is a two party system REALLY democratic?

[painted wolf]

In the US we have only two choices for who can become president...
The two parties prevent any third party from becoming offical by imposing near imposible and changing regulations/requirements for reccognition...
So is this behavior Democratic?
Should a free country limit the choice of the voters to maintian thier power base?

Could the lack of choice the main cause of voter apathy? Here in the US the "land of the free" and the "defender of democracy" the voter turnout is castistrophicly low... hovering at less than 50%
doesn't sound very democratic....

wa:-do

 

[Rex]

We are not a democracy we are a Federal Republic.

most don't realize this.

 

[anders]

I don't know very much about your system, but considering my opion regarding your current president, it must be pretty ridiculous.

I think that the system of having one-person constituencies is quite crazy, and unfair to minority groups. On the other hand, having too many parties usually creates very unstable situations, where the ruling groupings and their politics are sure to change at every election.

 

[Alaric]

What I see as the most important thing about a democracy is that different groups and opinions are represented proportionally to their number. If 10% of the population believe A, then 10% of the seats in parliament should be represented by people who believe A. 'Majority rule' is not democratic.

I'm not really sure how bad the two-party system in America is - on one hand, it's ridiculous if people who want to vote Green feel they can't because it may mean they'll end up with a government even further from their position; on the other hand, this primary thing might allow the necessary adaptation within the main parties, making them flexible and 'up-to-date'.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Alaric--Each individual has a unique set of beliefs. Even within 'pary A' it is doubtful that everyone agrees on everything. We can't give every person in the U.S. a seat in the legislature...to have strictly proportional representation would be impractical. Our system actually works quite well--other political parties, besides the two main ones, influence public policy a great deal.

painted wolf-- we have many choices for President. The members of each party vote amongst many potential nominees, one of whom will go on to represent that party in the national election.

There are many causes for low voter turnout in the U.S., though apathy is not one of them. Voter apathy is roughly the same in the U.S. as it is in many other Western countries.

Voter turnout is lower in the U.S. mainly because:
1) there are more elections in the U.S. than in other Western countries, and therefore more opportunities to not vote--we have elections for Presidents, party nominees, mayors, governors, Senators, Congressmen, City Council members, Sheriffs, Judges, dogcatchers, etc.
2) many Western countries automatically register all eligible voters. In the U.S. people have to go out and register themselves, and then do so each time they move to a different state. Some voters remain unregistered and therefore do not vote in local elections simply because they haven't lived there long enough to qualify as residents, or never bothered re-registering after the move.

Check out http://www.idea.int/press/op_ed_07.htm

In fact, the voter turnout for registered voters in the U.S. is no less than that of Western nations in general. In a comparison of democracies, the U.S. ranks 55th for the percent of registered voters who actually vote in Presidential elections (67.4%). This is comparable to the percent of registered voters who actually vote in European parliamentary elections. Check out http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/dem_pre_ele_reg_vot_tur
and http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/dem_par_ele_reg_vot_tur

 

[Mr Spinkles]

One more thing: in the U.S. there are many more forms of political participation that are not available or not used much in other Western nations, including lobbying, running for public office, mailing letters/petitions, and taking the government to court. Remember, the U.S. is an 'adversarial culture'. Americans in general actually show more political participation than other Western countries.

Also, in my last post I should have included this link as well, it shows the percent of registered voters who vote in parliamentary elections in European countries. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/dem_par_ele_reg_vot_tur&id=EUR

 

[painted wolf]

mr spinkles-

we have many choices for nominees for president wich to me is a whole different thing. In the end it still comes down to A or B. Personally I'd like to have A,B,C or eaven a D.

What is sad is that while Green is a choice in some state elections it isn't in national elections. every time the Green party wants to run a candidate they have to jump through the hoops agian and hope that time they will get enough votes to stay on the ballot.

I don't like having to choose the lesser evil when I vote. I like real choice.

wa:do

 

[anders]

In a previous post, I criticised one-person constituencies for being a system unfair to minority groups. What I didn't think of is, that it also can be unfair to the majority. It seems that a person can be elected president, even if his (when will it be her?) opponent gets half a million more votes.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

painted wolf-- if we had A, B, C, and D, the odds of the candidate you vote for actually winning the election would greatly diminish, and the odds of a candidate winning with whom you have nothing in common would greatly increase. The radical Christian right-wing party candidate could win a Presidential election in this case with only 26% of the vote. Your "real choice" could end up being a real nightmare!

In our two party system, however, the candidates/parties appeal to one of two broadly based groups, and pursue a generally centrist agenda when compared to the parties of other democracies. Most Americans do associate themselves with one party or the other, because our parties appeal to a wide range of interests. There are few voters who are so radical that they find nothing in common with either party. In a two party system the candidate that you vote for has a greater chance of actually winning, and thus you have a greater ability to directly affect policy. Plus, when a President from one of the major parties is elected, he can effectively deal with the legislature and the media as he will have a strong plurality of voters supporting him (stronger than, say, the 26% victory that Christian right-wing party "D" won).

Remember, painted wolf, part of our federal republic system is designed to take into account the particular interests of every person, and another part is designed to find compromise among these conflicting interests and actually get things done. My advice to you if you can't vote for a third party candidate would be to vote for the lesser of two evils.....either way, your vote will probably go farther in influencing public policy to suit your interests than a vote for a fourth or fifth party with limited appeal.

Keep in mind that voting for a third party candidate has a greater impact on public policy than many people think, despite the fact that third party candidates are rarely elected. The two major parties are forced to take up issues raised by third parties in order to compete for these voters.

Check out this website for a fascinating analysis of the American political party system: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/archive/elect00/parties.htm

 

[Pah]

I'd like to add that the money and the special interest groups that can deliver votes has a tremdous role in determining who heads the two parties in an election. I don't think the common voter has much of a role at all at convention time or the preceeding primaries.

After the election, it is not the common voter that has the ear of whomever gets the office.

 

[mahayana]

Thanks, Mr. S, for inviting me over here. And Hi, anders.

I don't think anyone can look at the membership of the US Congress and seriously argue that this system is democratic. Half the voters are women, many more are working class than elite, there are large obvious constituencies with few or no representatives.

So, we ask "Just who do these rich white male lawyers really represent?" The people got a hint from listening to John McCain (and Ross Perot and Ralph Nader). Term limits were widely supported by ordinary people, because they know how corrupt this system is, and their only real voting power is to "throw the bums out," not selection.

It is complicated by the size of the US, and all the state/federal complications. The US has 52 governments, and the Congress and President are selected by something other than just popular vote, as the partisan Supreme Court vote which chose Mr. Bush reminded us. The Electoral College debate is not over, though the one about apportioning seats in Congress according to the actual votes cast for all parties has only begun.

I don't see the apathy issue as anything but a red herring. Americans are very politically aware, but many have nobody on the ballot that they support (or see a chance of electing). The present system is deeply entrenched and will be very difficut to change.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Thanks, Mr. S, for inviting me over here. And Hi, anders.

You are most welcome.

I don't think anyone can look at the membership of the US Congress and seriously argue that this system is democratic. Half the voters are women, many more are working class than elite, there are large obvious constituencies with few or no representatives.

Although you make a very good observation, the conclusion you have drawn is simplistic. Representation is not acheived by getting someone of your race into office, but by getting someone who will promote your interests into office. Congress has passed many measures which benefit women, minorities, and the working class. Why?

The answer is fairly straightforward: staying in power and gaining more power are the primary objectives of politicians....if a white, male, Protestant Democrat's voter base is mainly inner city blacks, you better believe he supports more funding to inner city schools, affirmative action, civil rights, etc. The voters' will is being heard, regardless of the fact that the Congressman himself is white. Power derived from the voters is the basis of any democratic government.

I don't see the apathy issue as anything but a red herring. Americans are very politically aware, but many have nobody on the ballot that they support (or see a chance of electing).

This isn't true at all--most Americans pretty strongly support one party over the other. There are less swing voters now than there have been in some years.

 

[mahayana]

S, I'm not talking about swing voters. I'm talking about those that don't vote because they don't like any of the candidates. I work where I talk to the public, and their attitude is that all politicians are crooks. They make fortunes while in office, the longer they stay the more corrupt.

Countless people say "I don't like Bush or Kerry, but Nader can't get elected." They think the system is rigged for the rich and powerful to buy their way into office, to co-opt or crush any serious reform. These voters participate in "hot" elections, to help remove someone from office.

Even the Dems and Repubs are embarassed by how few women and minorities are in the "boys' club."; the way congress "looks" is not some paranoid fantasy, it's reality.

