News:

If you need instructions on how to get through the hotels, check out the enclosed instruction book.

Main Menu

American Two-Party System: What the fuck?

Farted by SilverCherryClock, April 30, 2009, 09:59:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SilverCherryClock

im a big gay fag dont read this dumb shit

RomanClock

In theory its supposed to get things done in a way that at least 50%+1 (majority) of people would want, bypassing months of debate between multiple parties to come to a decision that nobody really wants.

Normally the system work well, since the founders believed that politics shouldn't be a career, but a volunteer effort to better the community, something you would do while holding a normal job. But as time passed we fell back into the European aristocratic type of politics creating an American political class, which is why we have politicians staying in office for 40 years.

Now we have a class of people separate from the reality of the average American, disconnecting them from normal society. And with the growth in the power and size of the government, they've risen to the point of identifying with rich people, only the top 10%, which in turn encourages lobbying and special bids and grants. Not only that, when politicians stay in power for so long, they are not only distanced from the average citizen, but with the new ides of a younger generation.

This is why I would move to limit consecutive terms, in this way, parties have to choose new people to take office, these people will more likely be younger and try new things and not have as many connections to business or other possible corrupting entities.
lemayo lol :soups:

TremcladClock

Quote from: RomanClock;1569921Normally the system work well, since the founders believed that politics shouldn't be a career, but a volunteer effort to better the community, something you would do while holding a normal job.
I've always felt this approach was a fantastic one, but the way I see it, things would work a lot more smoothly if political parties were disassembled entirely and the general governing body were pushed to the left or right only by the wide spectrum of opinions in the volunteer-based democratic sector. (Abstract school of thought!)

Facets of Socialism seem pretty unpopular in the United States, so I can't imagine you guys ever adjusting the mechanism of the administrative system. Logic suggests that, with the present course of things, the US will be a two-party state forever.


RomanClock

Quote from: Erich Honecker;1569927I've always felt this approach was a fantastic one, but the way I see it, things would work a lot more smoothly if political parties were disassembled entirely and the general governing body were pushed to the left or right only by the wide spectrum of opinions in the volunteer-based democratic sector. (Abstract school of thought!)

Facets of Socialism seem pretty unpopular in the United States, so I can't imagine you guys ever adjusting the mechanism of the administrative system. Logic suggests that, with the present course of things, the US will be a two-party state forever.

I feel its moving more towards a European type situation, which is what I DON'T want. America is supposed to be the alternative to Europe where the government isn't overbearing and micromanage aspects of individuals daily life.
lemayo lol :soups:

SilverCherryClock

Quote from: RomanClock;1569921In theory its supposed to get things done in a way that at least 50%+1 (majority) of people would want, bypassing months of debate between multiple parties to come to a decision that nobody really wants.

Normally the system work well, since the founders believed that politics shouldn't be a career, but a volunteer effort to better the community, something you would do while holding a normal job.

The problem is that we're not a nation of a couple meritocratic country-bumpkins anymore. Our nation is far too large and complex for government to function like it does on a local level, and it's demands are too great for anyone to do part-time. I definitely agree with you though.

Quote from: RomanClock;1569921Now we have a class of people separate from the reality of the average American, disconnecting them from normal society. And with the growth in the power and size of the government, they've risen to the point of identifying with rich people, only the top 10%, which in turn encourages lobbying and special bids and grants. Not only that, when politicians stay in power for so long, they are not only distanced from the average citizen, but with the new ides of a younger generation.

Again, I agree completely, but it seems like a multi-party system will encourage plurality and competition among voter-bases. Think of it like a free market versus one dominated by omniprescent distributors. The more companies (parties) you have competing for consumers, the more inclined they'll be to get those consumers to identify with them, as opposed to just lazily sticking to their voter base like the two parties do now. Imagine two liberal/conservative parties instead of one. Which one would gain majority? The better one which represents the people the most.

