Should the U.S have a multi-party system?

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

 

No because less people would be happy like only 20% would be happy versus 45%

 

Holy crap what's your definition of happiness? If you're trolling me that is some brilliant satire.

 

I actually think they were replying to the topic of the thread.

 

No but how can happiness be "my political party's weighted influence in government"? The idea makes me laugh. But not in a mean-spirited way.

Edit: Actually I am not even sure what it means as I break it down? 20% of people happy versus 45%? Why are 45% happy..? :eusa_doh:

 

We have it in England it's good in one way that you get more choice but in some ways younot so because you have voting for smaller parties that won't make a differene.

 

Hmm... well, I think I'm gonna take a moment to sprinkle a little enlightenment on everyone and then I'm heading to bed. Let me ask you a few questions...

Does an apple tree ask for money before you take an apple from it?
Does a body of water ask to see your fishing license before you cast out?
Do you stop at a STOP sign because your car would explode if you ran it?

Is the President's suit enchanted with magic that gives him special powers over you? If you take his clothes off, and take yours off, you're both equal human beings, powerless over one another... so the delusionary power of government has just been shattered. YOU are the only one who can govern your own life. No one, no matter their name, their position, or their money, can tell YOU who to be, what to do, who to love, or what to wear. Not your parents, not your peers... just YOU, and only you.

Remember this, and you will be free.

 

Just sprinkle that fairy dust over soldiers, tanks, police, and other authorities and watch their powers magically disappear and realise your true freedom...

No. That is, to say the least, ridiculous. Your naked president still has power as long as their subordinates obey. Power can't be imagined away, nor can powerlessness be rectified by imagining equality.

There would be no revolutions if power didn't exist. And there would be no dictators. You can walk naked where laws forbid nudity, but that imaginary power might come along to arrest you pretty quickly.

 

As long as bastards exist they will convince others to do evil at their bidding. If that problem were licked some kind of groovy postmodernist anarchy would be awwwwwright.

 

So I wonder, how many of you would support an alternative vote system that would replace the "first past the post" voting system. I'll go through and explain how a voter would go and vote in this system.

So let's talk about John Doe on election day, and he has five choices for his US House representative, a Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, and the Reform Party. Now, John thinks favorable of the Green and Reform party (Which for the purposes of this, is going to be a centrist group), and would like to vote for one of them. He's indifferent towards the Libertarians and Democrats, and he HATES the GOP. Under FPTP voting, John only gets one vote, and under fear of a Republican candidate winning, he votes for a Democrat, which would have been his third or fourth choice overall. In the Alternative voting system, John gets to list his top candidate choices, 1 being his most favorable, and 5 being the least favorable. Going into the voting booth, John chooses the Green Party candidate as his first choice, Reform as his second, and Democrat as his third, and decides to quit, since he doesn't want to give any vote to the GOP, even if it's his fifth place vote. The vote turns out like this:

Green - 16%
Democrat - 24%
Reform - 22%
Libertarian - 21%
GOP - 23%

In the alt vote, the candidate with the least amount of votes is thrown out, and their votes are given to the next candidate they gave votes to. In this case, they all gave votes to the Democrats.

Democrat - 40%
Reform - 22%
Lib. - 21%
GOP - 23% Libertarians have the least amount of votes, so they are eliminated and their votes distributed to the Reform Party and the GOP, in a 3-2 Margin.

Democrat - 40%
Reform - 35%
GOP - 25% The GOP is now eliminated, and their voters listed the Reform Party as their next best option. The Reform Candidate wins the seat, 60-40. This voting system gives more power to those of third party candidates, and will keep the major two parties honest so that they will get more votes from the third parties, that in the end, will either help them win or lose.

It's usually referred to as the alternative voting system.

 

Yes I was taught about this form of voting but I can't remember the name... I'd prefer it over what we got, mos def.

 

Personally, I feel that given the culture of US politics, a multi-party system could turn out worse and lead to greater inaction, finger-pointing, and utter chaos. I frankly don't trust Americans with too many choices, haha.

 

I here have a picture that, in my opinion, does a great job explaining why the US, and in fact, all countries, should have a multi-party system:

Spoiler

 

The influence of wealth on politics is such that the current two party system is non-responsive to voter input. Two cents.

