What is the point of having a Two Party System?

[Mark Crnolatas]

It's time to dump the "party system" and unite, get our act together and all be "Americans". We can still keep electing, having differences of opinions, argue, have graft, special interests or whatever there too (being cynical here for a moment), but what really is the necessity of having two different "Clubs"? Does it save money? Does it accomplish more than if everyone were just "Americans"?

Mark Allan Crnolatas
American

[Danielle Masters]

I would love to have a three party or four party or heck even no party system but I think those of us that are tired of the way politics work are in the minority. It seems that a lot of people I talk to have really little interest in politics in general. And for there to be a revolution of sorts it would have to be a major grassroots movement and I guess I just don't have that much faith in this countries voters. Sorry to be so pessimistic but in the last presidential election on 64% and I worry that this year will be lower. I am sure that has to do with a lot of people getting turned off because of our system but how do we bring everyone together to start something new?

[ryan costa]

some of the other countries roll with parliamentary governments. they vote for parties, then the parties take up that portion of seats in the legislature. or something. There are different drawbacks to this than our own drawbacks.

[Will Brown]

Having two parties gives each party protection against being blamed for its own failures.

Case in point: For the past week or so, congress has been trying, and failing, to come up with a scheme to save their contributors, I mean save our economy, with a massive gift.

Supposedly an agreement was reached, but fell apart when the Republicans didn't support it, at least that is what the Democrats said, and what the media reported.

Now, unless my arithmetic is really bad, the Democrats have a majority in the House (which is why Ms. Pelosi is speaker) and a majority in the Senate (which is why Mr. Reid is "leading" the Senate), which would seem to mean that the Democrats could have passed the scheme without a single Republican vote, as no veto was threatened. So I'm mystified at the apparent power of the minority to prevent the majority from passing a bill. Apparently the Democrats can't count votes, or didn't think enough of their "plan" to pass it and take credit for it. By having another party around, they have someone to blame when the plain fails.

Our system of three equal branches of government is not perfect, but if we had too many blocs in the legislative branch, it would be substantially weakened, as control could change every time some small party opted out of a majority coalition. Countries that have a parliamentary system do not have an independent executive branch. The executive (prime minister is the common term) is elected by whoever can cobble together a majority coalition in parliament, and often must step down if his coalition disintegrates. On the one hand, the ruling party has to get something done, or risk losing their controlling position, where we, by contrast, have fixed terms and can elect the executive almost directly, and in consequence we often have periods where the legislature and the executive cannot get anything done (which some think is not entirely a bad thing; some assert that the relative prosperity of the Clinton years, for example, was because he and the congress couldn't agree on anything, which allowed the economy to grow without interference)

[ryan costa]

the senate is approximately tied between democrats and republicans. 49 republicans, 49 democrats, and 2 self-proclaimed independents.

democrats have had a slight lead in the house which is relatively new.
It is a testament to diversity within the party that they can't agree on any major bills at any given time. they could raise taxes on income over 150 grand to 45 percent tomorrow. but they won't. they are full of diversity.

[Phil Florian]

The vote count has nothing to do with the Democrats balking on the bill. Why should the Democrats all vote yes on a spending bill to support a president they disagree with so much while the party that the President comes from can then all vote no and heap the blame and the bill on the backs of the Congressional majority party, thus ensuring they and maybe even their presidential candidate wins the next round of elections since it was the Tax and Spend/Big Government Liberals who voted to spend nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer money to bail out the banking industry.

That ain't a vote I would like to take the heat for if I were the Majority party. If this was the end of year 4 instead of year 8 and the Republicans were in the majority, this would have flown through without a second thought because the memory of the electorate is clearly too short to remember back 4 years to even this monumental event.

To quote the great Ben Franklin, in this situation "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

[ryan costa]

the House is in charge of initiating bills concerning taxes and appropriations.

A bill has to pass both the house and senate. Lieberman votes Republican on most foreign policy issues.

You get a mixed bag of Globalists and Traditionalists across both parties, but they generally vote globalist to keep wall street happy.

The House could initiate a bill to decriminalize marijuana tomorrow, but it probably wouldn't pass the senate. Doing this would free up billions of dollars from guarding prisoners and monitoring their parole or probation. It would also free up billions of dollars in drug law enforcement.

McCain mentioned the 18 billion dollar a year earmarks. The federal budget is over a trillion dollars a year in other things.

[ryan costa]

voters risk losing their cool independent credentials by registering with a political party. Yet they are more likely to influence their own party than to influence the system as a whole.

[Mark Crnolatas]

All this is good, but it seems everyone is explaining what the two "clubs" "are doing" vs., what is the need for them? Why not have a Senate, for example, that is still made up of the same amount of people, but without anyone in it, having a tie to any different "club" than the next guy/woman? Everyone simply is an American. If someone messes up, they and their cohorts in the mess-up still get pointed at.

Interesting.

Mark Allan Crnolatas
American

[Mark Crnolatas]

I doubt anyone in the upper echelons would give up being members of their "party". They have certain monies invested in that "club" and probably activity they wouldn't want public.

Just some food for thought.

Mark Allan Crnolatas
American

[ryan costa]

doing away with political parties is like nuclear disarmament. It is good to say you will if the other team does first.

by organizing together you gain an advantage over people and groups that are less organized. Overtime your team develops a "brand" and brand loyalty. this is good to keep the plebians marching in circles while you mostly do what you want.

take "gun control". Democrats don't what gangbangers, ghetto retards, junkies, and mobsters to have easy access to guns. Republicans want guns to defend themselves from gangbangers, ghetto retards, junkies, and mobsters.

Take the latest Republican National Committee campaign ad against Obama. They blame Obama for the wall street bailout and supporting the wall street bailout. Nevermind that Paulson was appointed by Republicans. Nevermind that the President who announced it is a Republican. Nevermind that McCain's campaign is heavily led and staffed by lobbyists for Freddie, Fannie, and the interests that lobbied for the right for lenders to deal out spring-loaded mortgages like candy, then convert them to Mortgage backed securities. Never mind that democrats had campaigned for reform or limitations to this system for the past several years. With brand loyalty it is easier to get away with lying. with cohesive party unity it is easier for the Republicans to make the bailout seem like a Democrat Plot!.