Half the US has No Power in Federal Politics

For right now, let's focus on the executive branch. During the past presidential election, we saw an almost dead-even split. This means that half the country holds a monopoly in the executive branch (assuming non-voters would vote the same way).

Now, let's look at the legislative branch, we see 54% of the members in Congress are of one party and the rest of another. Again, close to 50%.

The judicial branch is composed of leaders not selected directly by the people, but rather by successive generations of federal government.

So, members of the Federal Government are nearly dead-even in power, yet democracy gives the minimum majority all the cards.

Is democracy just a pretty name for tyranny of the majority? The conclusion I draw from these observations is that a two-party system is not sufficient to make democracy a viable government. We have 3 branches of government, so why not 3 major parties? Each party would hold each other in check and ensure non-partisanship in all aspects of government.

Is it the role of each party to play off against each other to ensure the common goal of Federalism survives? To keep this country great, we must evolve, and the only option as I see it is the onset of another major party. Thoughts?

Note: This thread belongs in Political Conspiracies. Governments have played two countries off against each other for an ulterior goal and the same happens in Party Politics.

Of course. The USA was made to be a constitutional republic, but it has become a democracy, which is a tyranny of the mob. Theoretically, the Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, so certain things can't be voted on, particularly things protected by the Bill of Rights.

The problem is that democracy is eroding these rights.

First, only landowners over 21 could vote. Then the people complained and had the vote extended to any man over 21, extending the vote to the poor (prone to demanding social services from the government), and the fiscally irresponsible (prone to being stupid).

Then, the women wanted to vote. In itself this wasn't a bad thing, but women have a tendency to behave like mothers. (Please don't shoot me Sexism Police) This made it more likely to elect politicians more likely to give the poor and fiscally irresponsible what they want.

Then, they let the 18-21 group vote. As those on the left side are fond of saying (when complaining about military service anyway), the brain isn't fully developed until around age 25, so obviously some additional level of immaturity is introduced by letting these people vote, and immature people in general don't always make good choices. These three expansions in the franchise have led to a degradation of our government.

Is it fair to restrict voting? That's not the point. The USA is not supposed to be a democracy! This nation was founded with the purpose of protecting liberty, in which the government was prohibited from doing a great many things, and generally expected to leave people alone. Too much democracy will only mess that up.

The Democrats and Republicans are both working to keep themselves in power. Even though the Republicans are generally perceived as slightly more libertarian than the Democrats, in reality the GOP is too weak to do very much in reversing any government expansion, if it tries at all.

Three party systems sound more stable than a two party system, but what we really need is to get the two dominant parties to let other parties play with them. Michael Badnarik and Ralph Nader were both barred from debating with Bush and Kerry, and that is wrong. Badnarik got on almost all of the states' ballots (maybe all of them), and Nader got most of the states.

Three party systems tend not to last -- when the dominant two parties start behaving badly, a new party is brought in or one splits in two, and then people choose between three parties for a few years until one is sifted out.

Expanding the electorate didn't turn the U.S. from a republic to a democracy. If we were a true democracy, we wouldn't have a Congress to make laws, we'd vote on all laws individually.

Not a democracy? Sounds like someone applying the wrong definition.

Democracy --

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Direct Democracy v. Representative Democracy

The definition that is more applicable in this conversation though is....

4. Majority rule.

dictionary.reference.com...

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Note: This thread belongs in Political Conspiracies. Governments have played two countries off against each other for an ulterior goal and the same happens in Party Politics.

I'm not sure it does, as this is really a general ideological debate but we'll see where it goes.

My caution in futher fracture (like we don't have enough) isn't wouldn't it be cool, if the Libertarians could win?

It's wouldn't it suck to high heaven if the evangelical theocrats got a lick of sense and formed a third party, fracturing the Democrats and Republicans into respective "liberal" and "conservtive" economic philosophy parties, and installed a Theocracy with a slightly more than one-third Super Minority of 100 million evangelicals?

The only way to combat three party tyranny of the MINORITY, would be a multiple, MULTIPLE party system... but that would just end up regionalizing and weakening the Union beyond all repair IMO.

I don't think it's possible for a super minority to control the government with the same checks and balances applied. But as Beefotronx pointed it, eventually, the overwhelming obstruction to evangelical parties would essentially create two parties, for and against. So, while a three-party system obviously would not last, this has shown me what I really want to address.

