The names of the parties changed, but the fact that there were two did not. That is a structural issue, as has been abundantly covered in this thread. Santa is correct in his explanations. And it's not about campaign finance. Look at Ross Perot and how much he spent on his third party runs, and yet not a single electoral college vote.

Many people here seem to have a problem with "division" and "competition." What do you think politics is about? We have a political system at all because THERE IS A LACK OF CONSENSUS. People disagree about how society should be governed. In the bad old days, we'd just kill those whose opinions we didn't like. Nowadays we berate them on the internet, and try to beat them in elections. Our entire system is designed to channel our disagreements in peaceful ways, protecting the rights of the minority while still empowering majorities to get things done. Sometimes the system breaks down, especially if one side takes their ball and says they aren't going to play by the rules anymore (see 1861-1865). You think our current system is too rough, too nasty, too mean? Study the early days of the Republic! The Federalists v. the Republicans! You want to talk about division?

Quit living in some Mr. Rogers-inspired dream world, where "we could all just get along", if only nasty people weren't spending so much money on politics. Here in the real world, real people have real legitimate differences about real issues, and they have the right to put their money where their mouths are.

If America were the greatest country in the world as the uneducated around us think, I wouldn't be saying this at all. There's a real problem with swapping parties every four or eight years, economically of course, but even more is the environment. Obama's environmental policy is pathetic, simply because he's had other Bush administration shit thrown at him, and now he's stuck with the issues he's had. It's sad that he doesn't care. His Middle Eastern policy is really pathetic as well and that's a real issue to me. The environment is what's going to be our end; no nuclear holocaust is going to wipe out humanity nor will any disease or random meteor. Supervolcano is a phrase I don't think is going to impact us any time soon. It'll be us that ends us.

Yeah, I just rambled about trees on here, I know. It seems like nobody else really cares and that's a sign that things are coming that I'm not sure I want to be around to see.

Three parties wouldn't solve every problem and it would certainly pose new issues, but it would solve the issue that I bring up. It would give me an actual voice. Not just a single term voice until I get overruled by the opposite extreme. I'm pretty balanced in my Conservative/Liberal views; I don't fall into either side, and that's something I appreciate. Unfortunately, people want what they don't have, and if they don't have one party, they'll get it next time. It's a cycle and it's tearing us apart at the seams.

If I were going to remodel the GOP, I would definitely start to abandon the social issues and neoconservative elements (the two oldest and fastest shrinking subgroups) of the party and focus much more on smaller government. Paint the Democratic Party as the party of big government and distance the GOP from the bad old days of Bush. The next generation is already looking very libertarian and we need to make sure they join the good guys.

Bo, I think you have good thoughts but in time will use them to defend the two party system. I think you need further reading and understanding, but also more time to observe how the political system in the US functions. No doubt I do as well but I have at least a few years on you.

I could put forward an argument that the two party system is the perfect vehicle for mass democracy. On the one hand, it is a check against the monopolization of government by one party, which I am sure we agree is a positive feature of two parties over one. But there is a case to be made that the two parties are better than three ore more. You could describe the multiplicity of parties as ideological fragmentation - competition between the parties would be more about the competing ideologies rather than an up-or-down vote on the party in power. Above all, the two-party competition is a yes / no on the policies of government. One party will always be the in-party, the party of government, and the other party the challenger responding to the actions of government, and their consequences. (A by-product of this is that both parties generally will support a core set of centrist policies). So, the two party system avoids the danger of a one party state by having meaningful competition, but not so much competition that the focus shifts from the success / failure of government to partisan ideologies.

But this is just thinking out loud - I think the better argument is that the United States has been stable and successful for a very long time with a two party system, yet has certainly experimented with many different philosophies and agendas. Proof is in the pudding as it were.

I think it is worthwhile to separate policy from politics, for the purposes of evaluating the two party system. America self-evidently features a very long streak of good policymaking. That is true even today as ours is the leading advanced economy in terms of growth. That said, I do think that the two parties degrade political rhetoric and the public discourse, and arguably moreso than either a one party or a multiparty state. The attack style of politics is something uniquely realized in a two party system. *But* on the other hand, both out party and in party have to constantly shift their rhetoric to be responsive to the demands of the electorate, which are ever changing, sometimes predictable, sometimes participatory / emergent, and sometimes seemingly random. The point is, in a two party system there is a very delicate balancing act which is ultimately focused on the desires of the electorate in very subtle ways. That is why US politicians can say things which are very generic sounding but communicate both very little, and very much, at the same time. There are layers and layers of mass psychology and implicature and idealism and practicalities embedded in US political rhetoric.

Contrast this in particular to a likely outcome in a multiparty system. Without the constant competition between two forces, each about as likely as the other to gain the upper hand, parties will primarily have conversations with themselves about their ideology and rhetoric.

