Save America

[Justinian]

(Disclaimer: the author apologizes in advance for yet another topic about American politics, and suggests angry Europeans, instead of lynching him, go make topics about the EU instead)

It is a well-known fact that American politics have been stagnating alarmingly since the early 1800s, if not before. Why is this? Because American politics are about two things: the Right and the Left.

The Right and the Left are essentially the exact same people and ideals, but bent over this way or that way to tailor to a certain set of people. The Right (hereafter referred to as the Reps) tailors to the religious, the elderly (generally), and so on. The Left (hereafters referred to as the Libs) tailors to the young, civil rights, atheists, homosexuals, et cetera who want a "new" government (when in reality they're just going to have the old one again).

The only difference between the two parties in American politics is who they tailor too. They generally agree, albeit secretly, on most issues, they generally want the same things; they just look at the parties and whoever there's more of, they join so they can get elected and get rich. Worst of all, Americans have the choice between: rich self-centered liars tailored to the young, and rich self-centered liars tailored to the old. Democrat and Republican. THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE.

A third party has never won a single election in the history of the United States (or at least since the Republicans and Democrats took power). This means Democrats and Republicans can do essentially whatever they want, and can go to all new lows and be all the more corrupt, ineffecient and self-centered, pursuing personal means instead of what is good for the nation. Why can they do this? Because people are still going to vote for them, because there's no one else to vote for.

Sure, there are the Libertarians and the Greens (and the Communists and the Nazis), but none of those parties have the slightest chance of ever winning, because voting for them is basically throwing away your vote.

America is declining faster then the Roman Empire, and just like them, it's from the inside. It isn't just we have nothing to unite us, it's that our leaders can be as idiotic as they want (see Bush) and still get elected because there are no checks and balances. If a third party was actually a threat, Democrats and Republicans would be forced to reform just so they could continue to get votes.

So how can we break out of this endless cycle that's been going on for a hundred years?

What we need is a strong third-party that recruits many of the disillusioned politicians of the Reps and Dems, and that is somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum and can get people from both sides, headed by an absolute charismatic genius that everyone loves who actually knows what's good for his country and places that over what's good for himself.

A landslide third-party victory would unshackle America from the strict two-party system, and at least force all parties to reform and actually be worth voting for. It might, just might save America from keeping on like a train on a track that drops off a cliff three miles down the track...

And it's never going to happen.

[First Crusader]

This is a very widely discussed topic.

My opinion:

The main disadvantage of a multi-party system is that none of the elections will be decided by the majority.

If we encourage multiple parties, we could easily end up with ten or more. That would mean someone could win an election with only 11% of the vote!

[Erik]

This is a very widely discussed topic.

My opinion:

The main disadvantage of a multi-party system is that none of the elections will be decided by the majority.

If we encourage multiple parties, we could easily end up with ten or more. That would mean someone could win an election with only 11% of the vote!

This depends in what you call a "win".
In America there is only one important position: the Presidency.
Only one party wins, the other party can stay at home for 4 years.

In a multy party system power is shared between several parties.
So several parties win a little, with a combined vote of at least 50%.
And even the opposition parties have something to say because a coalition never fully agrees on everything, so they wil leave some issues for parliamant to decide.

The US has survived worse. the US may no longer be a commodities producer, but it is now an intellectual exporter.

That's nice, but America can't live from exporting only "intellect".
The trade deficit is America's biggest problem, and it wil be it's death.

[First Crusader]

This depends in what you call a "win".
In America there is only one important position: the Presidency.
Only one party wins, the other party can stay at home for 4 years.

In a multy party system power is shared between several parties.
So several parties win a little, with a combined vote of at least 50%.
And even the opposition parties have something to say because a coalition never fully agrees on everything, so they wil leave some issues for parliamant to decide

Have you heard of Congress and the Supreme court? Controlling the Executive branch isn't the only way to gain power.

Right now, the Democrats have a strangle hold on the supreme court.

[Justinian]

Right now, the Democrats have a strangle hold on the supreme court.

I disagree. Roberts is not liberal, and Bush's next hopeful is conservative. And there's at least one more con on the Supreme Court. It's basically half-and-half.

