American Political System

[LeftEyeNine]

Is it really bi-polar or some gone missing from public awareness (especially from foreigners like us) ?
If bi-polar, WHY (the heck) ?
How do you think it contributes to/degrades the representation of the public ?
What kind of a verdict would you give considering its pros and cons ? Would you personally advise its implementation in another country ?

[Major Robert Dump]

American politics make me sick. Like literally, sick to my stomach. Read the comments at the bottom of a Yahoo article sometime. Everyone has an opinion, and they are all wrong. The internet mixed with all these pundit talking heads has really turned this country into a sound byte nation where history and facts play no part in one's overall political alignment. It doesn't matter how bad your party screwed up the last time, it's always the current guys fault. It doesn't matter how bad your party acts, the other party always acts worse.

1. By bi polar I think u mean 2 politcal parties. Yes.

2. It is like that so spoiled, lazy, fat Americans can have simplicity in their choices (well, the 40% of adults who actually vote). Lump ideas that have no common link together and throw them under one party for simplicity sake. We don't like to read, we don't like to remember the past, we like to start fresh and anew every 2,4,6,8 years so we can change the world all over again. This is why redemption stories are so goshed darned popular with Americans, it makes us feel better for screwing the rest of the world up along with ourselves.

3. People with nice houses, plenty to watch on television, plenty of food, a car to drive and mindless sports to drool over tend to not care how they are represented as long as nothing happens that is an inconvenience to them. It's quite genius, really, the people who set the country in this direction. I mean whose gonna notice we are being robbed blind by Washington and their corporate cronies when all them good tv shows are on?????

4. I think I already answered that from the tone of my post. As far as considering i for others countires: YES, FOR OUR ENEMIES. There would be no better method of bringing Iran to it's knees

[LeftEyeNine]

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan "the last padishah" is dreaming of this -especially the presidency.

You can't imagine how consumerist prosperity is used in order to achieve such bi-polar system. Every other day I wake up, I wake up to a more USA'ed Turkey.

I knew we were enemies all along :stare:

[Major Robert Dump]

Humans engage in conflict by nature. You pacify them, and make their conflict one of a fabricated political game, where no one can ever win. The two-party political system is a ploy to pacify the public while behind closed doors while the real power brokers from both parties laugh it up and count their money. Presidents protect previous presidents. A Senators job is to implement as little change as humanly possible to maintain status quo, and when they do change something it is usually the bare minimum of what is required to get re-relected or a favor for croney.

The Bildeberg group is not a fantasy, and until the internet started bringing attention to them they had decades of planning and hoopla behind closed doors and no one was the wiser. Once the public gets wind, public figures started dropping out of meetings because it was bad press. Even our golden boy president has been engaged in "the business" since right out of college.

** you ain't my enemy :)

[drone]

“I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'”
- Bill Hicks

[Lemur]

There's a lot that could be improved. Proportional representation in the Congress would be a good thing. Moving all redistricting to committees with some insulation from raw partisanship would be a good thing. Dropping speed limits on our freeways and creating an American autobahn would be most excellent.

Lots of simple fixes would help, too. There's a lot of tussle over which states go first in our presidential primaries. Just ruling that each state would go in the order of voter participation would be an improvement. Term limits in Congress would be good. Finding some mechanism to FORCE Congress to vote to approve/disapprove every time we get into a shooting war would be great. I could go on ...

[Vladimir]

In summary, our political system most clearly mirrors the merits of democratic governance: It is the least worst system.

Don't forget that the U.S. is comprised of 50 separate political entities . The biggest thing holding them together is federal money. Multiparty governance leads to factionalism (if that's the word) while a dual party system leads to moderation. Do you really want to see 50+ different political parties? I hate to Godwin the thread already but a multiparty system allowed the Nazi party to assume a leadership role. A multiparty system leads to narrow and specialized parties.

While less satisfying, a dual party system does the least harm. It's the American people, that need to make their voices clear, that we need to rely on. Not our political parties.

