Having Two Parties is NOT Free Market Ideas

This new video of the Reform Party chairman, David Collison, makes the great point that the USA does not have a free market of ideas, and that in restricting the system to two parties, it has artificiallly tampered with the system.

reply to post by Klemperer


This is true. Entirely.

No one has a monopoly on good ideas. The more time we spend on the two party system, that polarizes us, that separates us along false ideological lines, the further we get from the Constitution, the more dangerous this game gets.

Originally posted by projectvxn
No one has a monopoly on good ideas. The more time we spend on the two party system, that polarizes us, that separates us along false ideological lines, the further we get from the Constitution, the more dangerous this game gets.

In what part of the US Constitution allows for a drift away from the two (read one ) party system ?

Cheers xpert11.

reply to post by xpert11


The Constitution is not followed by the two party system. It is distorted, ignored, or outright violated.

The constitution does not make mention of political parties. I'm not sure what you got out of my post, but you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Double.

Too weak you commoners are to apply pressure for additional parties. You will vote in anger only for the opposite party of the two when you are in disgust of one. We shall string you back to our party now like the see-saw in your mind that the like of a few control.

Oh to us Republicans!!

In my daily travels I have met with those whom you all are limited to see via your television sets. To you commoners who vote for the likes of the GOP, I cannot resist in the sharing of my delight and humor to share among them in the collecting of the commoners monies again. The level of foolishness cannot be of higher quality. My humor of your destruction I cannot hide you common citizens of America.

In my decades of worldly travels, I have not seen a more foolish industrialized people whom so shortly forget the party to which is their biggest enemy, and to now shun the party who does in fact support middle class commoners.

For us wealthy, we thank you for voting for our fat elephant.

We thank you graciously commoners.

When so many folks lament, via the tragically overused expression of ‘two party system paradigm,’ most erroneously imho conclude that we need more political parties. How’s that working out for Italy?

Nope, if politics must be, then I say the best way forward would be a ‘no party system’ upon which every candidate for every position stands on their individual merits and positions relative to their constituency.

The upshot? No massive parties to be bought and corrupted all at once. Much harder to buy out one individual at a time than a Walmart family sized party in one go.

No party system = No ideologies of scale
No party system = No politics of scale

reply to post by schrodingers dog


That's also not a bad idea.

But I'm not against political parties. I'm against political monopolies. Parties don't exactly create them in and of themselves, but if afforded too much power, they become one.

reply to post by projectvxn


I know what you're saying ... the pragmatic consequence of more political parties however results in a whole new set of issues such as potential fragile coalition governments and many others. Quite frankly I'm not even sure how the constitution accounts for such eventuality. And it's not like we can say that nations which avail more parties to their populace are less corrupted than ours ... I certainly can't say I see any evidence for that.

I dunno, to me the no party way seems so simple and effective.

It's rather academic anyway, that train has sailed.

reply to post by projectvxn


Well the Constitution was violated from almost from the outset . On one occasion the Louisiana Purchase none other then Thomas Jefferson violated the Constitution for the good of his country . Political party's are a product of a part of human nature , that is people with common interests will band together. Your argument makes no sense .

Cheers xpert11.

The two party system is ridiculous, how can two partys reflect what three hundred million people think or feel.

A true democracy would be full of different people with different thoughts, a reflection of the people. No one would have big business behind them with more money than god, and no one would get more coverage then others in the media.

Unfortunatly, this will never happen because we have already taken the leash off of big business, and they have become wild animals that cannot be tamed. We and our government are owned.

Pred...

reply to post by xpert11


There's no specific terms in the Constitution when it comes to acquiring territory. There never has been. So explain to me how the Louisiana Purchase violated the Constitution then? And how does that relate to a debate over political parties?

Originally posted by projectvxn
And how does that relate to a debate over political parties?

Well the only part of your argument I could make sense of was that either political party's are not specified by the Constitution or that they had been violating that document . Clearly if Jefferson hadn't violated the Constitution concerning the Louisiana Purchase the USA would not be the country it is today . Jefferson was a member of a political party , drifting away from the Constitution was inevitable and the only realistic outcome .

to me how the Louisiana Purchase violated the Constitution then?

I will answer that one via your comments profile or via U2U in order to keep the thread on track .

.

reply to post by Klemperer


While I do not agree with some things in the 'reform party' I do like what this guy is trying to say. We have choices out there, we have the power to choose other than these two major parties. Why is it that we go back and forth every year between both parties. This year I will be supporting neither the Democrats nor the Republicans. I know I have choices and if they do not allow alternative candidates outside both parties I will write them in. I know my choices and I am sick and tired of other people, in particular on this site, whining and making excuses that 'third parties don't get enough media exposure' or that they 'don't hold primaries in my state' it is hogwash. It is just a way to make excuses.

We have choices in this country and if we all make a stand, we could kick the lot of them out of DC. We need to move beyond the D's and the R's, both sides of the ideological paths, we can only do this by taking action, not in making excuses.

I have never really understood why there are only two major political parties in the United States... Coming from Canada where we have five major parties (Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Bloc Québécois, and Green) it just doesn't make sense to me. Can someone explain why? On the actual ballots are there party choices, or just the two? What this guy has to say in the vid makes a lot of sense, and reflects the feelings I've had towards the subject for awhile now. If I were an American I would probably spoil my ballots because the two major parties don't reflect my beliefs and values.

I'm sure there are a lot of grass-roots parties in the States (like there are here), but no one really throws their weight behind them. However there has to be a significant portion of the population that share the same values and could band together to make a third major party to offer more choice.

Hopefully someone can shed some light on the subject for me.

MM

reply to post by Mapleleaf_Messenger


The short answer is: since we don't have proportional representation, people are afraid to vote for a third party since "they cant win," and nothing benefitial will result from their loss.