.... am getting sick of haveing two choices for the person who runs this entire country. i have historically voted for third parties so that perhaps some day we WILL have more than two lousy choices. Seeing how i live in NY i will probably again be voting for a third party. last time i checked, one reason the US was so great was choice.
I agree, a two party system is a deadlocked system.. How many times have good ideas been shot down, becuase the "other party" came up with it, only to have a similar bill voted in by the other party.. at least 3 partys could make it very difficult for a single party to hold the majority in congress, and laws will have to be passed that are good..
In local and state elections, I always vote for a candidate (if there is one) that is independant, or some other party...
What you're proposing is a good ol' fashioned consensus government. I can tell you, many countries have tried these and well...
They've all worked beautifully! Germany, England, Ireland, Spain, Israel, France, Sweden, South Africa, Canada, Australia, and dozes of other democracies actually have people vote for a set of ideas along with, or in place of, individual candidates. Only a few of these nations have absolute majority governments, most have a ruling coalition.
Actually, the US in many way does have coalitions- the problem is that they have two utterly static coalitions. They have the Republican coalition- the libertarians, religious right, facists, and rich on one side, and the Democrat coalition- greens, minorities, socialists, communisits, and a few other groups on the other.
The problem is with our coalition parties, they are unable to change alliances or split alliances along issue lines. In a pure coalition system, If parties B and A ally against C, B can be wooed to C's side by comprimises. Or B can agree with C on issue 1 and A on issue 2. With the US version, we don't get either of those- you're stuck with the current arrangement of alliances and you better follow the alliance's lead on all issues or your alliance will screw you over for breaking party lines.
You're right for the most part, but the party system in the US is very weak compared with the rest of the world. Party leadership has some control over its members, but the party will never be able to trump any given member's constituency. Just won't happen. The desire to be reelected will always be forefront in a politician's mind.
I think part of this perception of strong parties is that the US has been coalescing closer to each party's ideological means. The poles of the electorate are shifting, aw
The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem.
-- Peer
Well i for one (Score:1)
Re:Well i for one (Score:3, Interesting)
In local and state elections, I always vote for a candidate (if there is one) that is independant, or some other party...
Re:Well i for one (Score:3, Insightful)
They've all worked beautifully!
Germany, England, Ireland, Spain, Israel, France, Sweden, South Africa, Canada, Australia, and dozes of other democracies actually have people vote for a set of ideas along with, or in place of, individual candidates. Only a few of these nations have absolute majority governments, most have a ruling coalition.
Now, why can't the US have one? Well, t
Re:Well i for one (Score:2)
The problem is with our coalition parties, they are unable to change alliances or split alliances along issue lines. In a pure coalition system, If parties B and A ally against C, B can be wooed to C's side by comprimises. Or B can agree with C on issue 1 and A on issue 2. With the US version, we don't get either of those- you're stuck with the current arrangement of alliances and you better follow the alliance's lead on all issues or your alliance will screw you over for breaking party lines.
Re:Well i for one (Score:2)
I think part of this perception of strong parties is that the US has been coalescing closer to each party's ideological means. The poles of the electorate are shifting, aw