Skip to comments.Has the Two-Party System Failed?
Posted on 04/30/2012 9:01:32 AM PDT by Mozilla
The truth in American politics today, is that we have a one-party system, with Democrats representing one-side of the Big Government Party and Republicans representing another side of the Big Government Party.
Are "we the people" truly represented anymore?
We've grown so accustomed to the 2-party system, that we take it for granted that in America, the land of unlimited possibilities, choosing either a Democrat or Republican amounts to our only available option. And in a sense this is true, because over the years, our Overlords have written laws that game the system in their favor.
So, does our current 2-party system of Democrats and Republicans provide an accurate representation for "we the people"? Or in reality, does it act more to divide us, thus causing our country harm?
Our Founders were not necessarily advocates of political parties. Ben Franklin believed that "confusion engendered" with political parties. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay warned that a political party system would only create a "spirit of faction."
George Washington, our first president, refused allegiance to any political party during his 8 years in office, and thought that alternating between 2 parties would be a "frightful despotism."
At the beginning of the 20th century, the Republican Party came to represent farmers, the gold standard, fiscal responsibility, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. The Democratic Party represented the Southern landowners, Northern laborers, a fiat money system, a more powerful federal government, and an interventionist foreign policy.
Fast-forward to the modern parties ... The end of the Ronald Reagan administration and Cold War brought significant changes to the parties. The first being the ascendancy of "neoconservatism" with the Bush Sr. administration, and the second being Bill Clinton's "New Democrats."
The "New Democrats" began championing unrestricted globalization, social engineering and more government authority, while paying lip-service to free markets. The "neoconservatives" championed unrestricted globalization as well (while paying lip-service to the free markets), but also demanded an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy.
It's obvious our 2-party system hasn't solved the "issues" of the day. Instead, the system has become increasingly corrupt. Both parties continuously make promises they never intend to keep, and neither represents the people they claim to represent.
Why? Because both parties are committed to only one purpose - expanding the size and scope of government, and thus, their power. They both want control of our multi-trillion dollar federal budget, and nothing more.
As Ben Franklin warned too, the 2-party system has engendered confusion. The partisan name-calling of "wingnut" and "moonbat" offer nothing of substance to the debate, but merely divides. If you're anti-war, you're automatically a "radical leftist," while supporting the right to life makes you a "right-wing religionist." Even the words "conservative" and "liberal" don't have clear meaning anymore.
I believe the 2-party system has greatly divided our nation, pitting "we the people" against each other, whereas we once were united against the State.
The Republic is badly damaged
Perhaps a Meritocracy would be better
— It worked for the Chinese for >1000 yrs.
What is needed mainly is runoff or instant runoff elections for all public offices i.e. nobody should fear to vote his first choice on a first ballot and nobody should ever hold any public office with less than 50% of the vote. THAT would allow some third party to rise up and supplant the demoKKKrats but, until we have that, there are no options and we have to support the GOP, anything else is basically insanity. I voted for Ross Perot twice partly because I never had any real idea of how badly SlicKKK was messed up prior to around 97, lesson learned.
And if Bork Obunga is re-elected, it's basically over; there will not be any pieces lying around for anybody to try to pick up or put back together four years later.
The entire concept of government has failed.
No person should entrust another person with power over them ever.
The present “System” selects for the
worst personality type of leaders, Narcissists
The Democrats along with their cousins in the GOP(with a few exceptions ) play the good cop/bad cop routine in advancing state run collectivism.
There will be no reform until some form of runoff occurs. The system was doomed after Ross Perot screwed up and got Clinton elected with 47%.
Political parties should have been banned in the constitution. Parties are always about power, not governing, thus they immediately fail at what government is supposed to be doing.
No, the “two-party” system has NOT failed - it is working perfectly as intended.
Any self-labeled “conservative” who votes for Romney ought to be ashamed of themselves. You who do this are part of the problem. You may as well just vote for Obama.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. It’s to late to do anything about our two party system before the election. But.....we can take the next four years and revamp the system. Get Obama out of office, change the Congress to be what we want and then pick someone for President that truly represents the interests of this country.
Along with that, get rid of communism as best we can. It was set back over 60 years by McCarthy, it can be done again. If that’s what we want. If not, we’ll get what we ask for.....or demand.
