America has but two parties.(Note: I know that the is one more party playing the game, but it's so far it's ineffectual, so I am dismissing it for this discussion) Many believe that there should be more, many say two is fine.

What is your position on this issue?

Do see any problems in the future, or now, with just having two parties?

Should we have more than one? If so, what should these other parties represent?

How many would become too many?

What would be the pros and cons of having more parties?

I think that's enough to get you maniacs started, so go for it.

During Holland´s Prime Years (say since the war until about 6 or 8 years ago) was mostly managed by coalitions of multiple parties. I think sometimes as many as 15 or 20 parties co-managing - yes, that´s word - a small extremly productive nation that has never really lost it´s influence too much on international and internal affairs..

Of course, it´s all gone to cr@p now, I gather, as the world becomes more at.. shall we say... one!

During Holland´s Prime Years (say since the war until about 6 or 8 years ago) was mostly managed by coalitions of multiple parties. I think sometimes as many as 15 or 20 parties co-managing - yes, that´s word - a small extremly productive nation that has never really lost it´s influence too much on international and internal affairs..

Of course, it´s all gone to cr@p now, I gather, as the world becomes more at.. shall we say... one!

That's one of the problems with this issue in America. We almost can't use other countries as examples because it never really fits. As you said Holland's a small country, so what they do wouldn't work here at all. I think we are stuck in that two party rut simply because for a nation this size the fewer the parties the more manageable. I think this will led us to ruin, don't know how bad though, so a few more parties would help, but how many?

Multiple parties seem to work OK in parliamentary systems, but never seem to get off the ground with a system like the US has. Minor, mainly issue-oriented parties pop up now and then, but they never last. The reason is that neither the President nor the major parties in Congress are ever in a position where they are required to share power with minor parties as they often are in parliamentary systems.

Multiple parties seem to work OK in parliamentary systems, but never seem to get off the ground with a system like the US has. Minor, mainly issue-oriented parties pop up now and then, but they never last. The reason is that neither the President nor the major parties in Congress are ever in a position where they are required to share power with minor parties as they often are in parliamentary systems.

This is very true, yet we have had other parties. It just seems that our other parties were replaced. However, Washington warned us against the two party system. If you accept the Opposition Writers stance that power will always try to overcome liberty then placing the countries power even into the hands of two parties still seems like too many eggs in one basket.

Also, the Opposition Writers said that the only thing that would keep liberty safe was the character of the nations people. A lot of Americans have stopped voting, they feel that they are not represented by either of these two parties, which means more power to the party die-hards. So, wouldn't creating other parties bring back some of the people to the ballot boxes? Wouldn't it be easier to safe-guard our liberty with more parties than just two who always have a 50/50 chance? How much change would they really be willing to make?

I totally agree with what you are saying. I just think that America will inevitably end up with two powerful parties unless structural changes are made in the way both elections and government work.

One thing that might help is shorter, less expensive campaign sessions at all levels. Fair (not gerrymandered) Congressional districts might also help.

There are at least 2 sizable small parties competing (Greens and Libertarian), but I blame the electoral system on marginalising any new initiatives.

Almost 300 million people, and only 2 parties sharing the bulk of voters between them?

Say no more...

Two parties which share most of the same platform and policies. It's not surprising that the majority of Americans don't bother to vote.

Any suggestions how democracy can be brought to the American people ?

They could try the Australian method of making voting compulsory.

when you vote for some one to be the representitive of your area in government , you would expect that they be allowed to vote on descisions to the advantage of their represented area. This is not the case as they are forced to vote along party lines.

Multiple party systems can only function if the voting system is changed.

"First past the post" systems only allow for 2 or 3 parties survival in the system.

However, "proportional representation" allows the votes to be distributed between several parties depending on, perhaps, their response to particular issues.

This is practised in Denmark (and other countries with many parties) with the result the governments of Denmark have always been coalitions. IMHO, this method of government promotes the most essential quality in a political representative - the ability to compromise and achieve results.

The only disadvantage as far as I can see is, that while relatively innocuous parties like eg "the Greens of America" may receive its fair share of seats in the Senate and the House, other parties, perhaps not so sympathetic to an easy life, of the "Klu Klux Klan" variety, for example, will also have their seat - and their voice.

The only disadvantage as far as I can see is, that while relatively innocuous parties like eg "the Greens of America" may receive its fair share of seats in the Senate and the House, other parties, perhaps not so sympathetic to an easy life, of the "Klu Klux Klan" variety, for example, will also have their seat - and their voice.

The solution is easy: To prevent a crippling amount of tiny groups in parliament, a percentage hurdle is introduced, for ex. in Germany a party needs to gain at least 5% of votes to make it into parliament based on the proportional vote (it has a 2 vote system, one direct and one proportional).

RE: KKK, illegal organisations may not stand for election, of course.

The only disadvantage as far as I can see is, that while relatively innocuous parties like eg "the Greens of America" may receive its fair share of seats in the Senate and the House, other parties, perhaps not so sympathetic to an easy life, of the "Klu Klux Klan" variety, for example, will also have their seat - and their voice.

The solution is easy: To prevent a crippling amount of tiny groups in parliament, a percentage hurdle is introduced, for ex. in Germany a party needs to gain at least 5% of votes to make it into parliament based on the proportional vote (it has a 2 vote system, one direct and one proportional).

RE: KKK, illegal organisations may not stand for election, of course.

There is a 5% hurdle in Denmark, but parities such as (I am not being critical) the Communist Party, the Venstre Socialists (a Trotskyist party) and Fremskridsparty (noted for the fact it's leader used every tax fiddle available, paying 0% tax - in a country where the average income tax is 50% - and its avid anti-immigration/foreigner position) had seats in the parliament and the corresponding publicity.

As far as I remember Venstre Socialists and Fremskidsparty had about 15% each. Whilst possibly cancelling each other out on many issues, these percentages can have considerable influence on a coalition government.

As is the situation now in Denmark (and possibly one of the causes of the cartoon fiasco). The Right wing coalition relies on the support of the extreme Right spin off from Fremskridsparty – the National Party – for its support in parliament.

I think the main challenge to democracy as it is in the 'Party System' is the rise of Single Interest groups - ie The Green Party, Religous Parties, Animal Rights etc.

They capture votes and influence on single issues and distort the political debate.

Right, I appreciate that, even with the 5% hurdle you may still get situations where a country may be almost ungovernable.

But, one could counter, this would reflect the state of affairs and opinions the populace holds, there is no easy shortcut if one takes democratic principles seriously.

On the other hand, in the present US system, the winning party is almost guaranteed to have a strong advantage and actually implement the program they were elected for (putting aside all the false promises polititians come up with before elections). But this doesn't represent the will of the population as a whole, just look at the polarisation of public opinion in recent years, which has reached hysteric proportions.

I think the main challenge to democracy as it is in the 'Party System' is the rise of Single Interest groups - ie The Green Party, Religous Parties, Animal Rights etc.

They capture votes and influence on single issues and distort the political debate.

If they 'capture' more than 5% of the votes, it must be a pretty important single issue other parties fail to address. That's democracy in action.

Btw, the Green Parties may have started as "Single Interest groups" some 30 years ago, but looking at f.e. the German Greens, after having been a coalition partner in goverment for years, this hardly holds true anymore.

... just look at the polarisation of public opinion in recent years, which has reached hysteric proportions.

I don't disagree with what you are saying (also in the part I have clipped).

Although, I am not so sure the polarisation of public opinion has any direct cause in the electoral system. That it exists in the "public" arena, may have, but I believe this polarisation is endemic of other factors such as under developed political education and experience; media more concerned with earning a fast buck than telling the truth etc.

I could argue that changing the voting system and allowing representation of people’s views in smaller and more numerous parties, only pushes this polarisation from the "public" arena and into the Parliament.

But then that is where it belongs, isn't it?

...right, but a 3rd or 4th party getting more airtime for their views, may help resolve any polarisations developing between only 2 parties.

I agree with TM, I wonder what this will do for my reputation. (sorry, couldn't help it )

I agree with TM, I wonder what this will do for my reputation. (sorry, couldn't help it )

In the bars, internet cafes and sweat holes of Pattaya?

About as much as your wit, I suppose?

I´m actually with Zzap on this one...

So i´ll let him do the typing...

Nah, seriously though, I agree with his points.

I totally agree with what you are saying. I just think that America will inevitably end up with two powerful parties unless structural changes are made in the way both elections and government work.

One thing that might help is shorter, less expensive campaign sessions at all levels. Fair (not gerrymandered) Congressional districts might also help.

Great point!

Two parties which share most of the same platform and policies. It's not surprising that the majority of Americans don't bother to vote.

Any suggestions how democracy can be brought to the American people ?Mayve someone should invade us?

They could try the Australian method of making voting compulsory.

Two parties which share most of the same platform and policies. It's not surprising that the majority of Americans don't bother to vote.

Any suggestions how democracy can be brought to the American people ?Mayve someone should invade us?

They could try the Australian method of making voting compulsory.

Well, the American people got their democracy initially through Revolution !

The armed populace rose up against an oppressive (but legitimate) ruler, threw some tea in the water, fought a war and signed a declaration of independance.

Sadly, things have gone downhill since then

There was a debate in British Columbia awhile ago, about possibly changing the "first-past-the-post" electoral system.

The fringe parties were whining (what's new ) that they couldn't get anyone elected. Little wonder. Who in their right mind is going to elect "The Marijuana Party", whose only platform is the legalisation of marijuana ?

Or the Libertarian Party (let's all be yoga flyers) !

Some have suggested the "Proportional Representation" system, where half the members of the elected body would come from a "first-past-the-post" election, and the other half would be picked by the individual parties based on the overall percentage of the votes received.

That would result in half the government consisting of unelected people !

Many proponents of Proportional Representation point to New Zealand as an example of how great it works.

Of course, they pointedly ignore places like Israel and Italy, where it causes more problems that it solves.

One problem with a 2 party system is being demonstrated daily in the US. There are only 2 views to pick from, the Hard Right, or the Extreme Left. Very little if any common ground (central thinking).

This is probably why so many people are not voting. Each side is too extreme one way or the other.

We have numerous parties in Canada, including the "fringe" element. The main parties are the Liberals (no bias here ), the Conservatives , the New Democratics and the separatist Bloc Quebecois

The Conservatives are on the Right, the Liberals on the Left, the New Dems are way out in Leftist field and the Bloc is primarily concerned with splitting up the country.

Most of those parties (except the Bloc) have all gravitated towards policies that are more in the center of the political spectrum.

They realise that by being too far off to one side or another loses them votes. By presenting a platform and policies that appeal to The Majority of the people, they hope to gain enough votes from all sides to win (obviously).

A multi-party system can help to keep the majors honest, by presenting ideas that appeal to a sizeable hunk of the population, but it can also hamper a government with constant infighting, demands for concessions, and threats to bring down the goverment (like we see in Italy and Israel all the time).

Think of the UN. It is similar to a multi-party system, and it seems very little meaningful work ever gets done there. There are just too many separate groups vying for power and concessions for that organisation to be able to function effectively.

Would who ever is still awake at this point please turn out the lights as you leave. Thank you.