I understand where you're coming from, just don't share your faith. Someone actually from a constituency thinks and behaves differently than someone pandering to get their votes.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

S, I'm not talking about swing voters. I'm talking about those that don't vote because they don't like any of the candidates. I work where I talk to the public, and their attitude is that all politicians are crooks. They make fortunes while in office, the longer they stay the more corrupt.

Few Americans refuse to vote simply for those reasons, though I agree that many Americans believe there are many Americans who refuse to vote for those reasons... http://www.publicagenda.com/issues/pcc_detail.cfm?issue_type=campaign_finance&list=9 The vast majority of Americans already know who they will vote for in the upcoming election http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm and less than 5% (depending on which poll you use) say they will not vote or are unsure (when given the choices Kerry, Bush, or Nader).

You say that many Americans have nobody on the ballot they support, but that is a mischaracterization. The vast majority know who they support, and only a fraction are unsure or have decided not to vote. The number of Americans who have decided not to vote because there is no one on the ballot they support is a small percentage.

Countless people say "I don't like Bush or Kerry, but Nader can't get elected." They think the system is rigged for the rich and powerful to buy their way into office, to co-opt or crush any serious reform. These voters participate in "hot" elections, to help remove someone from office.

My initial impression is that most of the voters who support Kerry but do not think he can win will end up voting for Kerry, and that these people are in the minority (not "countless"). However, I can't back this up, as I had a hard time finding info on this. I do know that most Americans are very partisan, and support one party consistently over the other.

Although I agree with you that most Americans want campaign finance reform, most do not think this is a high priority. Check out http://www.publicagenda.com/issues/pcc_detail.cfm?issue_type=campaign_finance&list=1

Even the Dems and Repubs are embarassed by how few women and minorities are in the "boys' club."; the way congress "looks" is not some paranoid fantasy, it's reality.

Irrelevant; that does not mean our system is undemocratic, as you said earlier. Most authorities define 'democracy' as a government that derives its power from the people. Congressmen get their power from the people (including monorities and women) and act according to this power by passing Civil Rights, affirmative action, hate crime laws, and so forth which reflect the interests of minorities/women. It does not matter that most Congressmen are white men--the system is still democratic. If women were (still) not allowed to vote and politicians only acted in the interests of men, you might have a point.

There are a number of reasons Congress is full of white men, but our system being undemocratic is not one of them, that's all I'm saying.

I understand where you're coming from, just don't share your faith. Someone actually from a constituency thinks and behaves differently than someone pandering to get their votes.

In a democracy, all successful politicians--the black women, the white men, the Hispanics-- behave in the same basic way: pandering to get votes. That's one of the great things about money and power: the desire for them blinds people to their prejudices.

 

[mahayana]

I accept that you believe that this is a democracy; it would be frightening to think that our government is a facade, window-dressing, and that money interests decide who can be selected to be "representatives."

Consider the following (it's not a suggestion, just a thought):

If you really wanted a government of the people, you could take the names of all registered votors, put them in a hat, and select the Congressmen randomly. The real views of all groups would then be represented. It would be different if people really had the power, instead of being polled and selectively lied to.

Incidently, I do believe in working for change from within the system. I don't believe that having half of Congress be female, 25% black, etc would solve our problems. It's deeper than that, has to do with our mix of socialism and capitalism. Neither party has a handle on what the people really want, or how to get there.

Sorry if these ideas seem somewhat radical to you. We are coming from different places, that's all.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Not at all! Although I may not completely agree, your ideas are definitely valid ones and well written.

Your proposal would definitely be more democratic than our current system. However, our founding fathers never intended for us to be a true, direct democracy, and for good reason. Average citizens do not have the time or competence to write a thousand page draft proposal for new copyright legislation....or make an informed vote on most technical matters. If legislators were picked out of a hat rather than run for re-election, there would be no way for the people to hold them responsible for their actions.

Your wish to represent all groups is noble, mahayana, but the reality of the situation is this: America is diverse, and has many competing groups with competing interests. If we want our government to ever get anything done, we have to have a mechanism which promotes compromise among these groups....the party system does just that (see the post I wrote above your first post).

 

[anders]

I still prefer a multi-party system in which the party which country-wide gets most votes is guaranteed to get most seats in the legislating assembly.

 

[mahayana]

As I said, the debate about having representation proportional to the actual votes for each party has just begun in America. Exactly what the mechanism would be to accomplish this is under discussion. We're talking about giving the "losers" a place in Congress, improving our present system.