IMO, Gerald Celente describes what we have most accurately as as a two-headed, one-party political beast.
NPR did an interview this morning with two authors who just released the book: “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism”
One author is a Democrat. One author is a Republican.
They both agreed — The country is about as divided as it was in 1860. We’re falling apart. We’re in big trouble.
And they both agreed: The problem is that the Republicans are crazy extremists who are pushing the country toward destruction. If the Republicans would just go along with the status quo (Progressivism), we’d all be OK.
Government by and for...the Government.
(Obama vs. McCain, Obama vs. Romney....enough said.)
The two party system hasn’t failed. The people have failed the two party system. As long as the voters continue to support the politicians who’ll give them things, it won’t get better. Greedy politicians hell, it’s the greedy people who insist on their government stealing from one citizen to give to them.
Pick a party, whichever one is the least distasteful to you, and work to turn it into what you want it to be. Look at how long the socialists maneuvered to control the Democratic Party, since the twenties. Look at how they took over the universities, federal agencies, the news media..., and the time it took to so completely dominate the Party. Look how they have radicalized so many groups that have little to do with each other’s causes. Everything is a step. Conservatives have been sleeping for decades, failing to compete with the socialists as they conducted their revolution, and we wonder why Republican politicians are progressives. Look at where they’ve gone to school, the people they associate with, the media they listen to. If we want things to change, we better be prepared to work for it. We better be as smart and thick skinned as the Socialists were when they had their vision. Pick the party you can work with, or give up and go third party. The political reality of this two party system isn’t gong to change for you.
What two parties? There’s only ONE party: the Borrowandspendicans.
The math is simple ~ it takes 50%+1 vote to win. The only way you get there is to coalesce behind a single candidate. The only way the "Other sides" can compete is to coalesce behind a different candidate and seek to get 50% + 1 vote themselves.
This sort of thing can go on indefinitely.
The way to defeat it is to eliminate the single member districts and go to party list voting ~ and variations on that theme ~ including fixed districts with proportional voting by the elected representative in the legislature or Congress.
Again, the cause of two parties is the math behind the way you must win in a single member district ~ the problem is not the two party system ~ that's merely a symptom!
They've only recently become more Conservative.
The Democrats were taken over by two new factions ~ the former Commies and the African Americans. Both segments were smart to recast themselves as political factions rather than as full political parties and/or races.
I think you've got that wrong. We ALREADY HAVE a government that "truly represents the interests of this country"; i.e., we have the government we want and deserve.
By and large, we would rather have a government that will give us things rather than just protect our liberties (because liberty comes with personal responsibility, and nobody wants that).
Even many people who call themselves "conservative" are caught up in this conflict of interest. For example: conservatives generally support the personal liberty to smoke cigarettes or drink to excess. However, how many of these protectors of liberty would be willing to pay out of their own pocket for the inevitable health consequences of this behavior (or pay for special insurance that accurately reflect these costs)?
Any Republican or Conservative who says it’s better to just accept Romney than to demand he step down is an IDIOT.
Absolutely, and the root causes are the complete bastardization of the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses of the constitution, that and the ability to print and squirt infinite sums of “money” in any direction.
I agree, but unfortunately there are a lot of fools who will vote for Romney on the lesser-of-two-evils, “Anybody but Obama” idiocy.
I can only conclude that this country is doomed. Between the servile peasants who want a welfare state and the deluded “conservatives” who think they’re going to get something different with Romney, the rest of us are screwed.
This country has become two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
One party, one goal, one path, two names...
“Has the Two-Party System Failed?”
Yes,if you are We The People.
No, if you are a politician.
Expect the failure to continue.
“They’ve only recently become more Conservative.”
Just to clarify, when I use the term conservative, referring to American conservatives, I mean the resurgence of classical liberalism politically. In that respect, you are correct in saying the movement is new to American politics, rather revived. It has always been with us, but not like now, where people are beginning to see the dividing lines between 19th century clarity of values, and 20th century confusion.
That should read..."we have a one-party system, with Democrats espousing and implementing Big Government, and Republicans espousing small government and implementing Big Government.
>> One party, one goal, one path, two names...