Quote from: RomanClock;1569921This is why I would move to limit consecutive terms, in this way, parties have to choose new people to take office, these people will more likely be younger and try new things and not have as many connections to business or other possible corrupting entities.

Would they though? Is there really any way to ensure that politicians, even those restricted to four/eight year terms, wouldn't just come from the same stock? I mean you were talking about aristocracy, you'd be surprised how many trust-fund babies there are lined up to maintain the status-quo.

RomanClock

Quote from: SilverCherryClock;1569929Would they though? Is there really any way to ensure that politicians, even those restricted to four/eight year terms, wouldn't just come from the same stock? I mean you were talking about aristocracy, you'd be surprised how many trust-fund babies there are lined up to maintain the status-quo.
Indeed, but ideally we only see the non-crazy ones or the ones that can hide their craziness well enough. Also, 'deals' would have to be carried from one guy to anther, which may not always transition well because they may have want to support something else, causing internal conflict. Not only that, not every politician is rich.
lemayo lol :soups:

Slurpee

Quote from: RomanClock;1569928America is supposed to be the alternative to Europe where the government isn't overbearing and micromanage aspects of individuals daily life.

where is that written

SilverCherryClock

Quote from: Slurpee;1570001where is that written

It was an alternative to Europe back when Europe was ruled by all-powerful autocrats that destroyed each other every few years.

AbsintheClock

I do agree that the two party system is a sham, but then again so is socialism. This especially does not work with America. I have a feeling that the republican party is going to slowly start dissolving, and a much smarter conservative movement will come about. One that doesn't infringe on peoples rights, or run China like the country's credit card.

SilverCherryClock

Quote from: ZombieRichardNixon;1570062I have a feeling that the republican party is going to slowly start dissolving, and a much smarter conservative movement will come about. One that doesn't infringe on peoples rights, or run China like the country's credit card.

Libertarians?

AbsintheClock

Quote from: SilverCherryClock;1570063Libertarians?

To be honest probably not. The libertarian party is too disorganized to really get off the ground. Plus I think after picking people like Bob Barr to run under their party people are going to start taking them much less seriously. Although I do have a lot of respect for folks like Mike Gravel. I have a feeling it'll be something entirely new.

SilverCherryClock

I think the main problem is that the only effective way to oppose Democratic pseudo-socialism is by saddling up with the fucking ridiculous reactionary bullshit of the Republican party, and a lot of sensible people just aren't willing to do that (and the people who are willing are starting to die). When you say 'dissolving', do you mean the party itself will be replaced or just its platform?

AbsintheClock

More than likely the platform rather than the name. Especially since it's the only realistic way to win elections. Even Jesus couldn't get elected running as an independent.

RomanClock

Quote from: Slurpee;1570001where is that written

Our existance declares it. Kinda like that whole revolutionary war, setting up a new system of government, ya know.
lemayo lol :soups:

Slurpee

Quote from: RomanClock;1570127Our existance declares it. Kinda like that whole revolutionary war, setting up a new system of government, ya know.

when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's god entitle them a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. we hold these truths to be self-evident/: we shuld be diffrnt from europe no matter what dhurrrrr

Slurpee

good thing europe didn't fall for all that progressive bullshit and we still have a choice to live under the healthy proven system of monarchy

TremcladClock

Quote from: Slurpee;1570236good thing europe didn't fall for all that progressive bullshit and we still have a choice to live under the healthy proven system of monarchy

Interesting fact: The stablest nations in the world are constitutional monarchies.


SilverCherryClock

Quote from: Erich Honecker;1570241Interesting fact: The stablest nations in the world are constitutional monarchies.

I think that's sort of coincidental. Most constitutional monarchies are European nations that have been enriched and developed for centuries.

TremcladClock

Quote from: SilverCherryClock;1570248I think that's sort of coincidental. Most constitutional monarchies are European nations that have been enriched and developed for centuries.
How about Canada, Australia and New Zealand? They're all quite new.


RomanClock

Well that opens the debate on what is 'stability' and whether its good for a country.
lemayo lol :soups: