This dysfunction is built into the two-party system. It works when both parties have a passion for making the system work, and are willing to compromise. But you ultimately cannot square freedom with slavery, as OUR two parties represent, and as soon as the game gets overbalanced, the losing party has no incentive to …
This dysfunction is built into the two-party system. It works when both parties have a passion for making the system work, and are willing to compromise. But you ultimately cannot square freedom with slavery, as OUR two parties represent, and as soon as the game gets overbalanced, the losing party has no incentive to compromise, or (for that matter) to do anything other than kneecap the other party. They are now playing an entirely different "game."
More specifically, as evidenced in these comments, it takes the hard work of compromise away from the politicians, and lays it on the voters, who are utterly unequipped for that task. I SHOULD be able to vote for Bernie, or Jill Stein, and the politicians who are elected should be able to use that vote count as a guideline for where the safety rails are. But the two party system conceals all that information, not only from the political parties, but from the voters. We are forced to make a binary choice between undesirable A and undesirable B, and are STUCK with that choice for two, or four, or six, or eight years, or for the lifetime of a justice.
The two-party system is pretty much designed to fail and come to civil war in the long run.
A lot of the fury in these comments -- and I have plenty of my own -- is built around the hopelessness of the system itself.
Thomas you have articulated very well some of the roadblocks that the “winner takes all” system imposes upon our country. This is what we got when the founders rejected a parliamentarian form of government which allows for third parties to participate in the government. We would be a much better country if third parties were robust instead in name only. We would gain a diversity of ideas that could be articulated and impact government policies if we dumped the “winner takes all” system. This (IMO) could allow a more balanced and inclusive government. Few people again IMO) recognize how much of an outlier the US is with both the “winner takes all” system and the Electoral College.
Hmm. I'm sure Heather has covered this at some point, but I don't recall (or know) the details.
I looked up "parliamentary democracy," and it seems to be quite different from what the US has. In particular, the ruling party (or coalition) in parliament also determines the Prime Minister (President).
But the subject of political parties was not (I think) addressed by the founders at all. In fact, prior to the American Civil War, it was extremely difficult to organize parties, given the slowness of transportation and communication. The South had the Democratic Party which supported slavery throughout the South, but the Northern states were a hodge-podge of parties, like the Free Soilers and Whigs. It wasn't until the time of Lincoln that these coalesced into the Republican Party.
I don't think the two-party system we have is anything other than tradition. There are certain duties in Congress that would necessarily fall to a single individual, but the rules of House and Senate could be changed to select these roles from multiple parties or coalitions. Like the MAGA rules for the House right now, that allow the Speaker to be thrown out by Marjorie Boeberti Boo on a whim.
We still have "third parties," like the Green Party. I think the issue has less to do with any constitutional issues, and a lot more to do with the organizational rules for campaign financing, which is a stacked deck that makes any third-party candidate into a sideshow.
I recommend “Parlimentary America: The Least Radical Means of Radically Repairing Our Broken Democracy” by Maxwell Stearns who teaches Constitutional Law & Economics at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. He agrees that the Founders never intended a two-party system but that is where we are now and it contributes to our dysfunctional government.
TCinLA, yes, but....
This dysfunction is built into the two-party system. It works when both parties have a passion for making the system work, and are willing to compromise. But you ultimately cannot square freedom with slavery, as OUR two parties represent, and as soon as the game gets overbalanced, the losing party has no incentive to compromise, or (for that matter) to do anything other than kneecap the other party. They are now playing an entirely different "game."
More specifically, as evidenced in these comments, it takes the hard work of compromise away from the politicians, and lays it on the voters, who are utterly unequipped for that task. I SHOULD be able to vote for Bernie, or Jill Stein, and the politicians who are elected should be able to use that vote count as a guideline for where the safety rails are. But the two party system conceals all that information, not only from the political parties, but from the voters. We are forced to make a binary choice between undesirable A and undesirable B, and are STUCK with that choice for two, or four, or six, or eight years, or for the lifetime of a justice.
The two-party system is pretty much designed to fail and come to civil war in the long run.
A lot of the fury in these comments -- and I have plenty of my own -- is built around the hopelessness of the system itself.
Thomas you have articulated very well some of the roadblocks that the “winner takes all” system imposes upon our country. This is what we got when the founders rejected a parliamentarian form of government which allows for third parties to participate in the government. We would be a much better country if third parties were robust instead in name only. We would gain a diversity of ideas that could be articulated and impact government policies if we dumped the “winner takes all” system. This (IMO) could allow a more balanced and inclusive government. Few people again IMO) recognize how much of an outlier the US is with both the “winner takes all” system and the Electoral College.
Hmm. I'm sure Heather has covered this at some point, but I don't recall (or know) the details.
I looked up "parliamentary democracy," and it seems to be quite different from what the US has. In particular, the ruling party (or coalition) in parliament also determines the Prime Minister (President).
But the subject of political parties was not (I think) addressed by the founders at all. In fact, prior to the American Civil War, it was extremely difficult to organize parties, given the slowness of transportation and communication. The South had the Democratic Party which supported slavery throughout the South, but the Northern states were a hodge-podge of parties, like the Free Soilers and Whigs. It wasn't until the time of Lincoln that these coalesced into the Republican Party.
I don't think the two-party system we have is anything other than tradition. There are certain duties in Congress that would necessarily fall to a single individual, but the rules of House and Senate could be changed to select these roles from multiple parties or coalitions. Like the MAGA rules for the House right now, that allow the Speaker to be thrown out by Marjorie Boeberti Boo on a whim.
We still have "third parties," like the Green Party. I think the issue has less to do with any constitutional issues, and a lot more to do with the organizational rules for campaign financing, which is a stacked deck that makes any third-party candidate into a sideshow.
I recommend “Parlimentary America: The Least Radical Means of Radically Repairing Our Broken Democracy” by Maxwell Stearns who teaches Constitutional Law & Economics at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. He agrees that the Founders never intended a two-party system but that is where we are now and it contributes to our dysfunctional government.