But, the Reps control the House and (I think) the Senate.

[First Crusader]

I disagree. Roberts is not liberal, and Bush's next hopeful is conservative. And there's at least one more con on the Supreme Court. It's basically half-and-half.

But, the Reps control the House and (I think) the Senate.

Their grip on the supreme court could weaken with these nominations. That would put the dems in an aggravating position of weakness. This explains the smear campaign against Roberts and Miers. These two threaten the last democratic stronghold in the government.

[Tiwaz]

Have you heard of Congress and the Supreme court? Controlling the Executive branch isn't the only way to gain power.

Right now, the Democrats have a strangle hold on the supreme court.

But still there is only so few parties so one will always reign supreme or nothing is achieved since two opposing sides fight one another on even battleground and will do their best to repulse anything other side suggests.

That is the power of multiparty system. There is generally never one party which can gain so much popularity that it can run the whole show. And neither is there chance of deadlock since different parties with different priorities always make it possible to make a deal with one of the other parties to achieve majority. (or block one if suggestion is stupid)

And furthermore, multiparty society represents the people far better. With 2 party system you have 2 realistic options despite of people mostly not agreeing on matters with either party. Multiparty gives chance to find party which suits your ideals and therefore represents you the best.

[Erik]

Have you heard of Congress and the Supreme court? Controlling the Executive branch isn't the only way to gain power.

Right now, the Democrats have a strangle hold on the supreme court.

You are right about Congress.
But IIRC the Supreme court is appointed by Congress, so they are just a tool of politicians.

To compare:
In my country members of the "Suppreme court" are basically appointed by the suppreme court itself.
Our Senate can only reject candidates, but this rarely happens.
They aren't supported of any sopecific political party, and they don't push any agenda.

[Punkus]

...the crime rate is surging up...

Actually, I think crime is down again this year. At least, I heard that in the news somewhere.

I agree with everything else though. The discrepancy between what a corporate exec makes and what the average working person makes is up around 540 times the income. That is ridiculous. I saw a thread earlier delving into the idea that democracy leads to socialism, but really I'm not seeing it happen. If anything, a new era of modern nobility is springing up, replete with the same lavish wealth, terrible class inequality, and unscrupulous politics as any monarchy of old.

The United States may not exactly be going the way of the dodo; it's too early for me to say I think so with any certainty. I will say with certainty that our political system is rather bad. I have been in favor of a a system of government similar to some European countries for quite a while. If you ask me, even a three party system is still faulty because it doesn't solve the basic problem of the system: the winner takes all. A three party system may even be worse because, as someone pointed out the problem with applying that principle, the winner's representational percentage decreases with each new party you add.

There are some problems which we may not be able to avoid, however. That the wealthy and powerful will be able to buy their way politically will always be true. Politicians will always be somewhat corrupt. People will probably always be more inclined to take sides simply for the sake of unity and conformity than they will be willing to let the facts dictate what they think. Actually, all we may be doing by debating this is trying to correct for a problem that cannot be solved without changing human nature itself.

[Fenris]

This depends in what you call a "win".
In America there is only one important position: the Presidency.
Only one party wins, the other party can stay at home for 4 years.

In a multy party system power is shared between several parties.
So several parties win a little, with a combined vote of at least 50%.
And even the opposition parties have something to say because a coalition never fully agrees on everything, so they wil leave some issues for parliamant to decide.



That's nice, but America can't live from exporting only "intellect".
The trade deficit is America's biggest problem, and it wil be it's death.

Cases like this happen from time to time, not always. And again, if you take an electoral system like the french, you've got your solution.

[Fenris]

This is a very widely discussed topic.

My opinion:

The main disadvantage of a multi-party system is that none of the elections will be decided by the majority.

If we encourage multiple parties, we could easily end up with ten or more. That would mean someone could win an election with only 11% of the vote!

Absolutely not. Look all around you, a government without majority happens from time to time and has to ally with other party to get a majority, meaning that the party they ally with will have their share of decisions. And if you use the french electoral system, it's even better.

