified party system imho.

The "rewrite the constitution" is both absurd and not actually a point. You wouldn't ever have to do that. The Constitution is moot on the issues of parties outside of allowing for them.

The best thing that could happen to Congress is a) complete replacement of all members for the next 5 election cycles (but that isn't going to happen...silly voters), b) adding a potent, viable third party to stand in the gap between the two parties. It would be a good thing.

Let's develop this better.

 

[InTheLight]

I don't know if its a coalition government so much as a diversified government. I doubt that legislation wouldn't be passed. That isn't a good argument against my point. You have no evidence that legislation wouldn't be passed. If anything it would strengthen the legislative process.

I like the British system. That said, you may be correct in that legislation would probably get passed--by Congress. However, unless we rewrite the rules for Presidential vetoes, the President would have too much power under a diversified (or coalition) government. As currently stated, to override a veto, the Congress needs 2/3 majority vote. That's going to be hard to get with more than 2 parties.

The 2/3 majority rule clause would also affect other features of the Constitution, like the 25th amendment (where the Vice President serves if the President is incapacitated.) Other features are removal from office votes following impeachment. Also of note is the 3/5 requirement to end filibusters. So these parts of the Constitution would likely need to be rewritten.

Less would be done by Congress (which, btw, I consider a good thing.) Only the truly robust and helpful would get through. That is a big mark in favor of a diversified party system imho.

Agreed. :thumbs:

The "rewrite the constitution" is both absurd and not actually a point. You wouldn't ever have to do that. The Constitution is moot on the issues of parties outside of allowing for them.

As above, I refer you to the supermajority clauses of the U.S. constitution

The best thing that could happen to Congress is a) complete replacement of all members for the next 5 election cycles (but that isn't going to happen...silly voters), b) adding a potent, viable third party to stand in the gap between the two parties. It would be a good thing.

Let's develop this better.

 

[revmwc]

why not go back to the original way the founding fathers set it up.


The Electoral college system:

" In the original system the electors simply had two votes. Whoever got the majority was made president, whoever got the second most votes automatically became vice-president. Although this may sound like a fair way to handle election to the high office, it was found that the president was often saddled with a vice-president who was completely against his policies. This might also cause the party behind the vice-president in such cases to actively work for the demise of the president. To avoid this unseemly situation Amendment XII was approved by congress and ratified by two-thirds of the states.

The twelfth amendment to the Constitution states that the electors "shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President." Doing this ensures that the president and vice-president will be a team rather than adversaries as the electors are chosen based on the candidates that they support."

Repeal the 12th. Do away with a party system like this nation was intended to be. Actually they would have to pass yet another Amendment to do that. Like the 21st repelled the 18th.

 

[Havensdad]

There's a lot of gripes about the two party system. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to outline a competing system that would be a better system of government. I'll start:

Absolute theocracy with Jesus Christ as supreme ruler and leader for eternity.

Next....

Thats hardly fair. How are we even supposed to compete with that?

As far as BEFORE Christ returns? 100 percent independent. If you want to run for an office, whatever the office might be, you have to garner the necessary signatures to get on the ballot. Slash government down to the bare minimum, so that corporations and rich individuals do not have a big stake in investing their money for "backscratching." This would eliminate the stranglehold that the elites have on the Government.

But it will never happen. People are too stupid. They are just going to do what their party commanders tell them to do. Just look at the dozens of cases of voter fraud across the country, where local caucuses have blatantly violated Republican Party rules in order to shut out the horde of RP supporters. Its on numerous local T.V. stations, its all over Youtube, but NO major media outlet is picking it up, nor is there any response from Republican leadership. They figure if they ignore it, the stupid sheep will eventually shut up and do what they are told.

 

[billwald]

The Founding Fathers gave us the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was the result of the 2nd American Revolution.

 

[saturneptune]

I believe in following the Constitution, as a member of the Constitution Party. The Constittution says nothing about parties, but does not ban them either. It is not so much the two party system, as the thread op, it is the character and nature of the two existing parties. They are run by greed, corruption, self interest, and a lust for power. Neither party has as its purpose serving the people. Neither party follows the Constitution. Both parties embrace ideas into official law that are blatant sin, like abortion and same sex marriage for example. The present two parties are a rat's nest of evil. They might as well be Siamese twins.

