The glory of the two party system!

Originally posted by FreeMason
The USA is the oldest nation on earth, we've been operating our government far longer than any other nation has been operating theirs.

Because of this, we certainly have a better say at what is best for governance than do other nations.

Oh I see!

I am older than you, therefore I have been operating myself for longer than you, therefore I know more about things than you do.

Therefore I must be right and you must be wrong.

QED.

What tremendous reasoning skills! Can I borrow that?

Remember, it was once the Federalists and Anti-Federalist, then Jeffersonian-Democrats and Whiggs, then Democrats and Republicans.

What i dont understand is whats the big deal of having a diffrent party name anyway? No matter what party people decide to run under they are still just going to say what the people want to hear to get elected. Now if they stick to their word is a differnt story.

As for getting such a high pecentage of votes because its a 2 party system... Tho it sounds good in theory does not make it so. George bush might of gotten 48% of the votes, but that does not mean that 48% of Americans want him as president. Some ppl being Republicans all their life just feel thats the way they should vote, and maybe some ppl did like either canidate so they didnt vote at all. (or voted for Nader wich is almost one in the same) See back when there were Federalists and Anti- Federalists or even Whigs there was no such thing as telivision and radio. You did not need millions of dollars to get commercial time to run for presidency as u do today. Wich means that there was most likly a more broad group of people that would be capable to run for presidency. And lets face it, in politics its not really what you know that will give u power, Its who u know and the size of your bank account. The way our system works needs improvment. Thats why I will never vote for any politician, probably ever. Just look at how much your vote actually counts, Gore won the popular vote but lost the election. How much sence does that make?

I dont trust fat cats in top hats who think there Aristocrats. ( any morrison fans? Absolutly live album)

I am sorry for any misspelt words or incorrect punctuation.

But in the like-wise MA I've been studying Politics far longer than you, so I know what I'm talking about here

As for "wouldn't matter if the parties stuck to their word" I hate to tell you this, but they do stick to their word

Bush ran on a platform of cutting specific taxes and he's done this, he ran on a platform of helping small businesses and he's done this. The Republicans are doing this since the President sets the party agenda.

The most recent President to not do what he promissed was Bush Sr. with his "no new taxes" he had no spine and let congress raise taxes anyways, this cost him the elections.

I'll tell you what your problem is, you don't know what the Party Platforms are or what their "promisses" are. You just spout common apathetic tripe that the Congress and the President and the Local officials don't listen to you and that the Parties don't listen to you.

Well I have this to say.

Educate yourself very quickly so you'll know what to expect from our Presidential Candidates should they be elected or re-elected. Because what they say they'll do they will do, barring any events stopping them such as the other party or larger events that come up.

your right i havent followd up on polotics as much as u probly have. and that thing about them sticking to their word was a cheapshot. but what you faild to touch upon was what was what my reply was aminly about. You just wanted to let me know you know your polotics better than i do.
CONGRATS! i dont take pride in knowing my congressmen. I just look at what they have done.

Bush cut taxes yes, this is true. But it was for the wealthy.

and im gessing your no morrison fan r u?

Oh actually, sorry, I forgot to read the rest of what you said as generally I pick up a point and respond to it then go back and respond to another ... in this case I switched screens and got side tracked.

Ok if I got the basics of what you said, I think it's also over-simplifying things to state that campaign ads really make up the voter's mind. Already it is largely determined most voter's minds are already made up so campaign ads aren't going to make a difference.

Your claims of "anyone could run for president" in the past is back-wards, anyone can run for president today BECAUSE of the ease of communication. In the past you literally were elected because you were known by previous deeds, the campaigning was far less than as we know it today.

Also Bush cut taxes for everyone, and mainly for small businesses.

Here's a fact.

Social Security Taxes make it so 1 out of every 13 jobs does not exist.

That is, if SS taxes were taken away, for every 12 employed people you could add 1.

Bush's plan isn't to cut SS taxes but to allow Small Businesses to combine health cares and cut their taxes to allow them to off-set costs so that they can re-invest and thus grow and hire more people.

Also Bush's tax plan unlike Regan's, does not allow for money to be sent over-seas, a large part of the tax cut is in "incentives" that is, if you reinvest 300,000 dollars in your company then it won't be taxed and so forth.

