- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why does the US cling to a two-party system?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:07 am to TX Tiger
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:07 am to TX Tiger
quote:
Does it really matter which establishment puppet is in the White House?
i've said forever we'd be happier as a nation with a prime minister rather than a president. republicans would have lost power in 2006, dems in 2010. no obama and no george bush. i could have lived with that.
the problem is the senate it was originally designed to place state legislatures as a very powerful counter weight to the president. we changed that with the 17th amendment and created a deliberative body with 6 year terms who's soul function is to amass power unto itself. that was never intended by the framers. it's why the federal government continues to grow and power accumulates in the district of columbia.
0
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:09 am to Slippy
It's because of the electoral college.
It's possible for a 3rd party candidate to get 30 million votes for President and receive zero electoral college votes. All you have to do is come in 2nd place by a handful of votes in all 50 states.
It's possible for a 3rd party candidate to get 30 million votes for President and receive zero electoral college votes. All you have to do is come in 2nd place by a handful of votes in all 50 states.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:18 am to Zach
(not necessarily responding to Zach - just to the thread in general).
As a couple of previous posters have well explained, it is entirely structural. You can say the Framers were wrong to set it up that way, but it was not some conspiracy. Parties (or "factions" as they were sometimes called) even took a little time to develop. You would have to radically reframe our system, through amendment of the Constitution, to get away from it. This is pure poli sci.
As a couple of previous posters have well explained, it is entirely structural. You can say the Framers were wrong to set it up that way, but it was not some conspiracy. Parties (or "factions" as they were sometimes called) even took a little time to develop. You would have to radically reframe our system, through amendment of the Constitution, to get away from it. This is pure poli sci.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:34 am to Champagne
quote:Yes, I agree with that. Have you read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"?
I say that they do not. Why do I say this? I say this because it is NOT necessary for them to orchestrate such incidents. They have powerful means at their disposal to deal with Outsiders through non-violent intrigue.
It's a good read on what happens when those powerful means at their disposal through non-violent intrigue do not work.
What's happening in the Middle East has festered since the Carter Administration (or perhaps before that even). But through the decades of powerful non-violent means, those outsiders still refused to yield to a point were desperation was setting in, and that's what made 9/11 necessary. It was a desperate act for sure.
quote:Trump is as "Outside" as Hillary, my friend.
Trump the Orange Outsider is learning this hard lesson.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:36 am to TX Tiger
quote:
"The people with the money" already control both parties. Why would they want to start a third?
Many (most I think) European countries have multiple parties. Is that because they are less beholden to "the establishment" or does the establishment just think it's okay to allow them to operate that way, but it's best for us to only operate with 2 really functioning parties?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:47 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:I haven't had the inclination to look into the intricacies of other country's governments or how they specifically operate, so comparing them would be futile.
Many (most I think) European countries have multiple parties. Is that because they are less beholden to "the establishment" or does the establishment just think it's okay to allow them to operate that way, but it's best for us to only operate with 2 really functioning parties?
What do you believe the answer to your question is?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 12:27 pm to Y.A. Tittle
imagine if our senate had no power and our president had no veto power.
that's the system in the UK.
the house of lord's once had a veto over the house of common's and the king or queen had a veto power over legislation passed in the house of common's it was last exercised in 1708 but it was ostensibly exercised by the house of lords on behalf of the crown until 1911 and then reduced again in 1949.
the movement to reign in the house of lords and give more power to the house of commons began with the reform act of 1832 it was after that period where you saw the proliferation of multiple party's in england.
you can't have multiple party's with a strong chief executive which our president is. as a result you have multiple factions within two party's to counterbalance our very powerful president so that he can't veto every piece of legislation he doesn't like.
in a parliamentary system you can have multiple party's but they have to form coalitions to form a government.
if we had multiple party's they'd still have to coalesce to elect a speaker and we'd by default turn our president into a king who would always have the last say on legislation.
with multiple party's the legislature would either have to coalesce or remain so fractured that there would be no way to reign in a president. that happened under andrew jackson's use of the veto and it's why we've had two party's ever since.
