Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dave G on February 27, 2011 at 5:10pm

Of course there should. And a fourth and a fifth and so on. George Washington warned us about political parties and while we ended up with them anyway, if we are going to have them we certainly need more than the two corrupt monoliths we have now.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brother Gabe Rodriguez on February 27, 2011 at 5:27pm

I am glad that there is someone else who agrees with me! I do not see the logic in have two parties that some how "represent" the people fairly. Surely America can not be summed up in one of two ways!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tammy on February 28, 2011 at 7:44pm

Well said Dave.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on February 27, 2011 at 5:28pm

By way of a very simplified example: If a third party presidential candidate won by 34% of the vote, with the other two getting 33% each, then 66% of the population would not be represented. Actually, this is a real example and precisely what happened in the last gubernatorial race in Texas. The guy won with only 35% of the vote, or something like that (don't recall the exact percentage). The majority of Texans didn't want the guy back in office, but with a third party running, it assured his success. And it is unfortunate, too. The guy is a crook and liar and a fundamentalist.

 

I understand the desire for more options, but I don't see it really see it as a viable option for representation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brother Gabe Rodriguez on February 27, 2011 at 5:35pm

That is true and I agree with you there, and I must admit that I did not think of such elections that take place on such a large scale. But if you look at the other side of the coin, i.e. electing representatives to Congress, then having multiple parties is in fact beneficial. However for that the number of seats in Congress would need to be expanded for that to be the case I believe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on February 27, 2011 at 5:40pm

I agree that representation is beneficial, except for people I disagree with. : P

 

...then having multiple parties is in fact beneficial.

 

Please give me some examples of what you mean by beneficial.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 28, 2011 at 2:00pm

The weigh off is between representation and effective government. Belgium has good representation, but not very effective government. US has weak representation, but effective government.

Representation - Political parties spanning a variety of viewpoints held by the population.

Effective government - There is always a majority in government.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on February 27, 2011 at 5:37pm

It can be, but when you have multiple major parties, alterations to the voting procedure may have to be made. One option is the ladder vote system, which I believe they use in Australia.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on February 27, 2011 at 5:38pm

Dave, are you talking about the percentage rule, where if you win by 36% you get 36% voting power?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on February 27, 2011 at 6:19pm

Nope, that's the parlimentary system. 

 

Checking Wikipedia, it seems that it is more commonly known as preferential voting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brother Gabe Rodriguez on February 27, 2011 at 5:45pm

If I understand what you are saying then I can see where it seems acceptable at first, but with an executive position such as the president (though I feel the president today holds to much power) you need one person in such a position. One can look at the French Revolution with its executive branch called the Directory, which was a group of men who were trying to lead the nation at once and failed horribly.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on February 28, 2011 at 11:01am

In my country you can't win if you don't have a majority, which means that, in the case you mentioned, the top 2 parties or candidates go into a second tour of elections facing each other and no one else. That way one of them will have a majority.

Given that the US has more than two parties (right?), what would happen if both of them got around 49%? Would the leader win without a majority?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page