And it's not the fault of us who vote that a great deal don't vote in national elections, and the idea that some vote simply because that's the way their fathers voted is dying out pretty quickly, most who do vote are fairly informed or at least...very ideological and strongly believe what they are voting for.

if someone gets 34% of the pupular vote and two other people get 33% each freemason, its obvious the 34% won. People may be dissapointed but thats how a true democracy should work. If the guy who wins 49% of the vote (opposition won 51%) gets into power despite having a minority vote thats not very democratic at all.

Australia had a referendum a few years back to see who wanted a republic. The majority of people did want a republic but the referendum voted to stay under the Queen as head of state because the voting system proposed was too much like the US voting system which most people (except it seems americans) see as a joke.

The two party system is a joke as well. People need a choice in a true democracy. If you have the Demo's and the Repubs (who both are so similar its like voting between mary-kate and ashley olsen) you dont have any choice in your own representation. Having multiple parties allows the freedom to elect a party in which truly represents your needs.

Another thing about your political system is its so corrupted by money. If my corporation gave bush millions of dollars for his campaign, i could pretty much gaurantee i would get some sort of tax cut or lucrative contract in some country he just bombed the crap out of. Eliminate corporate sponsorship and your sytem will be much less corrupt.

[Edited on 1-6-2004 by specialasianX]

You don't seem to get it, someone getting 33% of the vote should only get 33% of the power in a "true democracy".

In our system whoever wins gets all the power and thus a plural majority is disasterous. A poly-party system is a joke the dual-party system is obviously what works best because America is the only nation that is not led from time to time by radicals.

Even Bush whom many dislike, is a moderate.

The two party system is a joke as well. People need a choice in a true democracy. If you have the Demo's and the Repubs (who both are so similar its like voting between mary-kate and ashley olsen) you dont have any choice in your own representation. Having multiple parties allows the freedom to elect a party in which truly represents your needs.

Oh so Democrats and Republicans are both similar? Please tell me, what is the Tax policy of the Democrats versus the Tax Policy of the Republicans?

I don't think you really know anything that you're talking about.

Another thing about your political system is its so corrupted by money. If my corporation gave bush millions of dollars for his campaign, i could pretty much gaurantee i would get some sort of tax cut or lucrative contract in some country he just bombed the crap out of. Eliminate corporate sponsorship and your sytem will be much less corrupt.

No you can't, this is one of the dumbest assertions I have ever heard. The President doesn't pick who gets what contracts in anything, Congress does. And besides, do you honestly think the government makes decisions based on who gave them money?

You really need to learn to back up your claims. I might as well say the Queen of England makes all the rules because she's the Queen.

Yea comunications have made it easy to get your word out today. For the people who can afford it. not people like me and u. Did u not just say b4 that, that campain ads arent what make up the minds of the voters anyway? Their minds are already made up b4 the ad campains. But if this is so than WHAT IS making up thier minds? Does a little feary wisper in their ear on the way to the voting booth and tell them who to vote for?

Get real. Of course the media and add campains have a huge impact on how the ppl will vote. Yes, there are debaits that the canidates have, But without the help of the telivision not many people are going to see any of them. Not many ppl are willing to get up off their couch to see what this guy has to say.

And once again youve not touched on what i really wanted u to. Bush got 48% of the votes, But lord knows that more than 52% of the ppl in America dont want him there or dont give a # who is there. There is a trend of less and less ppl voting. And its because that no matter who we put in office our streets arent getting safer, the drug epidemic is only getting worse, and unemployment is going up and up and up. But keep listining when they say there are plenty of jobs out there. There are, McDonald's is always lookin to hire.

Actually Bush got 49.9% of the vote and Gore got 50.1%.

Believe it or not but Americans are some of the most informed Voters all-round of any nation. Because you see our information processes are VERY simple, we can get all the information we need, voting history, party platforms and with our simple 2 party selection we know that the party is catering to what they say, if they deviate the party is finished.

The Revolution of 1800 is greatly remembered, the Federalists were doing fine but then towards the end they passed the "Sedetion Acts" and the entire party was whiped from the face of the earth in one election.