forever the democrat party was made up of two coalitions, southern democrats and northeastern democrats do you think those groups had anything in common? yet they combined forces against the republican party who after the civil war was practically unchecked with power.
pick that side that best fits you. we have a one size fits all system not a boutique system.
that's the system in the UK.
the house of lord's once had a veto over the house of common's and the king or queen had a veto power over legislation passed in the house of common's it was last exercised in 1708 but it was ostensibly exercised by the house of lords on behalf of the crown until 1911 and then reduced again in 1949.
the movement to reign in the house of lords and give more power to the house of commons began with the reform act of 1832 it was after that period where you saw the proliferation of multiple party's in england.
you can't have multiple party's with a strong chief executive which our president is. as a result you have multiple factions within two party's to counterbalance our very powerful president so that he can't veto every piece of legislation he doesn't like.
in a parliamentary system you can have multiple party's but they have to form coalitions to form a government.
if we had multiple party's they'd still have to coalesce to elect a speaker and we'd by default turn our president into a king who would always have the last say on legislation.
with multiple party's the legislature would either have to coalesce or remain so fractured that there would be no way to reign in a president. that happened under andrew jackson's use of the veto and it's why we've had two party's ever since.
forever the democrat party was made up of two coalitions, southern democrats and northeastern democrats do you think those groups had anything in common? yet they combined forces against the republican party who after the civil war was practically unchecked with power.
pick that side that best fits you. we have a one size fits all system not a boutique system.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 12:29 pm to tedmarkuson
quote:
imagine if our senate had no power and our president had no veto power.
that's the system in the UK.
the house of lord's once had a veto over the house of common's and the king or queen had a veto power over legislation passed in the house of common's it was last exercised in 1708 but it was ostensibly exercised by the house of lords on behalf of the crown until 1911 and then reduced again in 1949.
the movement to reign in the house of lords and give more power to the house of commons began with the reform act of 1832 it was after that period where you saw the proliferation of multiple party's in england.
you can't have multiple party's with a strong chief executive which our president is. as a result you have multiple factions within two party's to counterbalance our very powerful president so that he can't veto every piece of legislation he doesn't like.
in a parliamentary system you can have multiple party's but they have to form coalitions to form a government.
if we had multiple party's they'd still have to coalesce to elect a speaker and we'd by default turn our president into a king who would always have the last say on legislation.
with multiple party's the legislature would either have to coalesce or remain so fractured that there would be no way to reign in a president. that happened under andrew jackson's use of the veto and it's why we've had two party's ever since.
forever the democrat party was made up of two coalitions, southern democrats and northeastern democrats do you think those groups had anything in common? yet they combined forces against the republican party who after the civil war was practically unchecked with power.
pick that side that best fits you. we have a one size fits all system not a boutique system.
You get an A.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 1:16 pm to TX Tiger
quote:
Trump is as "Outside" as Hillary, my friend.
No. You and I deviate from one another sharply on this issue. Trump is a complete Wash DC Globalist/Establishment Outsider who is committed to reforming Wash DC.
That's why he's being destroyed by the Left and that's why the GOP is standing by and doing nothing publicly to help him (but is working behind the scenes with Dems to Oust him).
Posted on 6/15/17 at 2:03 pm to Champagne
quote:We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Trump is as "Outside" as Hillary, my friend.
No. You and I deviate from one another sharply on this issue. Trump is a complete Wash DC Globalist/Establishment Outsider who is committed to reforming Wash DC.
That's why he's being destroyed by the Left and that's why the GOP is standing by and doing nothing publicly to help him (but is working behind the scenes with Dems to Oust him).
Trump has always been establishment - practically the definition of it - and the establishment is simply continuing to follow this WWE-style script to pacify the public which has had enough of the establishment.
ETA: Believe me, I'd love nothing more than an anti-establishment President in the White House. But we missed our chance with Ron Paul.
This post was edited on 6/15/17 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 6/15/17 at 7:59 pm to tedmarkuson
quote:
tedmarkuson
Dude, for somebody who knows a lot about world politics, your English is horrible.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 8:01 pm to catnip
quote:
Liberals would love a 3 party system. Liberals will never split. But having conservatives split will get libs back in charge and eventually a one party system.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News