What it amounts to is that Obama and his henchmen in Congress seriously misjudged the mood of the electorate. Now they might be paying the price for that misjudgement in November.

It seems that winning an election makes the winner think everyone loves him and his ideas. Look at Bush in 2004 after his victory he said something like "I've earned my political capital and now I'm going to spend it" then went hard after Social Security and got shot down by Congress & the Dems. In exit polls do they ever ask whether you voted "for" one candidate or just "against" the other? Politicians suck.

You've highlighted the problem with the two party system. Alot of voting is for "the lesser of two evils".

Not that multiple party systems don't have their own inherant problems.

It makes me wonder if "true democracy" as we know it is actually the answer. Personally, I doubt it.

What it amounts to is that Obama and his henchmen in Congress seriously misjudged the mood of the electorate. Now they might be paying the price for that misjudgement in November.

It seems that winning an election makes the winner think everyone loves him and his ideas. Look at Bush in 2004 after his victory he said something like "I've earned my political capital and now I'm going to spend it" then went hard after Social Security and got shot down by Congress & the Dems. In exit polls do they ever ask whether you voted "for" one candidate or just "against" the other? Politicians suck.

You've highlighted the problem with the two party system. Alot of voting is for "the lesser of two evils".

Not that multiple party systems don't have their own inherant problems.

It makes me wonder if "true democracy" as we know it is actually the answer. Personally, I doubt it.

People are unable to vote against someone in multi-party systems? Maybe someone is the lesser of four evils.

What it amounts to is that Obama and his henchmen in Congress seriously misjudged the mood of the electorate. Now they might be paying the price for that misjudgement in November.

It seems that winning an election makes the winner think everyone loves him and his ideas. Look at Bush in 2004 after his victory he said something like "I've earned my political capital and now I'm going to spend it" then went hard after Social Security and got shot down by Congress & the Dems. In exit polls do they ever ask whether you voted "for" one candidate or just "against" the other? Politicians suck.

You've highlighted the problem with the two party system. Alot of voting is for "the lesser of two evils".

Not that multiple party systems don't have their own inherant problems.

It makes me wonder if "true democracy" as we know it is actually the answer. Personally, I doubt it.

People are unable to vote against someone in multi-party systems? Maybe someone is the lesser of four evils.

Sure, The problem I was alluding to is that multiple party systems ultimately end up in even less representation of the "majority", and coalitions have to infight and do backroom deals.

The only "single party" system I know of is called Communism.

That's not an option for me either.

The only "single party" system I know of is called Communism.

That's not an option for me either.

It has been said that democracy is the least imperfect of all systems of government.

I'm not satisfied that it is the least imperfect...there must be a better way.

I have a suspicion that democracy has become a catchcry for moderm man in such a way that, like the Emperor's new clothes, even intelligent people do not question it for fear of speaking out against everybody else who apparently do not see what they alone and individually see.

I don't know what the realistic solution is....I have some ideas, but I'm not a sociologist or political scientist, nor a philosopher, nor am I eloquent enough to verbalise properly those ideas....after all, if all systems that have been tried are imperfect, and democracy is that invisible cloth that nobody can critisise, any new idea would sound radical and would be pooh-poohed immediately.

The Emperor's new clothes!

Incidentaly, would "dictatorship" be (effectively) another "single party system"? And a monarchy? In the context of what we are talking about.

Incidentaly, would "dictatorship" be (effectively) another "single party system"? And a monarchy? In the context of what we are talking about.

How could either one be considered a "single party system"?

They are both ruled by a single person, unless it is a Constitutional Monarchy and I know of no Constitutional Monarchy that has only one party. Do you?

By the way, the US is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Wikipedia might help explain it. I am too tired tonight to get into it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Incidentaly, would "dictatorship" be (effectively) another "single party system"? And a monarchy? In the context of what we are talking about.

How could either one be considered a "single party system"?

They are both ruled by a single person, unless it is a Constitutional Monarchy and I know of no Constitutional Monarchy that has only one party. Do you?

By the way, the US is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Wikipedia might help explain it. I am too tired tonight to get into it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Never mind, it was a question, not a suggestion, and I was focusing on "effectively" and "in the context of what we are talking about", ie alternatives to two or more party systems. Seems you wanted to take "party" and look at it that way.

Incidentaly, would "dictatorship" be (effectively) another "single party system"? And a monarchy? In the context of what we are talking about.

How could either one be considered a "single party system"?

They are both ruled by a single person, unless it is a Constitutional Monarchy and I know of no Constitutional Monarchy that has only one party. Do you?

By the way, the US is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Wikipedia might help explain it. I am too tired tonight to get into it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Never mind, it was a question, not a suggestion, and I was focusing on "effectively" and "in the context of what we are talking about", ie alternatives to two or more party systems. Seems you wanted to take "party" and look at it that way.

I answered your question. An absolute Monarchy or Dictatorship is ruled by a single individual. There is no "party" participation involved in the decision making.

Incidentaly, would "dictatorship" be (effectively) another "single party system"? And a monarchy? In the context of what we are talking about.

How could either one be considered a "single party system"?

They are both ruled by a single person, unless it is a Constitutional Monarchy and I know of no Constitutional Monarchy that has only one party. Do you?

By the way, the US is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Wikipedia might help explain it. I am too tired tonight to get into it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Never mind, it was a question, not a suggestion, and I was focusing on "effectively" and "in the context of what we are talking about", ie alternatives to two or more party systems. Seems you wanted to take "party" and look at it that way.

I answered your question. An absolute Monarchy or Dictatorship is ruled by a single individual. There is no "party" participation involved in the decision making.

Yes, I realised that.....hence my observation that you honed in on the word "party", not the general idea of "party" in the context of the discussion possibly being an individual.

Your third party insurance policy includes individuals as a "third party"....same usage.

Lets get past the semantics.

We started talking about this from a comment that the "two party system" has flaws.

I extrapolated from that, and suggested that perhaps democracy is not the be-all and end-all, on account of that multi party systems have their own flaws also.

A single party system was a reasonable option to look at, you are right.

Let me re-word my inferrence.

Communism (I agree) is not a better option. (I go on to imply) Other "individual participating body" (sole party) options seem inadequate also.

Sorry I was not explicit before....I hope I have been here.