Also you said something like:

Our streets aren't getting safer, the drugs problems are getting worse

Let me give you some facts you poor dillusioned sir

Any Drug use in 1979 was about 25% in 1999 it was about 13%

Marijuana Use in 1979 was about 22% in 1999 it was about 10%

Cocaine Use in 1979 was about 4% in 1999 it was less than 1%

Source: Understanding Public Policy: 10th Edition by Thomas Dye p. 73

Violent crimes in 1990 were about 650 per 100,000 people in 1998 it was about 450 per 100,000 people.

Ibid: p. 66

Violent Crime Rate in 1990 was about 770 per 100,000 people. In 1999 it was about 550 per 100,000 people.

Ibid: p.59

So you see, things are getting better, and our voters, especially Republican voters, are very informed.

Mistake, the last one I said "Violent Crime Rate" that is supposed to be "Violent Crimes Reported".

I know this is compleatly off topic. But i believe u will fint this interesting

The 1990's have been a time of rapidly dropping violent crime numbers coming from all over the country. But a new report on violence in America has found that over the last 30 years, big city violent crime increased by 40 percent, fear of crime is up 30 percent, and firearms possession has increased over 120 percent.

The big change since 1969 when the homicide rate was about what it is today is the incredible concentration of homicide in increasingly isolated and segregated inner-city neighborhoods. On average when Miami was 80 degrees yesterday and Boston was 40, it was about 60 percent uncomfortable. But you can get that same average with a huge spread of 120 degrees in Miami and 0 down in Boston. That's pretty much what's happened to homicide in the last 30 years. We now have incredibly safe parts of this country and incredibly dangerous parts

In 1980 we were spending about a billion dollars on the war on drugs. Now we're spending about 18 billion.The cost has been phenomenal both in terms of dollars and in terms of broken lives. If you look at the increase in incarceration, what we've seen is that it's largely been driven by the war on drugs. 65 percent of the people currently doing time in this country are there for nonviolent offenses, mostly drug-involved offenses.What it's done is in 14 states people lose the vote for life if they have a felony conviction. And we're seeing more and more, particularly black Americans, arrested, incarcerated, and leaving incarceration with a felony conviction that cripples them for the rest of their lives. What we're also seeing is that it's not working to bring down drugs. If you look at heroin, the price has gone down, the quality gone up, the average age of the user has gone down. We're losing this war and we're destroying a generation in doing it.the people who are getting hurt most by violence, by homicide rates are also the ones being hurt most by the war on drugs because they're the ones who end up in prison. They're the ones whose children end up with a higher chance of being locked up because that's what happens to the children of people doing time. We're doing a devastating job of people in the inner cities and people of color. And we're incarcerating at a rate unprecedented in our history. For almost 100 years -- just about until the time of the Violence Commission -- we incarcerated about 100 people out of every 100,000. We're at six or seven times that right now. It's devastating. In California it costs $1.5 million to lock up a single person under three strikes. More people are doing life, natural life, for marijuana possession in California than they are for murder, rape and robbery combined.

LIFE for weed

find all this and more at www.pbs.org...

Interesting, I know New York's crime had gone down greatly under Guilivani, but even so, I don't live in the Inner City and think it's bad for the soul...better to concentrate all the crap there ~.~ lol.

Hmm but even then, I think the war on drugs has helped a lot, as we can see no more "turf wars" such as those that raged across 1970s Oakland.

Originally posted by FreeMason
Believe it or not but Americans are some of the most informed Voters all-round of any nation. Because you see our information processes are VERY simple, we can get all the information we need, voting history, party platforms and with our simple 2 party selection we know that the party is catering to what they say, if they deviate the party is finished.

There we have it, the American two-party system is best for America because it is the easiest one for their simplistic minds to understand. For being the most informed voters, there certainly is a low voter turn out. Or is it that informed voters dot need to turn out and vote? God forbid complicating it by adding one or even two parties. Thats 50% and 100% more complicated.

P.S.
Does anyone know how a 'over-seas' citizen who has never lived in the country can vote?

imho...

i think we are heading towards a time where there will be no political parties. i think this simply because as more and more issues become major factors in the political ring, it will become more and more difficult to find canidates that believe in the entire politica agenda.

can you really say that they would declarethemselves partial democrates or partial republicans......i may be way off but it just makes logical (at least in my twisted logic) sense.

