Support NeoGAF

[Samyy]

As a Canadian, the workings of the US government has always interested me but it seems pretty obvious that it is not a complete democracy, its too hard for the little guy to run against the other parties. On the other hand, having too many parties is a problem in Canada..., vote splitting gave us another harper government .

I guess its just to hard to have a perfect system of any kind, It will be interesting to see how things change politically in many of these democratic countries if the financial situation worsens.

 

[Stumpokapow]

What I find weird about the US electional system is the whole Electoral College system. For example in the 2000 US elections Gore recieved the most votes from the people, but still lost the overall election to Bush due to the Electoral College system. I don't understand how a system like that can even count as democratic. I mean, who gets the highest votes, should be selected as the president imo. Isn't that what democracy ultimately stands for anyway?

This is true in most countries although not in Sweden for example. In most parliamentary democracies, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party that wins the most seats, not the leader of the party with the most votes. One of the reasons why this is done is to prevent urban areas from being able to dominate politics at the expense of rural areas, and to ensure more balanced input across regions of a country.

In the US, without an electoral college or some other vote smoothing system, California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio would be the only states that mattered. Presidential candidates would literally ignore the other 40+. The electoral college, while not a perfect antidote to this, helps ensure this is not the case.

Of course it's subject to its own problems--candidates generally ignore states that are heavily Democratic or heavily Republican and focus on "battleground" states, and a candidate who wins 50%+1 of a state takes all the EC votes while a candidate who wins 50%-1 of a state.

But in the end, the electoral college was an important part of getting states to join the US and ensuring the distribution of power required the entire country. The US has a number of interesting structural checks on the distribution of powers (the more populist seat distribution of the House versus the equal distribution of Senate seats being one interesting one, the circuit court system being another).

Hope this explains a little bit. Let me know if you have other questions or want perspectives from another non-US country

 

[TacticalFox88]

A revolution in the US is the ONLY thing that can change the fuck ups in this country at this point. And if a revolution in the US breaks out, then the World Economy will likely fall with it. If the World economy crashes then countries will start fighting amongst themselves and war will break out. So basically....it's a lose lose situation

 

[Jin34]

As someone who lives in Netherlands i always found weird there are only 2 parties in USA. People can only choose left or right. What i can see from here is whatever you guys choose you are getting screwed eventually. I don't know USA laws but is it forbidden for other parties /people to get selected?

I wish the US could choose left, but it's more right of center party and crazy hobo ranting version of right wing party.

 

[sfedai0]

Political power=money

The special interest groups and lobbyists have only so much money to throw around.

 

[empty vessel]

No, but the US election is mostly built around a winner takes all proposition, and such systems always lead to a two party political reality.

While this is true, the problem is compounded in that the two parties in power will create and have created legal obstacles to third parties becoming viable.

What I find weird about the US electional system is the whole Electoral College system. For example in the 2000 US elections Gore recieved the most votes from the people, but still lost the overall election to Bush due to the Electoral College system. I don't understand how a system like that can even count as democratic. I mean, who gets the highest votes, should be selected as the president imo. Isn't that what democracy ultimately stands for anyway?

Gore actually won that election. It wasn't the electoral college (which I agree is anti-democratic) that did him, it was a corrupt Supreme Court that stopped a state recount.

 

[OfWhiteSkinOnRedLeather]

the Left does not exist in the US

Democrats are a center-right party.

Dennis Kucinich types have no power in that party

Bingo. The Democrats are not Left.

 

[Angry Fork]

OP underestimates the incredible stupidity of the American public. There are lots of internet lulz thrown around about how ignorant and retarded Americans are, and I'm telling you right now it's true for at least 65% of the country. The people who do know it's all fucked up don't do anything because they know they're in the minority.

Nobody gives a shit about anything, everyone is apathetic and scared to get out of their comfort zone. Nothing substantial will ever get done until the day things cross the line and people are finally shaken from their apathy, but only something like a depression or civil war will do that.

 

[Hylian7]

Nader's actually no longer the Green Party candidate. He ran as an independent in the last two presidential elections.

Fuck, I'm out of the loop on that.

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

The U.S. system has some serious structural flaws that are a legacy of compromises from centuries ago. There's not much hope to modernize things absent an enormous crisis.

 

[Kayo-kun]

This is true in most countries although not in Sweden for example. In most parliamentary democracies, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party that wins the most seats, not the leader of the party with the most votes. One of the reasons why this is done is to prevent urban areas from being able to dominate politics at the expense of rural areas, and to ensure more balanced input across regions of a country.

In the US, without an electoral college or some other vote smoothing system, California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio would be the only states that mattered. Presidential candidates would literally ignore the other 40+. The electoral college, while not a perfect antidote to this, helps ensure this is not the case.

Of course it's subject to its own problems--candidates generally ignore states that are heavily Democratic or heavily Republican and focus on "battleground" states, and a candidate who wins 50%+1 of a state takes all the EC votes while a candidate who wins 50%-1 of a state.

But in the end, the electoral college was an important part of getting states to join the US and ensuring the distribution of power required the entire country. The US has a number of interesting structural checks on the distribution of powers (the more populist seat distribution of the House versus the equal distribution of Senate seats being one interesting one, the circuit court system being another).

Hope this explains a little bit. Let me know if you have other questions or want perspectives from another non-US country

Thanks alot for clearing that up. I remember reading about it before, but forgot most of how the system worked, which you now explained.

I'm curious, but did you study politics? You seem to have alot of knowledge about these areas

 

[Deku]

To echo Stumpy's point, US politics because of regionalism is necessarily big tent politics. Or a semi-permanent coalition. Not that these coalitions were permanent. The old Democratic coalition largely fell apart after the civil rights act of 1964.

The democratic party is essentially a coalition of left of centre groups. And in that context, criticism about small elements of one party dominating national policy is less strange.

This would be no different than smaller parties holding larger coalition 'partners' hostage and gaining concessions.

But whereas this tends to play out publicly and in terms of party-line in parliamentary democracy, the US system tend to spread those discussions across several stages.

For example, those bemoaning the tea party controlling the Republican party were likely lampooning the death of the Republican party when Tea parties made a huge run at the Republican primaries last year, unseating moderate Republicans. The 2010 primaries process essentially was the contest within each of the two coalition parties as to which subgroup would gain relative power when the party members elected their slate of candidates.

 

[kame-sennin]

As someone who lives in Netherlands i always found weird there are only 2 parties in USA. People can only choose left or right. What i can see from here is whatever you guys choose you are getting screwed eventually. I don't know USA laws but is it forbidden for other parties /people to get selected?

It's not forbidden, but third party candidates are barred from participating in televised debates, which are organized by the democrats and republicans. The democrats and republicans have also worked together to pass laws that make it harder for third party candidates to get on the ballot. Bi-partisanship at its finest.

 

[ag-my001]

What I find weird about the US electional system is the whole Electoral College system. For example in the 2000 US elections Gore recieved the most votes from the people, but still lost the overall election to Bush due to the Electoral College system. I don't understand how a system like that can even count as democratic. I mean, who gets the highest votes, should be selected as the president imo. Isn't that what democracy ultimately stands for anyway?

Note that the people vote for electors, but that the states can choose how those electors get picked. Most states go with 'winner takes all', but Maine and Nebraska have systems based on the popular vote winner for each congressional district. There's been a big push by some Republicans in California to move to this system, since it would take part of a huge Democrat electoral block and flip it, even if Democrats still got most of the electoral college votes. I like this system, but it would need to be put in place by the majority of states at the same time to prevent gaming of the system.

To echo Deku, the two big parties have been around long enough that they're not going anywhere. If a 'third-party' is going to arise, it will do so from the inside of one of the two we have now.

 

[CornBurrito]

Don't be fooled by the media on this one, most of us Americans are somewhere right down the middle.. which equates to being quite sane and poised.

Isn't this a logical fallacy?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

 

[OfWhiteSkinOnRedLeather]

Fuck, I'm out of the loop on that.

It's OK. He still comes in third, so you were right about that one.