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't know about term limits anymore. I used to think they were a good thing, now I feel like the lame ducks basically take advantage of the fact that they have an expiration date, especially presidents. The Big Picture is lost in the shuffle. I think an 8 term president might be just what this country needs. I mean, if we can elect the son of a previous president why can't we do this? How is it any different? Jeb is talkin wWhite house now

[Major Robert Dump]

In summary, our political system most clearly mirrors the merits of democratic governance: It is the least worst system.

Don't forget that the U.S. is comprised of 50 separate political entities . The biggest thing holding them together is federal money. Multiparty governance leads to factionalism (if that's the word) while a dual party system leads to moderation. Do you really want to see 50+ different political parties? I hate to Godwin the thread already but a multiparty system allowed the Nazi party to assume a leadership role. A multiparty system leads to narrow and specialized parties.

While less satisfying, a dual party system does the least harm. It's the American people, that need to make their voices clear, that we need to rely on. Not our political parties.

Well, I try to avoid Nazi history because I really hated their haircuts, but exactly how many parties did they have that allowed this?

I ask because people often, as you did, say we don't want 50+ political parties, which is a bit of an exaggeration. Why not 3 parties? Or 4? If the Federal Government can arbitrarily say it will only issue X amount of broadcast licenses when it divvies up the electromagnetic spectrum, why can't we do the same with political parties? Yeah, I know, everyone and their dog will vie for a party, so you put limits on, feelings get hurt and life is not fair welcome to america, right?

So the people who don't get their very own party can just -- wait for it wait for it, here it comes, you ready -- just go back to being a part of a party that didn't represent them like they always did before. BADABING

[LeftEyeNine]

How does 50 states comprising USA make a multiparty system inefficient ?

Taking examples to extremes may feel right but not necessarily does address the core of the question. Wouldn't American voters feel better if some certain party could prune what two party system lumps in hence creating a more precise political standing ?


** you ain't my enemy :)

No we aren't, good sir. ~:)

And I doubt neither Iran would be had international meddlings of America not gone too far.

[Vladimir]

The total number of political parties is irrelevant. The issue was having enough parties to allow for adequate representation. In a standard multiparty country there are a variety of interest groups, ethnicities, and political minorities; however, there are many, many more in the U.S. People talk as if there is a constitutional limit on the number of political parties. People also act as if there is no diversity in the two party system. Frequently bills are passed, rejected, or advocated by one of the many subgroups within each party. The Blue Dog Democrats are an example. People with little knowledge of the political system look at each party as representing a certain viewpoint. Most people only become aware of voting patterns during national confrontational and polarizing issues such as health care reform of the deficit. They don't know that all politics are local and senators and representatives vote on what they think will guarantee reelection. Generally, this is the will of their electorate (or at least the informed and active part).

It's also a cultural difference. We don't need "parties" to represent out interests. We have individual congressmen to represent us and interest groups like the AARP and many others to advocate specific issues.

[LeftEyeNine]

Are those individual congressmen and interest groups totally independent from any kind of influence of those two major powers ?

Also if parties do not represent the interests, what are you voting for and why do those two exist ? (Questions out of curiosity and ignorance of the American political system, not aimed at countering what you speak of :bow:)

[CBR]

I hate to Godwin the thread already but a multiparty system allowed the Nazi party to assume a leadership role. A multiparty system leads to narrow and specialized parties.
That is pretty simplistic. Germany also had a weak constitution that allowed the Reichstag to make drastic changes to it. Even to this day Germany still allows for small parties but now has a limit of minimum 5% votes before a party gets into the Bundestag.


Multiparty governance leads to factionalism
The current US system creates red versus blue states. 150 years ago that led to a civil war. Where is the moderation in that?

[Strike For The South]

In summary, our political system most clearly mirrors the merits of democratic governance: It is the least worst system.

Don't forget that the U.S. is comprised of 50 separate political entities . The biggest thing holding them together is federal money. Multiparty governance leads to factionalism (if that's the word) while a dual party system leads to moderation. Do you really want to see 50+ different political parties? I hate to Godwin the thread already but a multiparty system allowed the Nazi party to assume a leadership role. A multiparty system leads to narrow and specialized parties.

While less satisfying, a dual party system does the least harm. It's the American people, that need to make their voices clear, that we need to rely on. Not our political parties.

