Forum: The American President Online

Responses:

---

Subject: Two Party System - Embedded Power
From: oj
Date: 04 Apr 2000 8:53 PM

It is still impossible to break the power of the two very similar, power sharing, propaganda ejecting parties. Recent chance was killed by Ross Perot, immature Ventura, and general lack of oposition leadership. It has been argued that people have power to change things but most of us are not interested, too bussy, too lazy, too well off. AND WE LACK THE RESOURCES TO PENETRATE ALL THE PROPAGANDA AND FIND THE TRUTHS. WW2 Goebels and J. Stalin were amateurs in comparison with todays sophistication of opinion and market research and the political BS. It is "bread and games" like in the good old Rome. Just look at your kids and friends - who is involved with any impact?One solution may be in the Swiss type of democracy: rule by a referendum. Are we up to it? Would we participate??

---

Subject: Two Party System
From: Richard Cardell
Date: 04 Apr 2000 10:07 PM

Our founding fathers did not plan for a two-party system but it soon emerged. Actually the system has served the nation well, dispite its faults. Our country's government has been more stable than most of the world's democracies. Third parties have provided issues which have been taked up by the major parties. More important than whether the President is a member of the same party as the majority in Congress is if the President has the skills & the will to work with Congress.

---

Subject: The Two-Party System
From: Frank E. Mosher
Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:22 PM

A two-party system would work best if centrism was the formation of 80% of the public opinion. Unfortunately, it is not, at least in this republic of ours. What we have is two coalitions striving to keep the center holding while doing their best to keep the fringe wings from destroying the unity of the coalition for the sake of ideological purity or their vested interests. And it usually only succeeds for a season; after that, the left wing of the Democrats or the right wing of the Republicans will tear their Party apart. We need a multiparty democracy!

---

Subject: Two Party System
From: Bruce Johnson
Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:50 AM

I am not convinved a three party system can work under the American form of government. The only way a third party can successfully seat a president, if I remember by high school civics correctly, is to win a majority of the electoral college. Since that will be difficult at best in a system with three viable nationwide parties what we condemn ourselves to is having our presidents chosen by the House of Representatives. That requires the third party to have been strong enough in the years preceding to command enough Reps to be a factor in the House. If the third party is not a factor, then the decision is between the two main parties candidates anyway and the third party gets squeezed out. If it is a factor but not a majority then things would get really fun and interesting. Horse trading would be an understatement. An example of what this might mean is the election of John Quincy Adams when there were three candidates in one party and the election went to the the House in 1820?. Jackson won the popular vote but lost out to Adams in the House. So the true question, it seems to me is do we want a system more akin to those in Europe. I think not. First, the United States is too large and complicated a nation for a European type government to work here efficiently. Second, I do not see how we gain anything by changing our system except discord and instability.

---

Subject: math
From: Erin
Date: 12 Dec 2000 9:04 PM

that i want to tell you about math skills

---

Subject: Is This Important?
From: Peter B. Thomas
Date: 04 Apr 2000 10:55 PM

Who Cares? It is what it is when it is!

---

Subject: Two Party System
From: Wm
Date: 04 Apr 2000 5:44 PM

We have a two party system in this country because the executive branch is a winner take all proposition. If a candidate only receives 38 to 43 percent of the vote like Lincoln, Wilson, Nixon, or Clinton you still get to apppoint 100% of the cabinet, 100% of the judiciary, and 100% of the ambassadors. We don't have coalition governments under a Presidential system as opposed to a parlimentary system. Even if a third party had succeeded in preventing a major party candidate from receiving a majority of the electoral college; the election would be decided in the House of represenatives - and how many Progressive Party member were in Congress in 1912, American Independent Party members in 1968, or Reform Party members in 1992?

---

Subject: The 2 party system works
From: Seeker of Wisdom
Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:31 PM

The 2 party system really does work pretty well. Having said that, 3rd parties are usefull when and if the 2 main parties stray too far from the desires of the public at large. The whole deal about electing a president from one party and congress from another is a recent talking point by the political left. Until the 104th congress it was a very very long time since there had been a Republican congress. In my life time there has not been a case where both the president and both houses of congress were Republican. It's high time we try it and see what happens. The Demoncrats have had a number of opertunities of this kind while I have never seen the Republicans get the chance. If Reagan had had both houses he could have gotten the spending cuts that were to go with the tax cuts and our national debt would be considerably smaller. Thank God we have had a Republican congress that have come up with some more reasonable budgets in recent years.

---

Subject: Party Politics
From: Henry A. Depue
Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:07 AM

We do not have a two party system. We have two parties that know how to work together to keep any third party from being an active part of the system. A party that can draw enough votes to receive federal matching funds ought to be able to participate in debates and other places that give it an opportunity to be tell where it stands. As is they will limit debate to the two major parties as though no one else deserves a voice.

---

Subject: Two Party System
From: Dee
Date: 08 Aug 2000 3:15 PM

Why only two parties? What happened to Democracy? Does this mean that if you don't agree with either one you can't become President?Why appoint the rest of the "staff"? Why not have all members elected on a two-, three-, and four-year terms?Also, why not have ALL elected positions, from local on up on set terms, with only a one time re-election?

---

Subject: Two party system
From: Paul
Date: 08 Aug 2000 3:46 PM

Electing Supreme Court judges and the Cabinet Secretaries would be the kind of chaotic gridlock that any complete democracy creates. That is why we have a Republic, rather than a "democracy". The President as head of government must have a staff which is in consonance with him, not independent of him. The true problem is with the entrenched, employees who control the information flow to the heads of the various departments.

---

Subject: The two main party system is wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: Skyler hamilton
Date: 01 Jan 2001 11:08 PM

The two main parties are, of course Republican and Democrat. Why are all the presidents since the thirteenth president, Millard Fillmore in the whig party a democrat or republican? Because parties such as the Independant party or the Green party don't get tv channels with their speeches like republican and democrats do. The parties other than republicans and democrats don't get a fair chance. Is some person going to vote for a person in some party other than democrat or republican that he doesn't know? Of course not, and you know why that person doesn't know who the person in ,let's say, the Green party? Because the people running for president in the independant party, or the Green party, etc., etc., etc. don't get TV channels that shoe their debates over other people who are running for a different party, and people don't know their ideas and what he's going to say he's going to try to do if he becomes president and stuff like that. I was glad that in the 2000 election, Ralph Nader for the Green party got almost 5%. I hope that the Republican-democrat thing stops so we can have a president from a party that is other than republican or democrat for the first time since Millard Fillmore.