 

[Dai Kaiju]

Don't try to understand American politics. It will only piss you off once you finally figure it out. I'm a registered independent who has to deal with people telling me it's my duty as an American to vote every single time an election comes up when 95% percent of the time, it's an Aliens VS Predator tagline situation where whoever wins, we lose.

 

[Dice]

The notion that it is parties, not money, controlling things is where the real problem lies.

 

[speculawyer]

As someone who lives in Netherlands i always found weird there are only 2 parties in USA. People can only choose left or right. What i can see from here is whatever you guys choose you are getting screwed eventually. I don't know USA laws but is it forbidden for other parties /people to get selected?

It is not weird, it just sucks.

We do not have a parliamentary system. We have districts and a 'winner take all' style of voting. No instant run-off voting. I naturally devolves into a 2-party system.

Honestly, it sucks. We have democracy 1.0 but we cannot install an update since that would harm parties that now have control.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I think the technocracy movement should come back. We got so close during the last depression, maybe we'll get another shot in the depression coming up.

 

[Fugu]

Don't be fooled by the media on this one, most of us Americans are somewhere right down the middle.. which equates to being quite sane and poised.

This strikes me as fallacious. Based on what do you presume that a centrist position is a more sane one? As someone who likely falls under the broad category of "extremist" I would like to know by what logic it is that you've systematically renderred my position insane.

Also, I would argue that since the balance of American politics is well to the right of centre that so too is the average American.

 

[durendal]

On the other hand, having too many parties is a problem in Canada..., vote splitting gave us another harper government .

...It's a majority government.

I don't see more parties really being a problem at all.

 

[traveler]

Forgive my ignorance, but could someone explain to me why political parties are necessary in the first place? Why couldn't we just have people vote on, well, other people, with specific platforms for their particular set of views on issues? I know many have probably asked this before, but I'd just like to know.

 

[Zhengi]

The US Congress isn't a democracy anymore. Last I checked, Democracy was majority rule, these days the majority never rules so... yeah.

That's cause there's also this rule that came to be called "Majority rules, minority rights". It's part of American society now and you can see it in action in every day life. Otherwise, you get tyranny of the majority over the minority and we'd be back to the days when we had slaves, no civil rights for colored people, etc.

 

[timetokill]

Forgive my ignorance, but could someone explain to me why political parties are necessary in the first place? Why couldn't we just have people vote on, well, other people, with specific platforms for their particular set of views on issues? I know many have probably asked this before, but I'd just like to know.

Consider an ignorant public, unsure of facts on many issues. Also consider the hundreds of politicians running for office, of which each have their own slight changes in opinion on this and that.

Belonging to a party allows a voter an easy heuristic for where that person is likely to fall on a wide array of issues. In this sense it's useful to a voter, but it's also useful to a politician who can get a wide array of people on his side by saying "I'm a D/R and NOT a R/D" or whatever.

Furthermore it allows politicians to blame and argue against a strawman "group" of people rather than having to actually debate against a real person and real thoughts.

Play that into the fact that people just like the team, "us vs them" mentality, and you have a system that fucks people over and lets them feel like it's not their fault.

 

[Dude Abides]

That's cause there's also this rule that came to be called "Majority rules, minority rights". It's part of American society now and you can see it in action in every day life. Otherwise, you get tyranny of the majority over the minority and we'd be back to the days when we had slaves, no civil rights for colored people, etc.

But none of that has anything to do with the fact that a majority in Congress (which is what he specifically referred to) cannot pass legislation, largely due to the filibuster and other procedural rules in the Senate.

 

[Zzoram]

Harper took a big step towards making Canada into a 2 party system by removing the government subsidy on campaign financing of $2/vote for parties with at least 8 elected MPs. This move, after the Bloc fell below 8 MPs, will likely shut them out forever, reducing the number of Federal parties by 1. It also means if the NDP or Liberals have a bad year, we'll lose yet another Federal political party.

It also makes the remaining parties much more vulnerable to the whims of lobbyists, as they'll need to make up the money somehow. In the US, all those private dollars going into campaign financing are why both parties keep shifting further to the right.

