Should America be a multiparty democracy?

[Cascadian]

If we are to be a democracy, why don't we allow people more of choice? Why should two parties have a say in how this land is governed? I look at other countries like Canada, Netherlands, Britain, among others and they have more political choices plus their system is aimed at the issues and the parties and not the person who is running and how much money he/she can raise. I know it's all parliamentary, but what is wrong with that?

I do not think we can seriously call ourselves a real democracy until the day we can break this duopoly. The two party system is getting blurred ever so much that it is almost looking like a one party system with just two divisions of the same party running in elections. This is just wrong.

Let's face it, the American political system seriously needs reform. It is time to break the "old-boy" two party system. If things are going to change for the better, than everybody must be allowed to have their say regardless of what party they are in. They should be allowed greater exposure to the general public so that they may decide on what they want and what they believe in. Isn't that what a democracy is suppose to be? It is totally short-sighted and arrogant not to offer political choices.


John

John

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Well, obviously I am in favor of it

;)

[lastknowngood]

2. The problem is were fast headed to a one party system

n/t

[Arlington]

3. no

winning by a plurality seldom ever works, because there will always be more total people against the winning candidate than for.

With two parties, at least the country has the comfort -- albeit sometimes cold comfort -- of knowing the majority has spoken. (Except in Florida.)

what's more, a two-party system encourages compromise -- at least it had until the neocons came into power.

[Snow]

14. I have two questions about your post.....

First, you state that "winning by a plurality seldom ever works", yet that's exactly how things go in the usual European parliamentary systems, and they seem to work okay - maybe even better than ours.

Second, you state that "the country has the comfort -- albeit sometimes cold comfort -- of knowing the majority has spoken" but that's also not the case since in fact so many people do not vote that elected officials including even our last elected president come to office with maybe 25% or so of voters voting for him.

[Darranar]

4. How to improve political freedom in the US...

• Abolish the Electoral College. Winner-take-all can allow situations where the candidate who got more votes loses. This is highly undemocratic.
  
• Eliminate the Senate. Why should the state with the lowest population have as much representation there as the state with the highest population?
  
• Establish a multiparty proportionally-elected Parliament, and replace the House with it. This will prevent 50.1-49.9 districts being indistinguishable from 52-48 districts in regard to representation, and would eliminate the necessity of redistricting.
  
• Elect the President through instant runoff voting. This will prevent the "Nader problem" and allow people to vote their conscience without hurting the chances of the lesser of two evils.
  

There are certainly others, but that's a good start.

[Cascadian]

5. Also have a Question Period

so that the opposition parties can grill the president and administration on what they have ben doing.


John

[MAlibdem]

9. I take issue with unicameral parliaments

They are prone to passing bad ideas too quickly.

[Cascadian]

11. There can still be plenty of checks and balances in a unicameral system

It works for New Zealand, Denmark, and even Kansas, it should work in America.


John

[Snow]

15. *whistle* The only unicameral in the US is Nebraska, not Kansas....

[Cascadian]

20. OK Nebraska. My bad.

eom

[Arlington]

12. agree on the electoral college

but disagree on the senate.

read the thoughts of the founding fathers to answer the question of "why"...

(The senate makes each state an equal member of the union. The corresponding allotments of representation to the House moderate the Senate's power on an equitable basis. I would hate to think of Texas, California and New York unchecked in their power to some degree.)

There was method to the madness.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Question

As we all sadly recall, 2000 was damn close. The results ended up needing a recount in multiple states.

If you get rid of the electoral system, EVERY vote will count. In a close election like last time, that means a nationwide recount just like Florida. How do you handle that?

[baldguy]

6. Only with a parliamentary system to go with it.

Currently, we have "winner take all" elections - which actively DIScourage third parties. With the ability to form alliances and coalitions, a parliamentary system allows a more accurate – and granted more volatile - representation of the will of the people.

[ComerPerro]

19. Great point

I completely agree

[Terwilliger]

7. yes

[MAlibdem]

8. Our electoral system prevents new parties from starting

Barring huge upheavals and issues (like the civil war/slavery where the republicans displaced the whigs).

The first past the post system (also know as single member districts) means parties have to win district by district with 50% of the vote. In proportional representation (france, germany, russia use this, at least in some cases), smaller parties only need 5-10% of the vote to receive representation in congress. This makes it easier for parties to emerge.

But unless we go to proportional representation, new parties will not develop.

[mot78]

10. The problem is that we'd see unstable coalition goverments

Look at Weimer Germany for an example...there are plenty of examples where parliamentry systems don't work. I think we should abolish the Electoral College though.

[not systems]

13. Yes. Voting reforms are needed to make this happen.

There are many ideas green, left and libertarian that are frozen
out of both parties that have broad voter appeal but are excluded
from the "two" parties.

I usually think of our system as a 1.5 party state.

[Gman]

16. We already can have as many parties as people want to have

its no one's fault if they're not viable, like the Green Party.

[ComerPerro]

17. Have you ever talked to a Republican?

They are lock step assholes who will do whatever it takes to push even part of their greedy, hateful agenda.

I mean, consider how they "debate". The GOP is solid mostly becuase they all have the exact same talking points.

Who cares that they are lying their asses off? They all are saying it over and over again, and they all belive it!