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.
Term limits!
Morality went out the window with government.
The same corporate money interests contribute to both parties. We have only one party.
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.
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.
No, we have failed the 2-party system.
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
-- President George Washington, Farewell Address
I see a whole lotta bitchin’ but not much solvin’!
"The people they claim to represent"? There's the problem.
The two parties more or less do represent the people who vote for them, and now, more than in the past, they do represent one of two opposing ideological positions.
But representing "the people" and promoting an ideology conflict: getting to 50%+1 means being less ideologically purist and standing for one set of starkly opposing ideological positions all up and down the line means forfeiting those centrist votes that mean the difference between winning and losing.
There is a hardcore that represents strongly defined views, but that doesn't get you to 50%. To win, parties need to rely on people in the middle who only want a little bit more of one alternative and less of the other.
When people vote for a party they usually recognize this and vote for the party anyway. There's only so much that a party, a politician, a Congress can do anyway, and if you just frustrate the other side's plans you've done more than one can reasonably expect of any particular party or politician or Congress. But then the purists or militants or activists complain that the party didn't do what it couldn't do and wasn't ever going to do.
Unicorns and two-party systems seem to go together.
The US has dozens of political parties. It wasn’t meant to be a 2-party system. It’s just that human nature tries to reduce things to either-or, even if it means a false dichotomy.
You can see this tendancy in almost every debate, no matter what the subject. Just say “I don’t like X” and the other person will most often respond by accusing you of being the most extreme sort of supporter of Y. There’s no logic to it.
Rather, a people get a Government they deserve, reflective of their national character.
The Two-party system has failed because at this stage of the game both parties stand for the same thing: “Goodness”! Neither party has principles or an ideology other than to be everything to everyone. And we are all at fault mocking the minor parties for having distinct programs and ideologies. In Italy, why, in Russia, the Communists have their own parties, here a Communist can join either major party and be elected, no one will kick him out of the party (what an ideer!) as would happen in multi-party systems if a member stepped out of line. You toe the line in such systems, and coalitions are built in the legislature and not within the party which stands for this and that and not for other things. We’ll be bitching about RINOs until the cows come home, but that is how the political system is constructed.
“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. “
It’s time to say “Enough!”
I won’t do it anymore. I will not pull the lever for this garbage again. Ridicule me all you want. Tell me I’m not thinking strategically. Whatever. It’s time to get down to business.
Every traitorous, self-serving @sshole out there is pushing their luck. I honestly hope that they are enjoying their last few moments of largesse. It will make it that much sweeter when they realize they’ve gone too far.
Yes.
(But it is basically because there is no party with significant government positions/seats/power that truly espouses small government, individual rights, and free markets.)
On the other hand, Libertarians support gays, drugs and open borders!!! And they dress like Lithuanian porn actors.