Since the Democrats and Republicans are not in the Constitution, we do not need an amendment to get rid of them. There is nothing sacred about either. Parties have been eliminated before, such as the Whigs before the Republicans. If we had two parties that had as their primary purpose to serve the people and follow the Constitution, then the system might work. There is nothing wrong with political differences and debate, but there is something terribly wrong with stealing money and power from the American people daily, then pretending like you do not, and creating a false difference between your party and the other party.

 

[convicted1]

http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

I think this is a fair statement......

 

[saturneptune]

http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html





I think this is a fair statement......

I think you are onto something there. We have exceeded the average. The question is, do we deserve to continue to be blessed by the Lord as a nation?

 

[convicted1]

I think you are onto something there. We have exceeded the average. The question is, do we deserve to continue to be blessed by the Lord as a nation?

We don't deserve anything from God, even on our best day. He blesses us even w/ all our faults. I take solace in this here:

Psa. 37:23-26

23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.

24 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand.

25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.

26 He is ever merciful, and lendeth; and his seed is blessed.

Now, I do not want anyone to suffer from loss, hunger, pain, etc. but God will take care of His children. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[saturneptune]

We don't deserve anything from God, even on our best day. He blesses us even w/ all our faults. I take solace in this here:




Now, I do not want anyone to suffer from loss, hunger, pain, etc. but God will take care of His children. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Those are comforting words, and He has done nothing but bless me and my family. However, in the OT, the Lord judged nations for a lot less than what America has done. I believe morality in leadership is what we are having a heated debate about in the other thread.

 

[Alcott]

Let's Junk the Two Party System

Ain't it already junk?

 

[InTheLight]

Both parties embrace ideas into official law that are blatant sin, like abortion and same sex marriage for example. The present two parties are a rat's nest of evil. They might as well be Siamese twins.

So you're saying the Republican Party platform endorses same-sex marriage and abortion on demand. Is that correct?

 

[webdog]

I haven't seen anyone mention party reform yet as an option. This would be my first choice given the fact a 2 party system is going nowhere in spite of the Nader's and Paul's. Lets make the GOP a TRUE conservative party to compete with the libs, and throw out the moderates. Let THEM be the ones forced to create another party.

 

[saturneptune]

So you're saying the Republican Party platform endorses same-sex marriage and abortion on demand. Is that correct?

With a nominee like Romney, you bet I do. 100% loud and clear.

 

[saturneptune]

I haven't seen anyone mention party reform yet as an option. This would be my first choice given the fact a 2 party system is going nowhere in spite of the Nader's and Paul's. Lets make the GOP a TRUE conservative party to compete with the libs, and throw out the moderates. Let THEM be the ones forced to create another party.

In the first place, it is addressed in post 9. You say lets make the GOP a true conservative party, yet in the other thread, you go to bat for Romney. You also, time after time, belittle those who vote for third party candidates who will not be elected, yet right here, you are advocating another party. Which is it?

There is nothing wrong with political debate and competition, even in just two parties. There is something very wrong with the two major parties being driven by greed and power.

 

[webdog]

In the first place, it is addressed in post 9.

post 9 says nothing about party reform.

You say lets make the GOP a true conservative party, yet in the other thread, you go to bat for Romney.

No, I support the eviction of Obama. You just fail to see the difference.

You also, time after time, belittle those who vote for third party candidates who will not be elected, yet right here, you are advocating another party. Which is it?

First, I defend myself from the likes of you who wag their moral fingers at anyone not voting like you, and second, I never advocated another party. I said let the moderates form their own party. Follow along.

There is nothing wrong with political debate and competition, even in just two parties. There is something very wrong with the two major parties being driven by greed and power.

no kidding, that was my point in this thread.

 

[billwald]

>Now, I do not want anyone to suffer from loss, hunger, pain, etc. but God will take care of His children.

When rations get short God sends them to the gas ovens?