 

It is possible for small parties to rise to big parties in the UK just as it is possible for big parties to fade into nothing. UKIP has made quite a worrying amount of progress and remember that ancient Liberal Democrat party long lost to time. The only thing the little parties need is the drive to do what UKIP has sadly done and fight for the power to effect change.

On another note I would rather die than live in a world with absolute freedom. the sad truth is people are arse holes. Now if we could live in a world where people are all lovely and nice then that would be wonderful but without governments and laws telling us what we can and cant do then people would do exactly that, I'm thinking that we would die out as a race.

Dont get me wrong I strive for a world where people don't steal because its wrong instead of because the law says not too. However until that day comes I bloody love the British system. Britain as a constitution does not have the right to free speech. Example On the matter of race and religion if you say anything derogatory you can and will be arrested.

Rob: Not Free since ever and Loving It! (!)

(Sorry, Got a bit carried away!)

 

I think it's hard to get things done with a multi party system, because our democratic government's don't really work for the people. They work for whoever voted for them versus considering what everyone wants.

This mind set is true in our population, people will blast you because you didn't vote, or because you didn't vote for a certain leader, when you complain about the government. I have the right to complain regardless of if I voted or not. Whoever is elected should be for the people not for his caucus.

I live in Canada, we have the Conservatives(like Americas Democrats but more liberal), Liberals(borderline socialist), New Democratic Party(socialist basically), Bloc Quebecois(Quebec's separatist party), Green Party (heavily environment oriented).

To me the Bloc Quebecois is a moronic party because they only get votes in Quebec and therefore will never run the country, they will never have enough seats to make a difference. Separatism should stay within the Provincial elections of Quebec, only then can things get done. Quebec nationalists would do themselves a favour by putting all their effort into Provincial Parliament.

All of them team up against eachother; minus the Green Party who rarely gets seats; but will be a legit contender in the future.

The worst thing about multi-party systems like Canada is minority governments and coalitions. When a minority government; meaning one that doesn't have over 50% of the power, is elected, it is very easy for nothing to get done, and for parliament; U.S' congress, to be just a big waste of money and time. Coalitions are multiple parties teaming up against either the minority or majority government that is currently in power. It is a disgrace.

A multi party system is more reflective of true democracy, but human nature stops anything from getting accomplished because it becomes a contest and we use words like opposition, coalition...etc, which all stir up emotions of us versus them. This mind set should not exist in government. All parties should recognized they have a very important job to do and that it is their DUTY to serve THE ENTIRE population, and not to pander to their specific voters, and their specific itinerary.

Democracy in the west is a joke, far from a real democracy. Attack ads, debates, winners, losers, all these words should not exist when it comes to running the lives of a group of people. People only live once, they don't need part of their lives wasted because whoever was elected either made decisions that negatively effected them or didn't accomplish anything and just wasted tax payer money bickering.

I am so fed up with wasting government funds on running a parliament that doesn't work.

So to answer your question, definitely not, at least with a two party you are guaranteed to not completely waste time.

 

I miss the good old Imperialist days where everything was done with the good of the country in mind

 

I'm with the Democrats I guess a little more on the conservative wing of the party, but yes, not allowing other party reps on the debate stage probably violates the constitution anyways.

 

Not at all.

 

A multi-party system can be detrimental when it starts to impede on the ability of the government to actually govern because people within the government are constantly at odds - but at the same time, it's a good thing to have smaller parties within a government so the larger parties don't become too complacent because they know the voters have only two realistic choices - that's basically what happens here*. Only two parties here are electable. People pick the party which they dislike the least. That's not my idea of a proper, functioning democracy. The Global Democracy index would seem to agree with my thoughts - placing multi-party states like Norway and Finland at the top of the ranking - and I would be inclined to agree that most European democracies function better than the American equivalent (American politics certainly has a less-than-favourable image over on this side of the Atlantic).

*It also happens on smaller, more local levels. There is one city here where one party has 100% of all the seats. The city council there can rest easy knowing that no other party can encroach on their unrelenting dominance. If there is one good thing to come form the rise of UKIP, it's that it might give the major parties the kick up the arse they need.