Replies

Howdy

The best way to strengthen the two party system is to hand a resounding defeat to the democrats in the 2004 general election.

As the democrat party has lost the majority of US statehouses, the majority of US state governorships, the majority in the US House of Representatives, the majority of senators in the United States Senate, with each reverse the democrats have reflexively moved their party ever farther away from Thomas Jefferson in favor of karl marx, until today, the democrat party is objectively the socialist party of the United States.

Last night john kerry stated bluntly that the United States of America will be denied a unified popular domestic front against the forces of international terror unless and until America accepts the socialist political agenda of the democrat party. In the same vein, john kerry opined that America would be denied the full support of socialist Europe in confronting the forces of international terror unless and until America abandons Jefferson in favor of marx.

When one of two major political parties in the United States of America places allegiance to a socialist agenda above allegiance to the will of We, The People during a global war, it is time for that party to be retired from political relevance.

In order to strengthen America's two party system, we need two major political parties which represent America, not one which stands for Jeffersonian Democracy and one which represents european socialism.

Work hard in your local community, hand the democrat party a sufficiently resounding defeat in November by virtue of your labors in the coming months, and again we may enjoy the benefit of a two party system in which both parties respect individual human liberty.

The dozens of U.S. minority parties, on either side of this philosophical divide, tend to confuse the issue rather than clarify it. The nation would be stronger if the two major political parties were to define their philosophy in relation to this fundamental principle and develop their platforms to be consistent with their philosophy. Minority-party enthusiasts would better serve the nation, and their own interests, were they to align with whichever major party most closely embraces their beliefs and then work diligently to influence the platform and performance of the major party of their choice.

Well, that applies to the way things are now because of the single member, "first past the post" system we have now. If we had proportional representation, things would certainly be different. There wouldn't be as much call to band together behind one of two leaders or platforms, no matter how deficient or unpalatable. You could vote for a party that more closely represented your views, and that party might be able to govern in coalition with others. So his argument that one has to behave in a certain way now isn't an argument against PR.

Lamb may favor the current way because he wants a polarized, right vs. left party system, but proportional systems still recognize ideological conflicts. Where they differ is in allowing for those whose voices aren't heard in a two party system to have a bigger say in the process of government. That's not always a good thing: small parties tied to unions, occupations, economic interests, and ethnic or racial or sectarian groups can really gum up the works with their demands. But one wouldn't have to choose between two unsatisfactory prepackaged sets of issues.

So would PR be a better system? I doubt it. It wouldn't make party machines, deal makers, and big contributors less influential. It wouldn't make government more accountable to the electorate either, just alter the places where the deals are made a little bit. In countries that are really divided ethnically or regionally, like Israel or Italy, PR simply makes the divisions worse: for all the ideological bluster about the two party system, it does make it possible and necessary for people from different regions, classes, and races to cooperate and compromise for what they take to be the common good. And in any case, we won't scrap our own system for light and transient reasons.

But there have been ways of modifying pure proportional representation. One is to introduce a minimum percentage of the vote that parties have to win to be represented. Another is to divide the legislature between single-member winner-take-all district seats and party list proportional representation seats. So it's not as though the result of proportional systems of representation is always chaos.

This is the biggest pile of bulls**t I've seen on these boards. Proportional representation, with a vibrant multi-party system would add new life to the American political scene. Ordinary people would become interested in politics again, because all, or nearly all, would feel they have a party which represents their interests. All we have now is one party with two poorly defined wings, with a horribly bland, muddled message. The US political system has become so sclerotic, change-proof, and beholden to special (i.e. moneyed) interests, that people are tuning out en masse. And some pundits complain that the major networks didn't air much of the Demopublican conventions! They're INFOMERTIALS for heaven's sake; like watching an hour presentation on timeshares or some kitchen gadget. People would flee with their remotes to cable channels and the nets know this. Sorry for the rant, but the left wing of the Demopublican party kept Ralph Nader off the ballot in my state. Oh, the agony.