Zot Party in US

[dipoledipole99]

Flaws to the 2 Party System

Voting? It is that time of year again for us to vote. “I’m gonna vote for whoever is on the Democratic side” said my grandfather. “Who cares, they are all the same, makes no difference to me if Kerry or Bush wins” stated my mother. Is this how you and your family feel when it comes the time to vote? America is known as the land of the free, and to have the most democratic governmental system in this world, but is it really? How can we say that America’s government is democratic when we limit our own citizens to only two options for president. How can we say that America is the land of the free when the two big political parties bully and suppress 3rd independent parties. Never have we ever had an American president that was not part of the two major political parties. America’s tradition of having a two party system is not democratic, because of the winner-take-all system, discouragement of voters, denial of 3rd parties, and submission for society to only choose between two candidates.

The formal definition of Democracy is a form of government established by the people, for the people. Baldwin’s tradition of the church in relations to his family and life is very similar to the tradition of the two-party system in relations to our democracy and freedom. Tradition has it upsides, but having an obsolete procedure to elect our government officials is not one of them. With our two-party system, candidates are motivated to run negative campaigns; pointing out flaws to others and showing only those positions that are necessary to differentiate themselves from their primary opponent, while not addressing to any of the major issues. Baldwin stated that “church is only a distraction from the real world, ruled by the white man” (36). Baldwin would agree that the tradition of having a two party system is only a distraction that limits our freedom. “Americans do not understand the depths out of which such an ironic tenacity comes, but they suspect that the force is sensual, and they are terrified of sensuality and do not any longer understand it” (40). Baldwin tells us that Americans fear of breaking the rules caused society to be unable to live in this sensual matter. Our fears of breaking from tradition are what keep this society and government from being democratic.

As society advances, old traditions that were left down from the 18th century are now obsolete. Things and values that we held in the 18th century are no longer true for our society today. The kind of “freedom” and “democracy” that America’s founding fathers believed in, is not the kind of freedom and democracy that we believe in today. When we vote for the presidential election, we elect our president based on the number of electoral college votes. Our winner-take-all system provides the political party having the most popular votes by however small a percent to win all of the state’s electoral college votes.

The tradition of having a winner-take-all and a two-party system limits America’s democracy and freedom. Our two-party system limits our democracy by not allowing any 3rd independent party to win. This is unfair, and it plays on America’s idea of “freedom.” How much “freedom” do we really have when we are only limited to two choices? Many would argue that we do have many options and choices to choose from. Although there are more than two names on the ballot, given the way that we elect our president by the electoral college votes, how many real choices do we have to choose from?

Democracy is government established by the people and for the people. In the 2000 presidential election, we had elected George Bush to be our president through the electoral college votes, even though more people voted for Al Gore. 48% of the votes went to George Bush, 48% went to Al Gore, 3% went to Ralph Nader and 1% went to others. Since democracy is government by the people and for the people, George Bush only has 48% of the American population; what are we going to do with the remaining 52% of Americans? One could argue that democracy is based on the majority’s rule. However, if democracy is based on the majority’s rule, then how is it that George Bush becomes our president when Al Gore had more of the popular votes? So how democratic are our elections?

Democracy does not allow 3rd parties to win, because voters fear that by voting for a third-party candidate they will be “wasting” their votes. “In the 2000 election, 15% of voters in a pre-election survey rated Ralph Nader more highly than either George W. Bush or Al Gore, but Nader received only 2.7 percent of the popular vote” (John F. Bibby). The tradition of our two-party system denies the existence of other parties. This two party system is not democratic, as citizens who vote for small independent parties are unfairly under represented.

One could argue that the 3rd independent party has just as much chances as the Democrats and Republicans to win. However, given the endorsements and the attention by the public media, there is no way that any other 3rd parties could compete and have such influences. One could then argue that endorsements and media have nothing to do with the success of winning into a political office. The recall election in California, is a perfect example to disprove this argument. Given the 200 plus candidates that were running, the one who spent the most money advertising and we have all seen him on TV was Arnold Schwarzenegger. With all the attention and endorsements that Schwarzenegger had, he was able to have a big influence, and consequently became our new governor. Was this just a coincidence that Schwarzenegger happened to had the most endorsements and media attention, and win the recall election? No. The amount of endorsement and media attention that one candidate had, was the most crucial and influential thing in winning a political office. How often have you seen a Ralph Nader political campaign ad on TV compare to a Republican political campaign ad? Should the 3rd party be punished, because they did not have enough money to advertise as the big political leaders did and be denied of their chances to hold political offices.

