Politics depress me. I went and read about the UK's political parties, and I liked the idea of the liberal democrats but without knowing the current party's stance I can't really say that I'd vote for them. But here in the states, I'm closest to a democrat, but democrats are still too far center for my liking
Americans, have you given up on the two party system?
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
- Status
kame-sennin said:
I completely except instead of voting third party I just don't vote.
I'd actually like a system that didn't have parties, but all independents. If you wanted to see what a person stood for, actually look at their platform. Even then though, I really have no idea how to stop money from simply winning elections nor how to get politicians that won't corrupt.
What if we just put lobbyists in charge, at least then it would be transparent:lol
The two party system is complete garbage. Plain and simple. Both parties can only offer the status quo: Dickless puppets who won't do a God damn thing.
I love how people say you're not allowed to complain if you don't vote. With bullshit like the electoral college, and broken the two party system, I have every right to complain and be fed up. I only voted last election because it was my first time. Unless we have a massive overhaul to our system, I don't see myself voting ever again.
I love how people say you're not allowed to complain if you don't vote. With bullshit like the electoral college, and broken the two party system, I have every right to complain and be fed up. I only voted last election because it was my first time. Unless we have a massive overhaul to our system, I don't see myself voting ever again.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Americans have a two-party system because more than two parties would mean they would have to INFORM THEMSELVES about what the parties stand for.
kame-sennin
Member
Krowley said:
We can't have a "plausible" third party candidate in the U.S. because the one area where democrats and republicans can be relied upon to be bipartisan is in the crusade to shut out any and all third party challengers. It's ridiculously hard to get on a the ballet in all 50 states if you're third party (and the restrictions are always getting more severe), and even if you do, the democrats and republicans organize the debates, so you won't be allowed to participate. The last resort would be gaining media attention, but the media doesn't cover candidates whom they deem "not viable", i.e. candidates who are barred for televised debates.
teh_pwn said:
This is true, but a lot of third party candidates run on anti-corporate platforms, so I think the issues are related.
theBishop said:
Seeing more and more posts like these on gaf makes me feel like their might actually be hope.
Pristine_Condition
Member
Our so-called "two-party system" is still far more grassroots democratic than most any other system in the world.
Why? Because we have DIRECT PRIMARIES at every level of government, which most countries don't have.
Sooooo many people underestimate the awesomeness of this.
Yeah sure, you can have five parties, but if those five parties all have the elites of those parties determining who can or can't run for office, it's not really as great as you think. Here in the US, the party leadership can't simply lock people out of the nomination process and appoint their "chosen one," which leaves things a lot more open, even with just two major parties.
Why? Because we have DIRECT PRIMARIES at every level of government, which most countries don't have.
Sooooo many people underestimate the awesomeness of this.
Yeah sure, you can have five parties, but if those five parties all have the elites of those parties determining who can or can't run for office, it's not really as great as you think. Here in the US, the party leadership can't simply lock people out of the nomination process and appoint their "chosen one," which leaves things a lot more open, even with just two major parties.
I think gays would be insane not to vote Democrat. Maybe they haven't done much to advance gay marriage, but that's mostly due to this being Term 1. Presidents do their riskier stuff in Term 2 because they can't get re-elected anymore so they can afford to take political risks. At least Democrats are not going to actively persecute gays like Republicans. Not showing up to vote for Democrats is the equivalent to giving Republicans half a vote.
kame-sennin
Member
Holepunch said:
As I said in a previous post, a lot of third parties run on reducing corporate interests. Moreover, if a specific third party candidate gets a significant portion of votes, it's likely to influence the policies of one of the two major parties. If we're forced to deal with a rigged voting system, we should at least be able to reign in the democrats and republicans with third party protest votes. A third party candidate running on gay rights getting a noteworthy percentage of votes might affect democrat policy, for instance.
As for fixing the problem, we would have to mandate publicly financed campaigns. We can't have this though because the Supreme Court ruled that political donations are protected speech. That ruling would have to be overturned in order to ban private money from the political process.
Pristine_Condition said:
Somewhere, Dennis Kucinich is reading this post and crying.
Technosteve
Banned
two party system still gets stuff done faster then a parliamentary system
kame-sennin
Member
Zzoram said:
Using this logic, the democrats NEVER have to support gay rights as long as they are always noticeably less hostile towards gays than republicans are. This is a losing strategy for progressive voters.
BertramCooper
Banned
Yes.
Long live the Rent is Too Damn High Party.
Long live the Rent is Too Damn High Party.
MidnightRider
Banned
I came in praying you were from England so I could ask
Have you given up on Robert Green and then make you look at my AV.
<------------
Brings back nightmares for them.
Have you given up on Robert Green and then make you look at my AV.
<------------
Brings back nightmares for them.
Pristine_Condition
Member
kame-sennin said:
Do his tears, like his national polling numbers, usually fall in single digits? :lol
I love all the commercials
"this republican was seen making out with bin laden and building nuclear weapons to give away for free to north korea"
"this democrat supports killing everyone in america if it means he makes 10k more this year. if you vote for him he will come to your house and will dump rat poison in all your food"
thats pretty much how I see them
"this republican was seen making out with bin laden and building nuclear weapons to give away for free to north korea"
"this democrat supports killing everyone in america if it means he makes 10k more this year. if you vote for him he will come to your house and will dump rat poison in all your food"
thats pretty much how I see them
No, because while Democrats are rarely progressive enough for me and DC is a snakepit of careerists looking to hold onto their jobs more than anything else, to not vote increases the likelihood of candidates even further away from my views winning, and obviously I don't want that to happen.
The system may be stupid and broken, but to not participate at all makes the problem even worse. A third party vote is as good as throwing it away.
The system may be stupid and broken, but to not participate at all makes the problem even worse. A third party vote is as good as throwing it away.
gutter_trash
Banned
it's still 2 partiesHylianTom said:
no matter how whacky Tea Baggers wanna spin it.. it's 2 parties
Democrats vs Republicorp
curls
Wake up Sheeple, your boring insistence that Obama is not a lizardman from Atlantis is wearing on my patience ð¤
Americans. Your 'Tea Party' is getting a lot of coverage over here and it really is painting your whole country in a bad light. I mean socialism is evil? :lol It's like your country has regressed 60 years.
Oh well: Wish you guys luck, looks like you will need it.
Oh well: Wish you guys luck, looks like you will need it.
Hari Seldon
Member
Ether_Snake said:
No, Americans have only two parties because the two parties rigged everything so that there can only be two parties.
gutter_trash
Banned
you willing to tell me that the Republicans of today are righteous and really believe in what they say?avatar299 said:
the Democrats are spineless pussies who cave and comprimise to the Republicans and the stupid Blue Dogs
Republicans are just Republicorp
Dai Kaiju said:
They're not the same. I don't mean "piece a side" in terms of party. What I mean is that there are real issues with real consequences. Not taking a side, or staying in the middle is completely arbitrary. It takes more effort to actually have an opinion.
Similarly, it's not virtue to vote for some republicans, and some democrats. It's no more reasonable to choose some point between the two.
I understand the Tea Party and Republicans being fired up, but what I don't get are the voters who voted for Obama who are now feeling underwhelmed. I guess if you didn't know anything about politics and were naive about how bad the economy really sank you can be upset hope and change didn't revolutionize the country in 2 years, but apart from that so much has been done.
Major combat operations in Iraq are over. Afghanistan has an end date. It probably won't be met, but at least it's a willingness to gtfo. Healthcare reform passed. Financial reform passed. They're far from perfect, but this isn't a dictatorship and compromises had to be made. The alternative was nothing at all being done; zero, just leave them be. Middle class taxes are down, as promised, and the economy is growing even if people don't believe it.
Oh, and "don't ask don't tell" is on its last legs. The judge ordered a stay on the order to repeal based on the concern of how to institute the new policy, but there's little chance an appeals court is going to change this right to free speech.
I mean, how much more could you want in 2 years? At the same time, Clinton had an even worse first midterm and his presidency is remembered pretty fondly (even though politics got REALLY ugly after that).
Major combat operations in Iraq are over. Afghanistan has an end date. It probably won't be met, but at least it's a willingness to gtfo. Healthcare reform passed. Financial reform passed. They're far from perfect, but this isn't a dictatorship and compromises had to be made. The alternative was nothing at all being done; zero, just leave them be. Middle class taxes are down, as promised, and the economy is growing even if people don't believe it.
Oh, and "don't ask don't tell" is on its last legs. The judge ordered a stay on the order to repeal based on the concern of how to institute the new policy, but there's little chance an appeals court is going to change this right to free speech.
I mean, how much more could you want in 2 years? At the same time, Clinton had an even worse first midterm and his presidency is remembered pretty fondly (even though politics got REALLY ugly after that).
Not voting is worse. Even if we had a system where you could vote for your Goldilocks party, it would still only have a chance at governing as part of a coalition that you would surely have countless differences with.Himuro said:
I understand if the system has frustrated you to the point that you don't want to invest much time in politics, but voting takes minimal effort and the closer the electorate is to matching composition of America as a whole the better.
Hari Seldon
Member
I think that a true fiscal conservative party divorced from the cultural conservative movement would be a big hit. Ron Paul made headway with that thinking in the last election debates. Too bad that his son has been transformed into a typical Tea Bagger. If he dumped the social conservative part (his son I mean), he would be an attractive republican.
parrotbeak
Member
I never bought into it in the first place, but I've voted in every election since I was old enough, and will continue to.
If I don't like any candidate, I'll leave it blank, just so I get counted as having turned in a ballot. Sometimes most of my ballot is empty. But there are always a few things I'll vote on, like the Board of Education, if only to vote for the most sane sounding people.
As for the larger offices...I've done session work at the state capitol and have seen how even at the state level, nothing in the media is really accurate. Unless you are behind the scenes as a staffer or lobbyist, you have no idea what is going on. So fuck it. I'll vote for people cuz they or their wives/daughters are hot.
The system could be fixed by education and a stronger media. The number of viable parties isn't as critical.
If I don't like any candidate, I'll leave it blank, just so I get counted as having turned in a ballot. Sometimes most of my ballot is empty. But there are always a few things I'll vote on, like the Board of Education, if only to vote for the most sane sounding people.
As for the larger offices...I've done session work at the state capitol and have seen how even at the state level, nothing in the media is really accurate. Unless you are behind the scenes as a staffer or lobbyist, you have no idea what is going on. So fuck it. I'll vote for people cuz they or their wives/daughters are hot.
The system could be fixed by education and a stronger media. The number of viable parties isn't as critical.
LegendofJoe
Member
I just want this damn election to be over, I'm sick of it.
You might be surprised to know most Americans don't give a fuck how other countries perceive us.curls said:
I don't know if republicans are righteous. I do know republicorp is a stupid name, especially considering how heavily funded by corporations and unions the democratic party is.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll