The Founding Fathers Tried to Warn Us About the Threat From a Two-Party System.

[elleng]

John Adams said:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

George Washington agreed, saying in his farewell presidential speech:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/the-founding-fathers-tried-to-warn-us-about-the-threat-from-a-two-party-system.html

[felix_numinous]

1. K&R

Thank you for posting. Separation of banks and state would be best.

[malthaussen]

5. Why not a State-administered bank? n/t

[no_hypocrisy]

2. My reservation of an election with more than two candidates is that

one candidate could possibly be elected with 34% of the voters (even less as about half of registered voters come out in November, making an election determined by 17 or 18% of the population).

[egold2604]

9. as happened in Maine with their idiot governor

[Jim__]

3. Winner take all elections may be the cause of the 2-party system.

From wikipedia:

There are several reasons why, in some systems, two major parties dominate the political landscape. There has been speculation that a two-party system arose in the United States from early political battling between the federalists and anti-federalists in the first few decades after the ratification of the Constitution, according to several views.[1][22] In addition, there has been more speculation that the winner-takes-all electoral system as well as particular state and federal laws regarding voting procedures helped to cause a two-party system.[1]

Political scientists such as Maurice Duverger[23] and William H. Riker claim that there are strong correlations between voting rules and type of party system. Jeffrey D. Sachs agreed that there was a link between voting arrangements and the effective number of parties. Sachs explained how the First Past The Post voting arrangement tended to promote a two-party system:

The main reason for America's majoritarian character is the electoral system for Congress. Members of Congress are elected in single-member districts according to the "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) principle, meaning that the candidate with the plurality of votes is the winner of the congressional seat. The losing party or parties win no representation at all. The first-past-the-post election tends to produce a small number of major parties, perhaps just two, a principle known in political science as Duverger's Law. Smaller parties are trampled in first-past-the-post elections.
— Sachs, The Price of Civilization, 2011[24]

Consider a system in which voters can vote for any candidate from any one of many parties. Suppose further that if a party gets 15% of votes, then that party will win 15% of the seats in the legislature. This is termed proportional representation or more accurately as party-proportional representation. Political scientists speculate that proportional representation leads logically to multi-party systems, since it allows new parties to build a niche in the legislature:

Because even a minor party may still obtain at least a few seats in the legislature, smaller parties have a greater incentive to organize under such electoral systems than they do in the United States.
— Schmidt, Shelley, Bardes (2008), [1]

[Jefferson23]

4. The Republicans are ripe for a serious challenge. I do not get the sense they have any

credible means to stop what is happening on their side. I look at what they say to stop
Trump as well as what they do not say to his supporters. It is astonishing how even
at this point none of their candidates are addressing the anger with respect to
trade agreements and WS enabling. The establishment has used soft racism as opposed
to Trumps version for so long..St Ronnie being one of the worst racist presidents in modern
history. So that has come back to bite them too...Romney is still defending Trumps birther
lies about Obama while trying to sound offended at Trump saying GW Bush was a liar on
Iraq. The MSM has not called out Romney much that I 'm aware of..where was he when
so many on his side threw racist crap at Obama for the last 7 years?

I don't pretend to know how this ends for the GOP but they have boxed themselves
in and a good percent of their electorate are clearly not buying it. Also clear, they
would rather lose the WH than see what Trump would do to their investment class
and wars for profit industry. I do believe what they fear most is Trump winning not losing.


Our side had better be careful, we are not far behind. We don't seem as unreasonable by
comparison yet the DNC is not listening imo and believes they can win by saying..hey, We
are not Trump, vote for us. We need Independents and I don't like how those numbers look
for us in the GE.

Very interesting OP..thank you.

[malthaussen]

7. But somebody has to be elected.

I'll be interested to see how many write-ins Bugs Bunny has this year.

-- Mal

[Jefferson23]

8. Yes but the process here is going to determine what comes next after the election.

I believe that is true for both sides. I have no idea what they'll do with all that
angst..but there is an abundance of it. I suspect our side will be acting out
on a Clinton administration from within and from us...she is not Obama and
I don't expect her to be given the benefit of the doubt.

[malthaussen]

6. One thing they did not foresee

Was that the two ostensibly antagonistic factions would find a modus vivendi whereby they could set themselves apart from the public and mulct it for their own enrichment. Factions were deplorable, because of the reasons given, but it was thought that they would play off against one another in a balance (the Founders were very interested in maintaining this balance). Private vices, it was hoped, would lead to public virtue because of the need of the private individual to maintain public standing. Oddly congruent to the concepts of the "hidden hand" and "trickle down," in which the earnest hope is that, while the rascals are feathering their own nests, they may of necessity throw a bone to the public to keep from being torn to shreds by a mob.

-- Mal