If it was possible to greatly secure and expand our communications capabilities, eventually, does anyone think it would be possible get rid of Congress?
Everything else would still be intact, but all legislation could go through the hands of the people during mass voting on specific topics. I guess this would require the ability of all americans to be more educated about the aspects of our government.
That way, the checks and balances of our government would go directly through the people.

Also a couple side notes...i don't think the electorates should be the basis in presidential elections, its failed us a few times before (2000, the largest margin of votes b/n popular decision and electoral decision), shouldn't it just be simple majority? In addition, the fact that it was the Supreme Court that finally installed Bush...I also don't agree with the extent of Presidential power under executive order and as commander-in-chief, any comments about this?

One more thing about the 2000 election...won't the election spur people to vote in 2004 because of how close it was, that maybe individual votes count more than people thought? Maybe that was the purpose of the re-call...

BTW...anyone else have some serious problems with the Patriot Act and the National Security Enhancement Act? Personally, I think they could be modified...to repeal some of the ridiculous powers granted and to address problems with more importance.

Originally posted by zero_snaz

Originally posted by FreeMason
Believe it or not but Americans are some of the most informed Voters all-round of any nation. Because you see our information processes are VERY simple, we can get all the information we need, voting history, party platforms and with our simple 2 party selection we know that the party is catering to what they say, if they deviate the party is finished.

There we have it, the American two-party system is best for America because it is the easiest one for their simplistic minds to understand. For being the most informed voters, there certainly is a low voter turn out. Or is it that informed voters dot need to turn out and vote? God forbid complicating it by adding one or even two parties. Thats 50% and 100% more complicated.

P.S.
Does anyone know how a 'over-seas' citizen who has never lived in the country can vote?

Your sarcasm makes you look like an ignoramous, considering the low voter turn-out is only for national elections. Local elections receive very high voter turn outs.

And in America, it is the States that matter more and thus receive the most attention.

We aren't like your other nations where everything is controlled from Berlin or London or Paris or Moscow.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
If it was possible to greatly secure and expand our communications capabilities, eventually, does anyone think it would be possible get rid of Congress?
Everything else would still be intact, but all legislation could go through the hands of the people during mass voting on specific topics. I guess this would require the ability of all americans to be more educated about the aspects of our government.
That way, the checks and balances of our government would go directly through the people.

Jah...what you are talking about is Athenian Democracy, Athens was a failure and Aristotle I believe was the one who stated that it would only work with populations of 4,000 or less, maybe it was Plato.

We can never attempt such a thing, a large problem with America today is the rise of "initiatives" and more direct methods of government.

Also there is no "check and balance" if there is only the People. That is one major problem that Athens had...

As for the Patriot Act? No problem, it largely only decreases restrictions on local enforcements, and has a sunset clause and probably always will if ever revoted.

So...you don't think anything would get passed through if people were the Congress? BTW...I was just talking about people instead of congress with pres. and supreme court remaining.
I actually didn't even know initiatives existed and I don't see why it would be a bad thing, I never knew people could propose legislation to Congress, I'm all for that.

The Patriot Act will never win my heart. We need more quality intelligence, not expanded. People held in jail for hours upon hours only to be let go with no charges, thats just harassment and prejudice on muslims.
I;m more worried about where this might go, they already passed somethin else like it 2003

The reasons initiatives and so forth are bad are far more complicated than why direct democracy will not work nationally simply because the former are not nearly so chaotic.

The latter will not work because no person truly agrees on every issue, and no common person is even half-way informed on one issue, let alone the THOUSANDS of issues that are put through congress every year. I think it's what some 6,000 votes a year?

Do you have time to read 6,000 issues? I don't...

Congress does...that's their job, and after time they get better at understanding re-occuring issues.

I believe inititatives themselves are bad because it moves us away from the republic we were meant to be. We were supposed to be a republic so that things are handled smoothly, slowly, and wisely. Inititiatives are ways people or politicians get crack-pot things that no rational person would ever do, passed by passing it on to the ignorant masses.

It's not how it was conceived, but it's how it is being used now. Just as Athens did not conceive its democracy to be the mob-rule it ended up.

Or Rome conceive the republic to end up an Empire.

Things just work out that way...and unless we maintain our strict observance of this republic by keeping the masses distant from policy making and only influencing WHO makes policy...we will follow those same routes of others before us.