When we commit national suicide in November do you recommend the white pill, or the black pill? :-)
I agree, we need a run-off system. No one should become president with less than 50% of the vote.
Even though there are 2 parties they share a common ideology. That and they pull candidates from a small pool. Even so none of this would be a problem IF the electorate was awake. Make no mistake We the People are THE problem in this case.
And any Conservative or Republican who thinks there's really a significant difference between Romney, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum is DELUSIONAL.
I'll probably write in Palin.
You can’t ban something like political parties. You might as well try outlawing gravity. Even in one-party states, internal political factions similar to parties rise inside the singular party. Factions will emerge in groups, no matter what.
You make a valid argument. But since I am stuck between a rock and a hard place and I would love not tot be in the situation. I can not vote for a bad republican.
Thus, I have a major problem with electing Romney. I wish it were easier to just defeat Obama and ensure the right work is done to fix the country, but it isn’t that simple.
I hedged my bets on voting 3rd party for Virgil Goode or Laurie Roth if she is able to get on a national ballot or even Gary Johnson if neither of those two appear. But I have full faith Virgil Goode will appear on the ballot and thus I willl be voting for him.
The big problem is the tea party and conservatives are stuck between two fights.
Fighting the establishment and fighting the Statist Democrats. It means having too many different opinions on what to do when a bad republican is nominated for president against a bad democrat.
You have people who agreed with the late Andrew Breitbart that taking on the left was the number one goal and that helping defeat them was the main obstacle to fixing America. So ending Obama’s presidency is the right way to go.
Then you have those like Alan Keyes or Michael Savage and to an extent Glenn Beck who spoke about the corruption of the republican party and progressivism in both parties and why it is not a adequate opposition to the left.
Then you have the Mark Levin types who opposes Romney, but were hoping to defeat the rinos at the ballot box and ensure a good nominee, but now that it failed they have no choice but support Romney because they have to kick out Obama.
And then you have libertarian types who are prone to attack both party systems as a form of one party government and a new world order created to rule the country over all others with no real options to elect a constitutional government as envisioned by the founders.
Then you have people like a one, Dr. James Manning, who feel the enemy within is the greatest enemy. And attack the tea party as having been co-opted by the establishment and rino GOP. They attack Fox News because it has not embraced every issue that could be used against Obama and for dumping on us Romney who is equally bad. His perspective is that if one can’t truthfully speak their mind because the GOP and some in the tea party censor him then what good is it. So he has been actively attacking the Bill O’Reilly’s for false reporting and Sean Hannity for embracing the establishment. And for Fox News not taking on the Birther issue.
So right now it seems that not everyone is exactly lock step on what to do. But for me I oppose Romney and Obama equally. And realize the two party system is broke along with the mass media. Therefore for me I can’t come to voting for either party and will vote for another candidate, namely Virgil Goode.
I do agree that getting rid of Obama should be the number one priority. But the plan was not to nominate Obama lite. Thus I just can’t come to voting for him it would be a bd mistake to do so on my conscience after all I know about him.
I do agree that getting rid of Obama should be the number one priority. But the plan was not to nominate Obama lite. Thus I just can’t come to voting for him it would be a bd mistake to do so on my conscience after all I know about him.
I agree with that statement. If the people had been awake they would not have nominated Romney. but they were alseep at the wheel.
However, the tea party base was not unified in one candidate once Palin did not run. All I can add is people made the case for and against Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, Cain and DeMint, who did not run. And it resulted is squabbles and infighting.
People still attack Santorum and Gingrich as being Big government. Well it was the only two left who could stop Romney who was far worse than either of the other two and because they could not rally around one of them then the house collapsed on us and we have Romney.
I totally understand what you are saying and agree with most of it. However, there’s always a “however”.......if we split the Republican part vote, we assure Obama’s re-election. That’s why we need a concerted effort during the next four years to really change things. Starting right after we kick Obama out of office. To try and do it now is a waste of time. I believe Romney can be controlled by Congress if we change Congress at the same time. While he is controlled, we work to change, really change, our country.
Morality went out the window with government.
Banning parties would be easy, you can’t ban alliances, but the party system is easy to break apart. First step: no mention of any level of affiliation on any ballots ever, no R candidates, no D candidates, just candidates. Then you get rid of all that majority-minority stuff on the Congressional floor. Third change the primary system from one that makes party nominees to one that picks the 3 candidates with the most support (basically like the NASCAR Cup). Those three steps right there would take away most of the power political parties have, sure politicians could still form alliances, and they could be large alliances, but those alliances wouldn’t be built into the structure of the system. That’s a big part of the problem right, because 2 parties are built into the basic foundation of the system anybody trying to come at politics from outside those 2 parties is immediately on the margin even if they somehow win.
The same corporate money interests contribute to both parties. We have only one party.
“And any Conservative or Republican who thinks there’s really a significant difference between Romney, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum is DELUSIONAL.”
Well then if your right we had no choices from the first gun. My first choice Michele Bachmann just had no chance from the start because both the establishment hated her and various people for other candidates just brought out the claws against her and the Democrats took the opportunity to join the attacks against her.
It really was a mess of epic porportions. It got worse when She did not try to attack Romney but aimed her fire at other candidates. The Vitriol against her was high. The Palin crowd was never recepetive because for 90% of last year they kept trying to get Palin to run to no avail. To many Palin supporters Bachmann was a threat to Palin, it seemed.
Things just went downhill from there for Bachmann. The idiots in the GOP and the idiots in the Ron Paul campaign colluided to finish her off. By attacking her as fake despite her support about 80% of the Ron Paul and Allen West Fiscakl policy. When she finally took on Ron over his social and foreign policy that was the last nail. Because they really went after her. And a supporter fled to the Ron Paul camp at the last minute.
That and her voting for the Patriot act also affected her stance with some. Along with Perrybots attacking her. And othewrs went after her too. I went blank on what else I was going to add. But I recall an active base atatcking her instead of being for her. many lied that she was their second choice. and then they would say but after such and such....she is done with me.
Well then who else? Before Jim endorsed Gingrich.... many were against him. bachman must have got the hint that people were not happy with him. She starts attacking him and his supporters come out of the woodwork to trash her.
Then you have the catholic factor and Santorum. It got this bad because I was for Santorum for a while. But Santy pulled the strings. For some reasonw hen he was way down the polls and lower than Bachmann and bachmann had actually began increasing her poll numbers nationallly and int he state of Florida and Iowa and New Hampshire by 5% to 10% and hit the 20% mark, Santorum convinced all this backstabbing Catholics to support him and call for her to step out of the race and unite with Santorum. So if anyone, wamts to know how Santorum made it so far, it is because of this underhanded move. Various people looking to endorse bachmann went to Santorum. Social conservative vote then start shifiting towards Santorum.
Now I like the guy and wanted him over Gingrich and Romney. But what oppositon was left after he helped or ratehr did his part in ending not only Bachmann’s campaign but Cain’s.
But they all the candidates staretd infighting within eachother so all are gulity of the same. And oddly enough, so siad some at the time, it was the only person Bachmann did not bash that cost her. She should have gone after romney vigorously. However, Perry did go after Romney and it backfired on him because of his poor debate performances.
So what can one do. I didn’t warm up to Perry because he purposely was trying to steal the voitng base of Bachmann after the Iowa straw poll win because he enetered and took the lead from her.
So as you can see it got so divisive that it bound to end up in the mess we have now.
I am correcting for grammar errors. So re-posting my reply.
And any Conservative or Republican who thinks theres really a significant difference between Romney, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum is DELUSIONAL.
Well then if your right about the candidates who ran as being big government then we had no choices from the first gun.
My first choice Michele Bachmann; just had no chance from the start because both the establishment hated her and various people for other candidates just brought out the claws against her and the democrats took the opportunity to join in the attacks against her.
It really was a mess of epic porportions. It got worse when She did not try to attack Romney but aimed her fire at other candidates. The vitriol against her was high. The Palin crowd was never receptive to her because for 90% of last year they kept trying to get Palin to run to no avail. To many Palin supporters Bachmann was a threat to Palin, it seemed.
Things just went downhill from there for Bachmann. The idiots in the GOP and the idiots in the Ron Paul campaign colluided to finish her off. By attacking her as a fake fiscal republican despite her support for 80% of the Ron Paul and the Allen West fiscal policy.