When I think of the basis for the two major parties, I look back at Federalists and Anti-Federalists. There is no sufficient Anti-Federalist party in Federal Politics anymore. The name of the game for both parties is to consolidate power. As each party moves to consolidate power, subsequent administrations are able to reap these fruits to further expand their agenda into government.

The founding fathers had it right, a republic seems the most ideal form of government. I think it's obvious that each party resists this concept. With each succesive administration, national power is further stretched across the fundamental foundations of the country, its people. Each election people force themselves to deny their own beliefs in support of one of two major party candidate, neither of which will fully represent them.

By now, it's obvious that the federal government is over-stepping its bounds, allowing California to rule Maine and Florida to rule California, ad infinitum, until local matters are nothing but the will of people 2000 miles away.

The question remains, Why? Why do our de facto leaders feel the need to exert so much control? Are we really so disorderly of a people that we need a minimal percentage of our population essentially guiding the circumstances in our lives?

I think not. People may have lost the concept of responsibility, but only because it has been taken from them through malintent.

It's a lot less than half my friend. I have an odd mix of conservative and liberal leanings, but neither the conservative nor the liberal in me feels that either this White House or this Congress is doing what it ought to be doing for us. I believe that I'm probably not the only one who feels this way.

I'll give a nod to John Maynard Keynes: Deficit spending can be beneficial when calculated to generate additional wages and thus stimulate the economy. The deficit spending in this administration has not been calculated to do so however, so not only is my conservative side unhappy, my tolerance for liberalism is not impressed either.
The run-away spending on an intelligence system that isn't working, except towards the aim of putting big government's nose in the business of private citizens should be chiefly opposed by conservatives. Aren't they the ones who traditionally were upset about big government?!
Then there is the military spending, which is disappearing to God knows where (sometimes to China- you know you're in trouble when even the military doesn't buy American! This refers to those pretty new berets the army felt they needed of course.) Most of this spending is going into areas that just don't employ too many people. The products are expensive and the corporations behind them are making money, but they aren't employing as many Americans or generating as much of a wage increase as you'd expect from a war effort which has cost 300 BILLION (in Afghanistan and Iraq).

The failure of the conservative-dominated government to curb illegal immigration is another slap in the face to conservative voters. It is not merely a social issue or the result of nativist sentiment. It is an economic issue. The phenomenon of illegal immigrants working for minimum wage, often with stolen identities (covered by 60 Minutes and the John Ziegler radio show recently) is driving down wages. I consider the flow of money to the "bottom" (the working class) essential to a strong economy because money floats- we buy things from the wealthy, which is why they are wealthy. If you want money to keep moving, you have to have a strong flow of wages back to the consumers. I consider this the primary economic failure of conservatives.
It is common for BOTH sides of the political spectrum to argue that they do jobs that Americans wouldn't do for those wages, but historically those jobs were not done "for those wages". The wages have been driven down to near minimum BECAUSE of their willingness to work cheaply. This is bad for the working and middle class and necessitates entitlement programs, which should horrify conservatives. It's also serving to break unions, which should horrify some liberals. Where do you think the cheap replacements for unionized grocery store workers will come from when the supermarkets finish their assault on that union (which they all but killed with the lockout a bit over a year ago)?

The handling of the economy is my major beef with Bush so I'm not going to go into every subject in so much detail, but you get my drift. The so-called conservative government is serving a lot less than half of this country, not unlike its liberal predecessor. Clinton had a conservative congress under the Contract with America to drag him kicking and screaming into a few decent decisions at least, but really both parties have failed America severely over the past few decades. They ignore the other side and they barely satisfy their own constituents, except occasionally by accident, as I believe to have been the case with Clinton.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- if America had a do-over in 1992 we would have elected Perot, we would have kicked the Republican part in the head, and things probably would have been better. We need another Perot- both parties are weak right now in my opinion- I think people are getting pretty fed up. The last election was decided by who got more people to vote AGAINST him, not who had more support. No time like the present- we need a charismatic third candidate to show up in time for 2008.

To RANT: If we preserve the common defense and economic insitutions provided by the federal government, and drop everything else, I don't see how this will weaken the Union, especially considering where the constitution is right now and its ability to change in the future. Though the transition to such gives an eery feeling.

Vagabond, thanks for your post. I wonder how many voters actually feel this entire administration, White House et al., is doing a sufficient job right now. I don't know where they are going with this. Either they don't know either, or they are not telling the American public. Perhaps it has something to do with China.