[USCAdad]

This is what happens when you wrap the country around a tree:

$1:

Though yet untested in the election booth, the Democratic developments in Kansas reflect polls in many parts of the country. As elsewhere, Democrats and moderate Republicans say they are frustrated with policies and practices they trace to Republican leadership, including the Iraq war, ballooning government spending, ethics violations and the influence of social conservatives.

A long-standing split among Kansas Republicans has deepened in recent years. One fresh sign came from the Johnson County Sun, which said it would endorse virtually the entire Democratic ticket, including Morrison and Parkinson, after endorsing fewer than a dozen Democrats in the past half-century.

Link

There is definitely a place for redefining politics. Since both parties have vacated the middle, the field seems wide open. I hope that Bloomberg makes a go of it. I don't agree with all of his positions but the two party system in place now is broken.

[DrCaleb]

It won't work. You'll get two right of center parties, then the votes will split among the conservatives, leaving the left of center partiy in complete control for decades. Then moderate right and far right parties try to merge back together with the promise of the new party being more moderate and the new leader stabs the leader of the more moderate party in the back, and the party swings almost all the way back to the radical side, until they get back into power. Which completes their journey to the Dark Side.

I've seen it before, I tell ya.

[Hardy]

The problem in the States is that nobody has heard of coalitions, there hasn't been cooperation between any two parties in generations. There has been decades of gerrymandering by both parties, all of which was designed with those two parties in mind. And there has been legislation, enthusiastically endorsed by 2 parties, which make it difficult for third parties to ever get anywhere. With election campaigning running into the millions for even a minor position, no party can be viable without a strong chance of winning, and without keeping corporate interests in mind -- the citizens are in a distant second place. Put all of these together, and you get the fiasco they have now, where no election is better than picking the lesser evil, and no practical alternatives arise even when both dominant parties are disliked.

I think the American political system is about like Baghdad right now -- unless it gets miraculously fixed, thoroughly and immediately, it will screwed up beyond any possible hope of redemption -- if it isn't already.

[Rihx]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It won't work. You'll get two right of center parties, then the votes will split among the conservatives, leaving the left of center partiy in complete control for decades. Then moderate right and far right parties try to merge back together with the promise of the new party being more moderate and the new leader stabs the leader of the more moderate party in the back, and the party swings almost all the way back to the radical side, until they get back into power. Which completes their journey to the Dark Side.

I've seen it before, I tell ya.

Thats a very familiar situation!

[PJB]

It seems like the American two party system is no longer working. American voters do not have a viable third option.

[Rihx]

PJB PJB:

It seems like the American two party system is no longer working. American voters do not have a viable third option.

The Two party system has never really worked, just like our multi-party system doesnt really work. Its a resault of the elections not being based off of actual vote counts (ie: Seats/Electoral Votes) and the fact that there is to much control at the top and not enough descussion. Our system is probably worse though and will continue to be unless all votes in the commons become free and not dictated by the party leaders.

[PJB]

Rihx...You are correct about the lack of free voting in our parliamentary system. There should be less voting along party lines and more based upon the needs of the members constituents. Unfortunately, I cannot see it changing unless the pressure and threats from the party caucus is reduced. Too many caring politicians become tainted once the see the true backroom dealings and corruption that are so prevelant in Ottawa.

I think that it is much worse in the United States with all of the corruptive powers that these PACs and lobbiests wield.

[Hardy]

Rihx Rihx:

PJB PJB:

It seems like the American two party system is no longer working. American voters do not have a viable third option.

The Two party system has never really worked, just like our multi-party system doesnt really work. Its a resault of the elections not being based off of actual vote counts (ie: Seats/Electoral Votes) and the fact that there is to much control at the top and not enough descussion. Our system is probably worse though and will continue to be unless all votes in the commons become free and not dictated by the party leaders.

I disagree, I think the Canadian system is less of a mess. Here's one reason why (not the only one, but a good place to start).

Campaign financing. In Canada, if there is a need, we just merge/split/form/dissolve political parties. Compared to the US, we do it relentlessly. When a political party gets too corrupt or out of touch, they can disappear forever. The last major US party to disappear was the Whigs, and that was 150 years ago, two years after the Republican party was formed.

And the extremely expensive campaigns they have in the US ensure that things will always be corrupt. Nobody can possibly hope to win without the backing of one of those parties (and all the money behind them), unless perhaps they are a long-time incumbent, or a billionaire, or both -- and it's damned hard even then.