[Tom Paine]

Absolutely not. Look all around you, a government without majority happens from time to time and has to ally with other party to get a majority, meaning that the party they ally with will have their share of decisions. And if you use the french electoral system, it's even better.

In fact the ideathat with three main parties you get problems of nonmajoritry is simply wrong. The Labour Party in Britain holds over half the seats, so Blair is in No 10; in the unlikely event that no party held over half the seatsa in Parliament a coalition government is formed.

[Oldgamer]

I'll come back into this later, Justinian. However, you're quite right. A landslide third party victory is not going to happen in American because the two major parties (and note that I'm on the National Committee of one of them) control the rules of the game, and they're not about to give up that power.

But I don't agree that the USA is sliding downhill into oblivion. Quite the contrary, actually ...

[the_mango55]

A third party has never won a single election in the history of the United States (or at least since the Republicans and Democrats took power). This means Democrats and Republicans can do essentially whatever they want, and can go to all new lows and be all the more corrupt, ineffecient and self-centered, pursuing personal means instead of what is good for the nation. Why can they do this? Because people are still going to vote for them, because there's no one else to vote for.

You have some good points, but this part is not entirely true. There has never been a third party Presidential win, but there have been numerous third party state and national election wins, just look at Jessie Ventura. I think a third party win is possible in America, It would just take a very strong personality to accomplish it. The sad thing is that this strong personality would probably be an actor.

[MadKow]

Recently in a speach to The New American Foundation, Colonel Larry Wilkerson made a speach that is an insider view of the decision process in the White House these days.
It seems the US is not beyond hope, but Americans must take their country back from the hawks that highjacked it:

Speach

Trancript

Not a conspiracy nut, not some liberal "bleeding hear"... But still, will you listen? Maybe you dont need a new party, just clean up those you got.

[Kanaric]

heh, i know no republican who is old. I'd say the party doesn't cater to old people more of people around the 30s - 50s, which also happens to be the largest age group.

Anyways you are right, the parties do not serve the country, they are too simular and too entrenched to really do anything or actually work for the people. They need new competition to keep them on their toes and to make sure they have no long term stay in any area of the country, that way corruption stays at a minimum.

Around chicago the two most corrupt areas, the city and the next county over. Are ruled by democrats and republicans respectively. They also have controlled these areas for a HUGE amount of time and as a result they are all bought by their respective unions, mafia, or other rich people in the area. One recent example of this is my neighbor, their was this driver in the republican county who owned a ferrari and somehow had around 50 tickets at the age of 27 for speeding and evading police yet he still had a car. He then crashed into my neighbors daughter's car and killed her and her son. The person obviously owned some judges and others in the area from staying out of jail, and not attention is finally brought to this.

The only way anything like this will be fixed would be the result of a MAJOR disaster. Thats the only way things get done in this country.

[lila-laune-bär]

Do you remember the Simpsons halloween special, when Clinton and Dole are copied by aliens? It was today on austrian TV.
The aliens get discovered.
Kang: It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us!
Man: Well then, I believe I'll vote for a third party!
Kang: Go ahead! Throw your vote away! Ahahahaha!

:wink:

[Kanaric]

lol, i wish perot would of won the election. The democrats and republicans both losing would = party at my place.

[Justinian]

You have some good points, but this part is not entirely true. There has never been a third party Presidential win, but there have been numerous third party state and national election wins, just look at Jessie Ventura

I did mean Presidential.

But I don't agree that the USA is sliding downhill into oblivion. Quite the contrary, actually ...

The US is hated worldwide, we are engaging in wars that are stretching our military and make us even more hated, our government is corrupt, all the Presidential candidates for at least twenty years have been worthless ****bags, our nation is divided into two camps who are always at eachothers throats, the crime rate is surging up, poverty levels are on the rise, we have a huge deficit, we have ceased to become partly a producer and are now solely consumers - how is this not sliding downhill into oblivion?

[Belisarius]

Many many countries have the same problem as the USA, unfortinately the "My vote is wasted" attitude is what crushes any chance of a strong third party unless something drastic happens. Its not as simple as a genious coming and everyone flocking to his side, there are other factors. Political ignorance, voting in family tradition, self benefits, corruption and so on...