I am not American nor I am in America, but the feeling I get from watching the election coverage in the local news channels and on the internet is that the elections nowdays are decided on who can stick the most dirt on the other candidate, rather than focusing on issues itself. I have heard that Bush's campaign ad features pictures of Sen. Kerry and Hilter. Kerry has also made some negative ads about Bush to counter these.

yeah. also, i'd like to add that we need more political parties. we also need more support for these parties.

yeah. also, i'd like to add that we need more political parties. we also need more support for these parties.

Definitely. It's too easy to buy off just two major parties. We need at least four to properly represent the people of this country.

Definitely. It's too easy to buy off just two major parties. We need at least four to properly represent the people of this country.

 

I believe Canada is a good country because anyone can make a party with just 100 signatures and a few thousand dollars very nice system.

well, it's more than that.

 

you see, both dems and reps realize that even if a new party is created that works better for them, they should not join it for fear the other side will gain control. (think nader)

America's republic was doomed as soon as it grew too big, to become an extensive repulic. Montesquieu once said that the flaws of a republic are extensive borders. He continues to show that only a couple idealogies will come from this (dems & reps), and that this doesn't adequately cover the people's opinion - which is the purpose of a republic. So, in essence, the US republic is a failure.

makes sense. personally, i think we have an oligarchy. in our capitalist society we have a dictatorship of the proliterait and people dont have the courage to stand up against their government or they are oblivious

yeah. also, i'd like to add that we need more political parties. we also need more support for these parties.

I think it's a bad idea to have more than two parties.

In our system of two parties (mostly) One canidate will be supported by more than half the country to win, so more than half of the population is happy with the new presidient. If there were three parties then each canidate would be supported by a lesser part of the population, so less people are satisfied with the elected president, and this would only be worse if there were four or more.

I think it's a bad idea to have more than two parties.

 

Yeh, the senate is overated too, they don't know what the people want anymore. What you need is a pick of two overlords, anything more than that and people start bitiching about 'rights' and 'freedoms'. The damn hippys.

Every democratic system tends to devolve into a 2 party system.

I think it's a bad idea to have more than two parties.

In our system of two parties (mostly) One canidate will be supported by more than half the country to win' date=' so more than half of the population is happy with the new presidient. If there were three parties then each canidate would be supported by a lesser part of the population, so less people are satisfied with the elected president, and this would only be worse if there were four or more.[/quote']That doesn't really apply if only 33% or so of the population voted in the first place, and the other 66% didn't because they were fed up with both parties (or just couldn't be bothered or forgot). It also fails to apply when the elected party never won the popular vote but got in because they won the electorate vote, like in the 2000 election: http://nationalatlas.gov/elections/elect14.gif

 

Personally I think two parties leaves the whole country far too open to corruption and less personal choice amongst the people, which is supposed to be the purpose of democracy. A lot of people aren't planning on voting in the next election because they hate both Bush and Kerry, and in essence they aren't being represented at all. In a multiple party system, just about everyone is represented, though the majority isn't always elected because the majority wasn't all for it in the first place (think no-voters).

 

It does get out of hand sometimes, though, like in the UK now where there are five parties with a decent shot at winning because of all the rubbish with the EU cinstitution: Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats, Green, and UKIP.

Every democratic system tends to devolve into a 2 party system.

 

Which is fine, so long as there are enough minor parties to rotate the top 2 spot every so often. Like poo in a barrel.

if there are two parties, the people aren't represented. as a result, there no longer is a democracy

But if the people didn't feel well-represented, wouldn't they make more parties?

This would be a great time for everyone to take the political compass test again, from the political thread "What Are You?" Take this test and check out where Bush and Kerry are sitting. They are not that far apart.

 

That can't be fair representation.

they would except they both realize that if they split, the other side will have the majority

Every democratic system tends to devolve into a 2 party system.

 

Except where proportional representation has been applied, states that employ PR tend to have a wide range of parties representing much more diverse ideologies.

The American election campaigns are victims of there own devices. They try to appeal to the mass majority instead of preaching their own values.

 

As Chamfort put it: -

 

Pubic opinion reigns in society because stupidity reigns amongst the stupid.

------

There’s no man who, singly, is as contemptible as a body of men. There’s no single body of men that can be as contemptible as the general public.

 

The system of election has dammed itself to regurgitating a set of beliefs dictated by opinion polls.

This would be a great time for everyone to take the political compass test again, from the political thread "What Are You?" Take this test[/url'] and check out where Bush and Kerry are sitting. They are not that far apart.

I was centered right on the origin.

 

I didn't like this test though, because you had to guess at what the questions implied. This one for example:

 

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

If I vote "agree", does that mean I think that this is an advantage to the idea, or that I think it is an advantage and the idea should therefore be instated? I guess it's that I agree with the statement but not the implications. How should I vote?

 

they would except they both realize that if they split, the other side will have the majority

Then the party that stayed together probably had a better idea to begin with. If the new party that just split was really that much better, then it wouldn't be a "split" but a conversion and therefore no majority transfer. But I think you'll find people are happy with the way the two parties handle things, or more sadly, don't care.

Then the party that stayed together probably had a better idea to begin with.

no; currently they compromise, which isnt always what people want

i seem to be in a similar area to Nelson Mandela.

 

my results:

Economic Left/Right: -4.75

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.72

 

 

what does that make me? A leftist Liberal?

yeah. good for you. good for liberals!

 

im actually something around -6, -8

(forgot my scores from the last time i took it)

Every democratic system tends to devolve into a 2 party system.

Not true, Montesquieu quickly points out that

1) The type of system the US uses is a republic (he doesn't point out the US, but the type of system the US uses)

2) A democracy is a direct democracy

and that a republic is SUPPOSED to be small.

 

Besides, england has 4-6 political parties, not 2! France has an all most infinite number of political parties! The US is one of the few with only 2 parties.

 

BTW, I'm -10, -10

Why do you state that a republic is supposed to be small?

 

Surely if a nation has an established sense of identity within it's borders then a democratic system can function. Unless the USA decides to introduce monarchy it seems that a republic is a reasonable way of ordering its affairs.

there is much need for reform