When she finally took on Ron over his social and foreign policy stances that was one of the final nails in her campaign. And that was because the Paulbots then really went after her with a 24/7 campaign, of their own, to end her bid. And then a supporter fled to the Ron Paul camp at the last minute before the Iowa Caucuses.
That and her voting for the Patriot act also affected her stance with some and I was forced into defending it. It was all in how you viewed the act or bill what you thought about it. For people on this site they became heavily libertarian when it came to the legislations renewal saying that under Obama civil libertires would be curtailed. But Bachmann voted for it to keep a strong national defense against terrorism and to keep stopping further attacks.But Allen West, who became increasingly against the Patriot Act, was at odds with Bachmann and people were siding with him.
Then add the fact the Perrybots attacked her. And others went after her too. I recall an active base atatcking her instead of being for her. Many lied that she was their second choice. and then they would say but after such and such....she is done with me.
Well then who else? Who else that actually run was better than Michele Bachmann?
Before Jim endorsed Gingrich.... many were against him. It is why nobody was trying to unite the site for him until after Jim’s endorsement. In fact Jim has trouble with him as well at the time. Well Bachman must have got the hint that people were not happy with Gingrich, but she never not the memeo that it had changed by the fall. Because she starts attacking him, whith most of what we know about him now, and his supporters come out of the woodwork to trash her and Glenn Beck who also was opposed to him.
Then you have the catholic factor and Rick Santorum. It got this bad because I was for Santorum for a while. But Santy pulled the strings to win Iowa. For some reason when he was way down the polls and lower than Bachmann and Bachmann had actually began increasing her poll numbers nationallly and in the states of Florida, Iowa and New Hampshire by 5% to 10% and hit the 20% mark in Iowa, Santorum convinced some backstabbing Catholic leaders to support him and call for her to step out of the race and unite with Santorum. So if anyone, wants to know how Santorum made it so far, it is because of this underhanded move. It started his rise up the polls. Various people looking to endorse Bachmann went to Santorum. The social conservative vote then started shifiting towards Santorum.
Now I liked Rick Santorum and wanted him over Gingrich and Romney. But what was left in the race to support after he helped or rather did his part in ending not only Bachmanns campaign but Cains.
But then all the candidates started infighting with each other so all are gulity of the same thing. And oddly enough, so said some at the time, it was the only person Bachmann did not bash that cost her. She should have gone after Romney vigorously. However, Perry did go after Romney and it backfired on him because of his poor debate performances.
So what can one do. I didnt warm up to Perry because he purposely was trying to steal the voitng base of Bachmann after the Iowa straw poll win because he enetered and took the lead from her.
Every candidate that ran had their conservative, tea party detractors who vigorusuly attacked the candidate.
So as you can see it got so divisive that it was bound to end up in the mess we have now.
So the two party system has many problems beyond repair. Not the least of which is people can’t agree on candidates. And the GOP feeds off the division to push a rino to victory. Romeny and his super pack atatcked all those who got close to defeating him and the GOP+e poured in the money needed to defeat him.
GOP-e poured in the money needed to defeat them.
The two-party system itself hasn’t failed - all it is is a structurally-enforced byproduct of our Single Member Plurality District electoral setup.
What has failed are the *participants in* the two-party system.
Don’t forget the other things that seem to reek of GOP-E.
For instance, are we *really* to believe that both Perry and Gingrich were so incompetent that they couldn’t even get enough signatures for ballot access in VA? Really? Neither the successful multi-term governour of our second largest state nor the architect of the Contract with America and the Conservative revolution of 1994 had enough organisation to simply get enough names onto pieces of paper to be able to run in one of the larger Southern states where both ought to have been able to do well?
I don’t believe it, especially when we consider that both Perry and Gingrich had their lists gone over with a fine toothed comb, and just enough sigs were eliminated to disqualify them. Meanwhile, Romney’s lists went unchecked. Now wait, who did the VAGOP establishment, from Bob McDonnell all the way down support?
Or how about in Florida, where in the week prior to the primary, TV and radio stations were holding up Newt’s ads, on the premise that “they needed to be factchecked,” while Romney’s ads got all the air time they could pay for.
Who did the FLGOP establishment support?
No, we have failed the 2-party system.