What a trainwreck.

[Rihx]

Hardy Hardy:

Campaign financing. In Canada, if there is a need, we just merge/split/form/dissolve political parties. Compared to the US, we do it relentlessly. When a political party gets too corrupt or out of touch, they can disappear forever. The last major US party to disappear was the Whigs, and that was 150 years ago, two years after the Republican party was formed.

And the extremely expensive campaigns they have in the US ensure that things will always be corrupt. Nobody can possibly hope to win without the backing of one of those parties (and all the money behind them), unless perhaps they are a long-time incumbent, or a billionaire, or both -- and it's damned hard even then.

What a trainwreck.

That is a really good point, However, atleast in the states the individual elected members in all three branch's cannot be forced to vote the way their party leader wants. All members are free to vote the way their concious or constituency want. Unlike here where the party leader basically owns the votes of all his party members(house and senate), which is very undemocratic.

[Knoss]

$1:

And the extremely expensive campaigns they have in the US ensure that things will always be corrupt. Nobody can possibly hope to win without the backing of one of those parties (and all the money behind them), unless perhaps they are a long-time incumbent, or a billionaire, or both -- and it's damned hard even then.

I don't know I think a persoan can do a lot of greassroots campaiging with a website,a nd you tube, besides ilocal media is rather inexpensive.

[Hardy]

Rihx Rihx:

That is a really good point, However, atleast in the states the individual elected members in all three branch's cannot be forced to vote the way their party leader wants. All members are free to vote the way their concious or constituency want. Unlike here where the party leader basically owns the votes of all his party members(house and senate), which is very undemocratic.

Well, the political demise of Tom DeLay may have changed things a little, but I don't think very much. In the US, if you vote against your party very often, you find that well-funded opponents show up to run against you in your party primary, and that the party won't give you any money for your campaign (they each have many, many millions of dollars to dole out as they see fit). When some Republicans weren't going to vote with the party on a few controversial bills (Medicare "reform," for example), the period for voting ended without the votes being counted, while a party official went around twisting the arms of reluctant Republicans. Sometimes this went on for over an hour after the voting period was supposed to be over -- and only after the needed votes were obtained did the Republican chairing the vote declare that voting had ended.

Whether the Democrats will act as badly when they're the majority again remains to be seen. But the Republicans, at least, seem to have almost no freedom to determine how they will cast their vote on any important and highly contested issue.

[sidd2600]

Hardy Hardy:

Rihx Rihx:

That is a really good point, However, atleast in the states the individual elected members in all three branch's cannot be forced to vote the way their party leader wants. All members are free to vote the way their concious or constituency want. Unlike here where the party leader basically owns the votes of all his party members(house and senate), which is very undemocratic.

Well, the political demise of Tom DeLay may have changed things a little, but I don't think very much. In the US, if you vote against your party very often, you find that well-funded opponents show up to run against you in your party primary, and that the party won't give you any money for your campaign (they each have many, many millions of dollars to dole out as they see fit). When some Republicans weren't going to vote with the party on a few controversial bills (Medicare "reform," for example), the period for voting ended without the votes being counted, while a party official went around twisting the arms of reluctant Republicans. Sometimes this went on for over an hour after the voting period was supposed to be over -- and only after the needed votes were obtained did the Republican chairing the vote declare that voting had ended.

Whether the Democrats will act as badly when they're the majority again remains to be seen. But the Republicans, at least, seem to have almost no freedom to determine how they will cast their vote on any important and highly contested issue.

I'm split with you. It's hard to say that an opposition canidate from your district or riding is undemocratic, even if you aren't pleasing the party line. But I do agree with you that it effects political attitudes. A lot of people are calling for John McCaine's head after his recent authoritarian/theocratic swings.

[Toro]

Good.

As a moderate Republican, I haven't supported the GOP in 6 years. And I won't be this time around either.

[dog77_1999]

I think it isn't that the 2 main parties bully 3rd parties, but the way the government is elected. Let's say that we had 3 parties in the US. The smaller party would have to get a majority in at least 1 state to get even an electorial college vote. Now consider having to get half of the electorial seats, you have a long road ahead of you.

Now lets say that the parties have divided themselves along the regions and they all have 1/3,1/3,1/3, the vote then goes to the House of Representitives. The votes are cast and once again, a stalemate occurs, leaving the 2 main parties left to vote for president.

As you can see, the US system isn't friendly to 3rd parties as they usually undermine one particular party and leaves the other party to inadvertently win the election.