This two party system not only limits our right to choose, but it also discourages the public to vote. Like the 2004 presidential election, many people did not like either Kerry or Bush, therefore, many did not bother to vote. Limiting our choices to only two candidates turns down many voters, because it simply does not matter to them which one becomes president. The reason half the eligible voters in America do not vote is because they know that their choice of the 3rd party candidate will not win. “If a voter does not see much difference between candidates, or if a voter feels the chances are small that his or her vote will change the outcome of the election, then the effect of his or her vote is minimal” (Satterthwaite). Most citizens recognize that voting is an essential component of democracy, but they also realize that their vote is not likely to change the outcome of an election. Therefore, if people do not find any major differences between the two candidates, people would rather not vote. “A system of government by the people is legitimate only to the extent that people participate. The fewer the number of people that participate, the less legitimate the system of government becomes” (Satterthwaite). This decline in voting signifies the need for change in our government and the way that we chose our political officials.

Every president since 1852 has been either a Republican or a Democrat, and in the post-World War II era, the two major political parties have shared 94.8 % of the popular vote for presidential election. After the 2002 congressional and local elections, there was only one lone independent senator among the 100 members of the U.S. Senate, and just two of the 435 representatives in the House of Representatives were independents. At the state level, all 50 governors were either Republicans or Democrats, and only 21 out of more than 7,300 state legislators were not Republicans or Democrats (John F. Bibby). The two major parties in America today have organized and dominate government at both the state and national levels.

This dominance had limited our freedom to choose and the number of candidates whom we can choose from. “Liberals, Greens and Right to Lifers -- are now too weak to overcome the state’s arcane ballot access laws” (Johnson). It now takes three times as many petition signatures for 3rd parties to have a chance to get their name on the ballot. Many independent parties like the Green, Liberals, Constitution, and etc. do not have enough patronage workers to gather signatures for their party to be placed on the ballot. This is not democratic because it denies the existence of these 3rd parties and these parties are placed in a huge disadvantage on election day.

Changes to our undemocratic two party system are inevitable. To ensure that more people would participate in voting and no longer be afraid of voting for 3rd independent party, we need to set our government as it is in Europe. We will no longer elect our president through the electoral college, but rather by the popular vote. We will need to replace our two-party system with a multi party system. We would no longer use the winner-take-all system to elect our president, but by the number of percentage that each candidate gets in the popular vote. Whoever has the highest number of percentage will be our president and the 2nd highest will be vice president. The number of percentage that each candidate gets is also the number of seats that they will get in the senate. This is the only way that the public could really express themselves and vote for the candidate and the values in which they believe.

[backhoe]

Run along to DU or Rabble, there's a good little boy.

[expatguy]

Bleah he peed on the carpet

[Darksheare]

You fled from your previous thread, but the mods were waiting.

You forgot the cardinal rule of the jungle: Mods are ambush predators that wait for their prey to try to run for safety.
Then they rush in and devour the victim leaving barely enough scraps behind for us to kick and poke with sticks.
And then silence rules the forest again.

[Billthedrill]

The formal definition of Democracy is a form of government established by the people, for the people.

No, it isn't. That was Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. This isn't really a good place to be posting junior high school term papers, but you will get lots of feedback.

[SmithL]

Voted off the island.

[Psycho_Bunny]

The formal definition of Democracy is a form of government established by the people, for the people.

All forms of government can and have been established by the people, for the people.

 

(Pronunciation Key)

de·moc·ra·cy Listen: [ d-mkr-s ]
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
   
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
   
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
   
4. Majority rule.
   
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

 

There's your "formal definition", Pinhead.

[repinwi]

you're cooked

[Larry Lucido]

So now we're posting our grade school civics papers on FR? Let me see if I can dig up some of mine.

[Old Sarge]

"You Have Been Found Wanting - I Summon The Lightning!"

[Dallas59]

Jane? You posting again?

[Redcloak]

See? Aren't paragraph breaks a beautiful thing?

[Not A Snowbird]

Good job, you've learned paragraphs.

[stylin19a]

Hey...hello...is this thing on ? testing...testing...1.2.3

The Repulican party was THE 3rd party when Lincoln was elected.

[Darksheare]

[nothingnew]

At least he or she used paragraphs, kind of, this time.

FMCDH(BITS)

[cripplecreek]

Shouldn't you be celebrating earth day? hell you could come protest global warming with a sledding party at my house.

[JoJo Gunn]

Did you do a paper on this in a college civics class?

Define "paper".

[Brad’s Gramma]

Learned to cut & paste, didja?

[cripplecreek]

[Reborn]

LOL, now THAT is one MEAN looking Cat!!! And here is a pic of his wrath to go with it: