“I hate how these people fundamentally change America!” “We should fundamentally change that!”
The two party system is very, very important.
The two party system is very, very important.
************
A multi-party system might make it more difficult to pass legislation. That would be a good thing. The less congress does, the better.
Legislation lines people’s pockets, creates more bureaucracy, increases our deficit, adds to the national debt, and generally makes government even more complex and unresponsive that it already is.
Just my humble opinion. ;)
The two party system is only important, and relevant, if there actually are two parties.
Theoretically every question has a “pro” side and a “con” side. But if either side (or both) begins heading up with various disclaimers and exceptions, then the neat distinction between “pro” and “con” virtually disappears, and we only have a compromise/concurrence that rarely satisfies anyone, and may in fact have an effect totally at odds with either of the outcomes of one side “winning” at the expense of the other.
The idea is not to focus on the disclaimers or exceptions, most of which are either imaginary or otherwise so minute in their impact or application as to be entirely moot. The particulars are argued, and not the underlying philosophy beneath the framing of the question in the first place.
Some questions, in fact, ought never be framed to begin with. Take the various challenges on a widespread institution like marriage. Once upon a time, it was accepted without question or challenge that marriage was a bond between one man and one woman. But because certain advantages to the institution were tied to the existence of this bond, it was not “fair” that other non-heterosexual couples or even multiple groupings should not also enjoy these same benefits. No logical reasoning was ever provided as to why these benefits “should” be included, and always the exceptions and/or disclaimers focused on a very small part of the wider demographic involved. Then the particular was argued to the general.
This is very bad logic and worse law. The conclusions end up going far beyond what the original premise as actually stated was supposed to represent, and with unpredictable and often unrelated “facts” tossed into the dialogue, the discussions end up over in some fever swamp, arguing how many angels may dance on the head of a pin.
And absolutely not relevant to the original problem at hand. If in fact there ever was a problem.