Do you think the "2 party system" should be

outlawed?

I'm personally sick of all the partisan BS that goes on.
Porkbarrel spending, name calling BS, etc. etc. etc. It sure
seems like it's just about getting and maintaining power, and NOT
actually changing/fixing problems.

Does anyone think the 2 party system should be, or will be
replaced?



I suppose I can dream huh?

people run for President in the last election. The only ones that got attention were the two major party candidates, and of course - Ralph Nader.

A three party system? That would guarantee that every presidential election would be decided by the US House.

I don't see why we should give rascals a 4 year pass with no
restrictions

for the minority, up to 49.9% of the population of voters. Or more, if you allow for spoilage, suppression, and cheating in elections.

as long as the two parties are Democratic and Green, with the repukes outlawed under RICO. :-) That way I'd be an independent "swing voter"!

:)

be the moderate party. Would be a way to keep the right wingers out. Though - the only time the left would have a say in government would be with a minority election.

There is nothing in our Constitution that requires two parties. It is entirely a side-effect of our voting mechanisms, specifically, of geographic districts with winner-take-all elections. Moving to multi-member districts with some form of proportional representation or to instant-runoff voting would go a long way to breaking the two-party lock and creating more meaningful representation. Read more here:

http://www.fairvote.org/

I think we should explore a wide range of other options; proportional representation, IRV, etc..

I think elections should be 100% publicly financed, with every candidate given equal amounts, and qualities, of airtime, debates, and campaign funding. I think we should have a fairness doctrine and perhaps other regulations in place to prevent corporate influence, and I think we should always have a paper trail to verify votes.

a lot of small parties that have to put together coalitions.

needs to be on the table. I don't have an answer but the internal mechanisms by which parties do their work needs to be democratized. Without a change both parties increasingly see themselves as a ruling party. Americans should never support a 'ruling' party.

Good luck getting it implemented.

But hey, we are twice as democratic as one-party states, and that ain't bad!

or a moderate party.I heard most countries have several strong parties instead of two weak parties.I saw a vote somewhere that most Americans are fed up with Bush, but also don't support the Democrats.Maybe sooner or later a strong moderate party will form.What do you guys think the likelihood of a fascist party becoming strong in America is?I have a feeling one day the U.S. will become fascist.

"A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand?" Is it beginning to look like that axiom holds true? Just a thought. A two-party system is really untenable. It's usually a battle of extremes in one form or another with lip-service and a nod toward the center. In other words, it a lot like a seesaw. Each side knows it needs to be balanced by the center in order to operate. However, have you ever seen a seesaw maintain a perfect equilibrium without having both ends occupied? And even then, no action. It becomes poised and static.

Perhaps it's time to begin thinking in more than just three dimensions, or in this case, two dimensions.

least on the national level.) The last time a lasting national party emerged was when the country was on the verge of civil war. Baring some unforeseen events, this simply is not going to change.

I would like to see a parliamentary system with proportional representation too. But, it will not happen at least on the national level.

Progressives need to face this reality. We have the Democratic Party to work with and to try and change the Democratic Party. It might not be the best of all possible options. It is the only options.

I am so sick of the infighting crap in the Democratic Party around my area. All fighting for power, no new ideas.

Every system has its goods and bads, the problem with a parliamentary system is that when a dominant party forms a government it can completely wipe out the entire system in place overnight, hence you see in parliamentary systems massive privatization to massive nationalizing and back and forth and so on and so on. Our system is more conducive to moderate gradual progression, in lieu of the parliamentary circle...

and quick

Greens and Libertarians especially need more of a say and more attention.

with proportional representation and instant runoff elections. PR would give the Greens and Libertarians more power, and the two major parties would probably split in half (the republicans splitting into a pro-business party and a religious party akin to the Christian Democrat parties in Europe, while the Dems would split into a centrist party and a social democratic party.

There would be a ceremonial president and a prime minister who is also a member of the House and is appointed by the House by majority vote. The House would be filled by PR (you vote by party platform, not by canidate). The senate (keeping 2 senators/state) are elected by FPTP elections for 4 year terms. All legislation begins in the House. The Senate cannont introduce or modify legislation, they can only vote yes or no. If the Senate rejects the bill, the House can overturn the senate's decision with a 2/3 vote. The Senate would also vote on treaties (3/5 vote); and ambassadors, cabinet secretaries, agency heads, Federal Reserve governors and judges nominated by the PM (majority vote, except of SCOTUS justices, which need a 3/5 vote). The PM can dissolve the House and call new elections to fill the house, or the House can initiate house election by voting "no confidence". the federal court system the same as now execpt that SCOTUS justices can serve a single 18 year term, terms spaced so there is an opening every 2 years ( 9 x 2 = 18 ). Amendmendments are initiated by Congress (2/3 vote) and approved by referendum (2/3 vote).

to replace Bolton as U.N. Ambassador.

sorry, I don't mean to be sarcastic -- but however wonderful it would be to have a parliamentary system with proportional representation (and I do agree that would be fantastic) it is not going to happen.

What form of legislation are you proposing.

And no, I don't think it should be outlawed. While it's not a great system, the alternative of lots of small parties forming coalitions with no-one ever achieving an overall majority has its own associated problems, which are often (although not always) even worse, I think.

2 parties are fine, other parties just aren't working hard enough.