Finally, there's something aesthetically pleasing about a two party system, in a dialectical, dualistic way.

A thing that is worrying is that we look like we are headed to a period where political affiliation is tied directly to geographical location. This is the wa politics worked until the New Deal and was a major reason for the corruption that was allowed to run rampant in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. That is not healthy for our country.

I have observed that myself, but I think that it would be even worse in this day and age because of the size and configuration of the federal government.

We need to go back to a more old school state-oriented style of governance in order to (among other very good reasons) reduce the negative effects of sectional divide.

Or we could just do away with the institution of the state altogether.

All power to the corporations, brah.

Yeah brah Monsanto4lyfe

All I know is that Big Brother Always Wins!

You don't really believe that Eden. You're a Ron Paul supporter. I'll bet you're all over the idea of states' rights.

Actually, that's my biggest point of divergence from Paul. I'm a libertarian, not a constitutionalist; it just so happens that in a fair number of situations that Paul's views coincide with mine, generally because most of his presidential platform has involved a common goal (downsizing the federal government). In theory I do like the concept of decentralization of governmental power; smaller polities, just by sheer (lack of) numbers, are going to be more representative than larger polities. In practice, though, decentralization of governmental power has simply made fighting injustice and advancing freedom more difficult, and in a lot of ways is simply trading one undesired outcome for another, so I'm not keen to stick out my neck for states rights.

Stressedlines: I also belive that building from the ground up is the best way. I think a 20-year plan is overconfident and would excpect something more like 50 years, but I do agree. I just don't see exactly how to do it. I would start by trying to change how the people of this country think; trying to build a party without an electorate that agrees with you is impossible.

a 'two party" system may have it's faults, but it's better than a one party system

pay more taxes and get a decent free public education system, including tertiary

@ President Eden

Fair enough. I actually agree with most of Congressman Paul's views but I cannot bring myself to support him because he scares me when he starts talking about defense. Close foreign bases? Cut the military budget? Retreat from Afghanistan? Ridiculous.

I will stick my neck out for states' rights. I think that the Constitution has been incorporated to the state level enough that injustice is not a real possibility. Going back to a state-based system of governance would not mean going back to the bad old days of discrimination.

And I trust my state government more than the federal government. There's much less bureaucracy and red tape for the corrupt to hide behind.

Eden wins. States are already going to the bad old days of discrimination.

JECE, I think you would have to start in a more regional way FIRST. Pick an area, that you think is symapthetic to your views, and try to win some small local elections there first, maybe some state senate representitive races, etc.

Make an impact in a state first, and then point to THOSE results.

Stressedlines: Now we're talking business. ;-) Are your political views also to the left?

@ JECE and Stressedlines

That's another good thing about more state power. Grassroots movements are generally more successful at the state level, and they can affect desirable change in that state.

@ Putin33

Okay, I'll bite. How are states going back to the bad old days of discrimination? I haven't seen black people in the rear of buses or using different bathrooms lately.

me? to the left? uhh, i would say certainly not...lol

Gunfighter is right, it is easier for me to relate to someone from the same area I live in, as I know what concerns they will have. You know, National elections are about 5-8 states, and the rest of teh states, well fuck ya.

And to be honest, local elections carry a lot of change power also.

The problem, as I see it, is that up until recently both parties picked something they wanted and cut a deal to implement both - let's give tax cuts to the wealthy AND new spending for social programs. Most politicians take this as the easy way out because it lets them claim victories at home and stay in power.

The Tea Party has changed things a bit, but not for the better. Instead, all they do say it has to be their way or no way. Or as dipplayer2004 said, take their ball and go home.
In some ways, I was even in favor of the balanced budget amendment to the constitution - but I can't imagine it would have worked.

What we really need is something that can't be legislated - I'll call it the "Grow up, stop whining and be a man or woman" amendment. We need a reasonable level of taxes in order to pay for things as a society. We also need a reasonable level of social programs to protect our us and fellow citizens in unfortunate circumstances. And that really needs to be enforced by the voting public. Stop voting for nutjob, extremist candidates (Todd Akin).

PS. If none of that works, I volunteer to be dictator for life. Obviously my ideas are the right ones.

dangermouse , I don't see any Diplo contribution doo-dah against your name, is that because you're a socialist i.e. let someone else pay?

The voter id laws are aimed at black voters, who disproportionately dont have Ids. Furthermore theres the antiwomen laws.

@Nigee - It's because I've been around so long the doo-dah didn't exist when I donated. Let me tell you about a mythical time before alternate maps, Dip Points, variable phase times, anonymous games and even the webdiplomacy URL. There were no moderators and multis roamed the land in packs.

I would say I'm pretty close to socialist if you use the definition recently invented by the Republican party. But a real socialist? No.

oh, you mean the php days and beyond? :)

Yup.

And sorry for hijacking the thread. :)