Answer to the Party system

What do you think is the answer to the american politcal party system? And please do not say the Many party system like England or i will give you a sound slapping with a trout.

For those of you who have no idea how the many party system works, let me educate you. The many party enables one small loud party to dominate the entire political scene. They may have less than %50 percent of the countries people as their supporters but it doesnt matter they are the largest percentage ergo they win.
Example.
Party A-%37 of the country
Party B-%26 of the country
Party C-%19 of the country
Party D-%18 of the country

Wanna take a guess at whose agenda gets passed? Party A
Now wait what about the other %63 of the country. They may not agree on issues together other than they dont want party A to pass this law or have this leader. Well damn they are a minority to the %37 of the country that is ruling because they split their vote into so many factions. End is Many Party sucks hardcore.


So do you have any ideas to replace the USA political party system?

First of all, England does have a system that allows for more parties than two, but in practice only two parties matter. So the example you talk about is incorrect.

Moreover, whereas the US has an electorate system to choose presidents, England does not elect a prime minister. Whoever is the leader of the party that gains the most constituencies, and thus chairs in parliament, becomes the prime minister (remember, England is a monarchy by tradition).

But to address your question I believe that the biggest flaw in both these countries is the majority system. This means that the winner takes all the votes from a constituency/state, no matter by what margin. The consequence is that a majority of the population could vote for the guy that doesn't win in the end, depending on victory margins in each state/constituency.

A way better system is the proportional form of government, where a parliament elects the prime minister/president, and the parties get a number of seats in proportion to how many votes they actually got.

Another misconception in your rant about the many party system is that whoever gets the most votes win all of the power. Actually this is more true in a majority system, because if there were more than two parties, some of them would have to create coalitions to reach a majority position in their legislative branch. With 36% of the votes they can pass exactly zero laws. This is in many cases a safeguard against extremism in any direction. A majority system cannot accomplish that.

I really dont think the system needs to be fixed BUT as I stated in another thread we need to ditch the current criminals in office for some new ones. This country does not have a two party system there are several other parties out there. We need to get these crooks out and when the new ones get to well entrenched get rid of them too. The whole idea of geting rid of a monarchy was to make sure that no person or group of people held power to long. When we vote going just along the two party lines we are not getting a person we are just getting the party line. The only hope is to vote them out.

A multi party system might not work, due to the fact that an overwhealming majority would disagree with the current party. That is why more than one president may be needed for the system.

I don't think that there should be ANY parties.

Parties are a problem because of a few reasons (in America at least)

1) They would cause someone to follow an agenda rather than being open to the best interest of the populous.

2) They would cause someone to disregard the party agenda and the party would get mad and vote against the person, not for or against due to what is really important.

3) They are old boys clubs. For instance, GW would never have gotten into Harvard, OR the Oval Office is his father was not president. Period.

4) There is a HUGE gap between them, and the animosity leads to biased voting, again against the best interest of the people.


There should be no parties at all, for any reason, only support for individuals, who could use some party-like name, but mostly for reference to his general political standards.

(now a little off topic....)

ALSO, the electoral college is a system set up in the early days due to the fact that most of the population was uneducated, and thus untrustworthy to make an "educated" choice.

It does not apply to today's world where information is so readily availible that there now occures DISinformation or oversaturation.

IMHO, the two party system isn't the failure. It's the parties within that system that are failing the majority of the people.

We have a party that has socialistic to communistic tendancies and that party thinks that bigger government is the answer to equality.

We have another party that thinks they believe in freedom and compared to the alternative they do but this party has theological tendancies.

So in the end there is always a flip flop from one party to the other. People get sick of the arrogant big brother taking all our money and the fear of the other party imposing their religios views on us.

My hope is the democratic party keeps screwing itself and the libertarians become one of the two parties and the republicans become the liberals. That would be a sight.

An interesting trick is to copy the Swiss. They have a two party system (let's say, Party A and B) which alternates every year or so. It might be four or even just one, I forget. But the point is that they switch.

Now this is interesting because it forces the population to stop watching the parties and pay attention to what the current administration is actually doing. Specifically, by removing the suspense of whose going to be in control, more resources can be focused on actually getting stuff done. It also highlights how one hand washes the other ... the citizen will begin to see that political parties operate within a continuum and all are affected by past actions. More scrutiny leads to accountability. If accountability were injected into the political system, instead of buck passing and concealment, things would be a lot better, imho.

I don't know if that two party swapping swinging Austrian thing would work in America.

Unfortunatly, we are at a severe point of contrention between our little boy scout troops.

If they swapped, they would spend 4 years trying to undo what the previous guys did.

That way nothing at all would get done.