There is nothing moderate about the current system, it's a game of winner take all high stakes chicken

[Subotan]

If bi-polar, WHY (the heck)?
Duverger's Law. Majoritarian electoral systems trend towards a two-party system.

[Vladimir]

Are those individual congressmen and interest groups totally independent from any kind of influence of those two major powers ?

I don't want to sound rude but of course not. The issue is the level of influence and if any laws are broken. Granted, alot of the influence is likely interpersonal and difficult to document.




Duverger's Law. Majoritarian electoral systems trend towards a two-party system.

I haven't heard of this. I thought it was more down to tradition.


The current US system creates red versus blue states. 150 years ago that led to a civil war. Where is the moderation in that?

This was due to economics and not politics even though the Democrats came to dominate the south; and 150 years ago is hardly current.

[Tellos Athenaios]

A multiparty system leads to narrow and specialized parties.


Which, in turn allows the system to voice more than just the mainstream kicking the can down the road political voices, and also have a much more serious political debate with actual different viewpoints to be argued.

Anyway counting:

PvdD
PvdA
CDA
VVD
PVV
SGP
D66
GroenLinks
CU
SP


That's I think the number of parties we currently have in Parliament. From Christian fundamentalist to former Maoists...

[Tellos Athenaios]

This was due to economics and not politics even though the Democrats came to dominate the south; and 150 years ago is hardly current.
But economics and politics are closely linked. The North enforced protectionist measures which cost the South, and the plantation economy of the South created a dependence on cheap labour (i.e. slaves) and a desire for other protectionist measures which in turn conflicted with the North.

[CBR]

This was due to economics and not politics even though the Democrats came to dominate the south; and 150 years ago is hardly current.
Ok, so 150 years ago in USA is complex but 80 years ago in Germany is simple. Got it. :stare:

It had nothing to do with a political system designed to maintain the balance, a system that fought change and reform, and when it finally could not outrun the unbalance of the real world it blew up in their face. It had nothing do to with the inability of voters to have other options than the two parties that increasingly became polarized.

Of course politics played a role.

[Strike For The South]

This was due to economics and not politics even though the Democrats came to dominate the south; and 150 years ago is hardly current.

wrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrong

[Vladimir]

wrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrong

I'll just quote this as a good summary of recent posts.

[Strike For The South]

I'll just quote this as a good summary of recent posts.

Compromises of 1820 and 54, Bleeding Kansas, The fugtivie slave act, any one of Calhoun or Websters speechs

You are dead wrong about the civil war, therefore you must stop using it as an analogy

[Beskar]

There's a lot that could be improved. Proportional representation in the Congress would be a good thing. Moving all redistricting to committees with some insulation from raw partisanship would be a good thing. Dropping speed limits on our freeways and creating an American autobahn would be most excellent.

Lots of simple fixes would help, too. There's a lot of tussle over which states go first in our presidential primaries. Just ruling that each state would go in the order of voter participation would be an improvement. Term limits in Congress would be good. Finding some mechanism to FORCE Congress to vote to approve/disapprove every time we get into a shooting war would be great. I could go on ...

Why can't they simply do it all at the same time?

[LeftEyeNine]

Well if the democracy in your homeland favors the faulty way of a democracy of the majority (claimed being due to the ease of moderation) rather than a pluralist one, how come other countries are supposed to learn from it ?

[Papewaio]

Well if you add in the 51st, 52nd and 53rd states of Canada, Phillipines and Australia you have more then 2 parties. :book:

[Furunculus]

“I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'”
- Bill Hicks

^ essentially why i was unconcerned as a mild McCain supporter that Obama won the presidency; i didn't believe the 'change' message and figured that in america interests would trump ideology.

[Banquo's Ghost]

.... and figured that in america interests would trump ideology.

Boy, were you wrong.

(Me too, by the way. :embarassed: )

[Beskar]

Boy, were you wrong.

(Me too, by the way. :embarassed: )

Indeed, Republican ideology screwing up mainstream politics in America.

[Vladimir]

Indeed, Republican ideology screwing up mainstream politics in America.

What is Republican ideology?