Only two party's?

I was thinking about the elections. Here we have multiple party's with different views. The SP, VVD, CDA, etc.. So you have a bigger selection to choose from. But you (Americans) only have two chooses: Liberal or Conservative.

I was wondering if there are other groups, but are to small to participate. Or just individual people try to get elected..?..?

???

Originally posted by sebastiaan
I was thinking about the elections. Here we have multiple party's with different views. The SP, VVD, CDA, etc.. So you have a bigger selection to choose from. But you (Americans) only have two chooses: Liberal or Conservative.

I was wondering if there are other groups, but are to small to participate. Or just individual people try to get elected..?..?

???

Every once in awhile we get a third party of some minor significance, like the Independent Party, Green Party, or Libertarians. Our major choices though are Democrats and Republicans, and the degree to which either party is liberal or conservative varies greatly.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Every once in awhile we get a third party of some minor significance, like the Independent Party, Green Party, or Libertarians. Our major choices though are Democrats and Republicans, and the degree to which either party is liberal or conservative varies greatly.

So if there are more choices, then why do i alway see the same to party's? I've the people are not happy with the current politics, vote for the other one then....

ps. what are the Libertarians? Something to do with books...?

well, type 'us political parties' into google and have a blast.

there are two huge parties and that's been the tradition for a long time now. if you look at the political history of most of the eastern european nations from the end of the cold war you will see that they started with very divergent parties, but competition narrows the choices down quite quickly through natural selection. the initial political parties in the united states were very divergent, but quickly collated into two major competitors.

i could write a ton more about this process, how constitutions alter the development of political parties, etc., but i'm sure there are far better papers on google. to sum up, in the US and some other nations, natural selection and our voting laws and style have produced two mega-parties as the main dish, with some leftovers on the side.

either that, or it's an illuminati plot to give us the illusion of democracy.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
either that, or it's an illuminati plot to give us the illusion of democracy.

Mmmmmm......

Thx taibunsuu for the info. I'm gonna surf the net 4 more info.

i like the ideas of www.buddyvote.com

so far it is the only feasable solution the the two party trap we find ourselves in. even so, it is unlikely to do much because most people just dont care enough.

-lost

Originally posted by lost
i like the ideas of www.buddyvote.com

so far it is the only feasable solution the the two party trap we find ourselves in. even so, it is unlikely to do much because most people just dont care enough.

-lost

The link doesnt work.....

oops. i got it backwards.

www.votebuddy.com

Thx lost,

Good reading and informative.

I'fe read the site and have some questions:

Why is it if there are multiple party's with different (better?) views then the current seat holder, does the american people still vote (the majority) only on the rep. or lib.?

There are many others with a different agenda and maby better for the US. Is it becouse they dont get airtime? Or that they being bullied by the major players on the field?

Anybody any thoughts???

Originally posted by sebastiaan
I'fe read the site and have some questions:

Why is it if there are multiple party's with different (better?) views then the current seat holder, does the american people still vote (the majority) only on the rep. or lib.?

There are many others with a different agenda and maby better for the US. Is it becouse they dont get airtime? Or that they being bullied by the major players on the field?

Anybody any thoughts???

No, we can vote any way, it's majority rules through something called the Electoral College.

The major parties get the bulk of financing for their campaigns. Also they are both essentially incumbent parties in the government, so lobbyists are going to go mostly with them.

There is a group operating on a theory that if you get a majority of like-minded people in one area of the country, they can vote-in the rules they want to live under. This group moved to New Hampshire some time ago from all across the US.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
here is a group operating on a theory that if you get a majority of like-minded people in one area of the country, they can vote-in the rules they want to live under. This group moved to New Hampshire some time ago from all across the US.

Really? Sounds a bit like a David Koresh agenda....

Originally posted by sebastiaan

Originally posted by taibunsuu
here is a group operating on a theory that if you get a majority of like-minded people in one area of the country, they can vote-in the rules they want to live under. This group moved to New Hampshire some time ago from all across the US.

Really? Sounds a bit like a David Koresh agenda....

Yeah but it's supposed to be thousands of people. And they aren't following Rock and Roll Jesus but doing political experiment basically. Don't worry, New Hampshirites have lots of guns and state motto is "Live Free or Die."

And how is that experiment going? Do they have some results?

www.nh.com.../20040601/NHM01/40526006/-1/NHM

Interesting link. I like the proposed law's that they want:

"Another part of the Free State maximum-freedom vision, Maynard says, is to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, so pot smokers won�t take up jail space that should be used for more violent criminals. "

That is a good idea! Put the real criminals in jail..

To him, people, as long as they act responsibly, should have the right to guns for protection and deterrence. �Having them creates uncertainty in the minds of criminals,� he says.

Hear, hear....

They want business taxes eliminated or cut in half. They favor a minimal economic safety net � a simple means-tested cash payment, with no restrictions on how it�s used. Private charities would fill in the gaps.

Thats the way to do it. If you dont (want to) work then minimal money. Ofcourse people who cant work becouse of a illness are excluded..

Thx Taibunsuu 4 the link...

The Free Staters cite Netherlands a lot. They want to legalize casinos and brothels and marijuana. People against it say those things make the Netherlands look bad. How do you think it is in the Netherlands?

I'd also like to point out that there are many negatives to having a large number of different political parties all with minimum power (see Italy)

Here in holland things are a lot eazier. On the subject of brothels, in every society you have people how dont have a partner and still want to have sex. Why not give it then? The prostitutes here are all working out of free will (with a few exeptions afcourse) and they provide a service that some men want.

On the weed issue: Weed is regarded as less addictive than booze. Why make it illegal and so fill the jails with people who just smoke a joint for relaxsation?
Here in the netherlands its a bit wierd: You can sell weed from a coffeshop, that is being allowed (in the law it is still illegal). But growing the weed in your backyard is not allowed...
Its a bit confusing...

And on the topic of casino's: Why make it illegal? What up with a bit of gambling? Only if somebody goes over the top and spends everything, then somebody has to step up and help that individual.
Live and let live.... Thats the way....