BF2S Forums Two party system/parties in general

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

do it under a dictatorship (USSR, Yugoslavia) and it'll all eventually break down and the country will fragment like Surgeons's porn-only hard drive.

For the record, I don't have a porn hard-drive.

FM wrote:

and I would rebut that the American public as a whole cares relatively little about the issues, and that an election could be held almost completely on an attack campaign. It might piss off the 5% of people that actually pay attention to all the issues and watch the debates, but everyone else would love the roller coaster ride.

I would comment, but someone else said it just as well:

FM wrote:

I'm saying the OP is asking what is wrong with a two party system

I was pointing out what (imhbco) is wrong with a system dominated by two parties (I refuse to call it something it's not).

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

and I would rebut that the American public as a whole cares relatively little about the issues, and that an election could be held almost completely on an attack campaign. It might piss off the 5% of people that actually pay attention to all the issues and watch the debates, but everyone else would love the roller coaster ride.

I would comment, but someone else said it just as well:

FM wrote:

I'm saying the OP is asking what is wrong with a two party system

I was pointing out what (imhbco) is wrong with a system dominated by two parties (I refuse to call it something it's not).

If we are playing out a debate, you have to show both sides...responding as someone in his position might isn't as helpful as seeing a rebuttal against his position to analyze.

I understand that. I was merely offering a different viewpoint/argument against the theoretical two-party system he is arguing against.

nukchebi0 wrote:

To clarify, I know it isn't a two party system by stipulation, but the paper was talking about the practical aspect of our system, not the theoretical.

It's not theoretical. There are more than two parties competing for President.

A two party system inevitably leads to:

Two parties pretty much in bed with each other. Both know one of the two will be elected, the loser will rely on the winner to survive the barren years, then they change places. No point therefore in being too hard on the other - politics then becomes a sport, rather than the serious business of representing the electorate.
A significant third party concentrates the minds of the other two significantly to be more populist rather than just representing themselves and their sponsors, each knows THEY could be easily be third, then fade away to fourth, fifth - oblivion eg Conservatives in Scotland.

A disinterested electorate. Your vote doesn't count unless you vote for one of the two major parties, they're big enough they don't need your vote so why bother?

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Also, surgeons, stop lying ffs

I'll report you if you keep spreading these lies of slander and hate

d4rkst4r wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Two party system assures that petty bullshit is minimized due to lack of targets.

When there is only one other party to target there is only so much mud to dig up and time that can be spent attacking the other party before you become a broken record. Especially in a society like ours where gossip and vicious personal attacks are gobbled up by the public, reducing the crap that makes people pay attention to irrelevant issues instead of the real issues can help lead to better informed voters.

Whats the point of only a two party system? It's horrible, you absolutely limit any type of change happening. Look at both McCain and Obama, look at how similar they are certain issues, its stupid, you'd think they belong for the same party. Not to mention how impossible it would be for a third party candidate to get anywhere when the media is so biased against them.

/tries to determine if this is trolling