Because the American people want to keep the two party system which served them well (not perfect by any stretch of imagination).
I don't get that same feeling. Most people I speak to about our political system recognize that it is far from perfect, but feel powerless to change it.
Ron Paul is now running in the Republican primaries. He is a RINO (Republican In Name Only). He attracts many younger people and many who are not happy with the establishment (both Republican and Democrat). Today, I read that Donald Trump is looking to become a third party candidate in the general election (I hope NOT).
I agree with you about Ron Paul, but I would think that supports the fact that individuals have to join one of the two parties to have any chance of winning. Ron Paul should be running as a Libertarian, but he would have no chance of winning if he did so, therefore he chose the Republican party.
I believe the two party system served us well. In many countries with Parliamentary system, the parties split and sometimes create regional parties. If Regional party "A" is popular in Virginia and regional party "B" is popular in Maryland, they start treating each other like unfriendly nations (a possibility). Such situations have happened in many countries.
I would disagree strongly. From my own perspective, the parliamentary system seems designed to force compromise. Various parties form alliances or blocs with one another in order to get things done. In doing so, they agree on certain issues and then compromise on others. It seems to facilitate middle-of-the-road thinking, which is what ~70% of our country supports.
Also, not to pick threads, but when you say "such situations have happened in many countries", could you provide examples (links preferably)? Often times it seems that people feel that things are one way or another, and thus make assumptions based on their feelings.
Sure, in USA, Corporate money sometimes influence the outcome of elections. Many people conveniently forget the influence and activism of labor unions and the corrupt press.
I grimaced at the word "sometimes". I may be overly sensitive on this issue, but I think special interest money is everywhere in our political system and elections. I think Citizens United was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in my life time.
Also, I don't think that people forget the influence and activism of labor unions, its just that people that tend to agree with labor unions don't see their involvement as a problem. To them, labor unions represent the "working man(woman)", where as corporations represent the 1% (to use a popular term).
As far as the term "corrupt press", I've found that people on the right seem to think that Fox News is "Fair and Balanced" while believing that MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc, are "the liberal media". The people on the left are the exact opposite. As such "corrupt press" tends to be a very subjective term based on who is using it.
In 2008 Democratic primaries, the Mainstream press openly supported Mr. Obama against Mrs. Clinton because they knew Obama is on the far left of the Democratic party.
I followed the 2008 primaries and ensuing general election very closely, and I do not recall an overly slanted media for Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton. There was a lot of hype given to Mr. Obama as if he won he would become the first African American president, and many were incredibly excited about that.
However, I also recall a lot of press coverage for Mrs. Clinton, specifically the PUMA (Party Unity My A**) movement.
As far as Mr. Obama being on the "far left" of the Democratic party, I would once again completely disagree. A lot of press coverage in left-leaning media outlets has highlighted how Mr. Obama has caved in over and over to the Republican minority. I don't think he has really done anything that would qualify to label him as "socialist" (compare him to an actual socialist, for example).
Vassago said:
Without immediate intervention by the people, voting someone in that is not a corporate puppet that will cut down the inflated size of our federal government, I'm afraid we will continue this rapid decline. I can promise you that Newt, Mitt, or Obama will all still work in the interests of the people who pay rather than the people who voted. It's a shame, really.
I would agree, but would question what you define as "inflated size of our federal government". I think almost everyone can agree that we need to work on the debt as a number 1 priority. Anywhere we can cut programs and expenditure that do not have a vital purpose or good return on investment is a good start.
However, we still rank terribly compared to the rest of the civilized world in healthcare and education. I don't see anyway of addressing those two issues without increasing the size of the federal government.
And, I would posit, most Americans aren't concerned about "big government", that is more of a talking point. The programs that eat up most of our revenue as a country are the same programs that most people tend to support (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc).
People just know they want less government intrusion in their life, and they want to pay less in taxes. But, they also want a lot of services from the government, so it becomes a sticky situation.
Lastly, as we're discussing our election system, I had an idea a while back. I wouldn't be surprised if someone else had thought of this in the past, so I won't claim it is 100% unique, however:
- Many Americans seem to think that more than 2 parties would be a good idea,
- Voter turnout is low because people think their vote doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things,
- Few people want to "waste" their vote on a 3rd party candidate.
Assuming the above is true, what would seem to be an ideal system would be one where each voter receives a First Choice vote and a Second Choice vote. You cast your First Choice vote for the person you actually want to win. If the person you cast your First Choice vote for does not win, your Second Choice vote kicks in.
For example, an individual could cast their First Choice vote for a 3rd party candidate, and their Second Choice vote for Democrat or Repub.
If the 3rd party candidate received enough votes to win, then great. If not, no one wasted their vote as their Second Choice vote kicks in. Every voter still only gets 1 vote, so no one is given an unfair advantage.
It would seem to allow voters to break out of the "lesser of two evils" we all seem to complain about.