 

[traveler]

None of those points actually seem like benefits, though. I'd rather an ignorant voter, no longer capable of seeing where he/she stands due to a lack of donkey/elephant beside candidate names, simply avoid voting than vote due to the presence of party identity.

 

[Pollux]

The Roman republic also had a de-facto two-party system toward the end, the Populares and the Optimates. It didn't turn out very well.

so we can look forward to an empire then? cool. roman citizens also didn't have to pay taxes, people they conquered paid them. lets do it. canada here we come.

 

[BananaBomb]

The Roman republic also had a de-facto two-party system toward the end, the Populares and the Optimates. It didn't turn out very well.

the distinction between populares and optimates is not comparable to republican/democrat. they were nothing close to coherently organized "parties."

 

[Zhengi]

But none of that has anything to do with the fact that a majority in Congress (which is what he specifically referred to) cannot pass legislation, largely due to the filibuster and other procedural rules in the Senate.

That's the part of the statement I mentioned, Minority Rights. The minority has the right to voice its opinion as well and debate the merits of every issue. They should not be steamrolled into accepting what the majority wants. That is why they is a super majority rule and the filibuster rules.

You might be bitching about them right now, but when the other party that is against your ideals is the majority, you'll be the one singing the praises of the majority rules, minority rights rule. It works both ways. The minority should always be heard and I have no problem with Congress being this way.

 

[Pollux]

The Tea Party is eventually going to do a full split from the republicans; their goals are becoming too different and they have the political clout to do so in the short term.

Or they'll just drive the "moderates" into the Democratic party.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

the distinction between populares and optimates is not comparable to republican/democrat. they were nothing close to coherently organized "parties."

The analogy isn't perfect. After all, political parties are a modern invention and the Republican party doesn't just up and murder political rivals when they try to pass reforms.

Neither are either modern party a monolithic bloc of pure idealogues. The difference between now and then is that self-identifying as being on the left or the right allows you to attend meetings and feel like you belong.

 

[Jin34]

That's the part of the statement I mentioned, Minority Rights. The minority has the right to voice its opinion as well and debate the merits of every issue. They should not be steamrolled into accepting what the majority wants. That is why they is a super majority rule and the filibuster rules.

You might be bitching about them right now, but when the other party that is against your ideals is the majority, you'll be the one singing the praises of the majority rules, minority rights rule. It works both ways. The minority should always be heard and I have no problem with Congress being this way.

We already had a situation like this and guess what? They didn't filibuster everything in sight. The post 08 Repubs shattered filibuster records.

 

[aperman]

I don't subscribe to a party, and I do think that the 2-party system is bullshit and not what was intended.

I'm fiscally conservative, yet socially liberal which makes me....

(libertarian, i guess but fuck categories. individualism ftw)

 

[outunderthestars]

As someone who lives in Netherlands i always found weird there are only 2 parties in USA. People can only choose left or right. What i can see from here is whatever you guys choose you are getting screwed eventually. I don't know USA laws but is it forbidden for other parties /people to get selected?

What generally happens is that a third party gains in popularity because of a single or small number of ideas. As that party becomes more popular of the two major parties tries to appease that third party's supporters by adapting some of their policies or beliefs to siphon them off and bring them back into the fold. Thus the third party loses momentum and fades back into obscurity.

 

[ToxicAdam]

The only way there will be change is if it comes from the bottom up. The problem with that, is that the two parties will merely co-opt any populist movement once it grows so big.

The Republicans did so recently with the Tea Party and the Perotistas. Long ago, the Democrats did the same by enacting the New Deal which pacified all the populists in the left-wing and brought them under control.


http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1963368

 

[Stet]

...It's a majority government.

I don't see more parties really being a problem at all.

Vote splitting happens in individual ridings too. 12 ridings in the 2011 election were won with less than a 5% margin. A united left would have had a serious impact on the results.

 

[Zhengi]

We already had a situation like this and guess what? They didn't filibuster everything in sight. The post 08 Repubs shattered filibuster records.

Which is within their right. What part of that is wrong? And who cares that they shattered filibuster records? The Democrats can do that too next time the Republicans are the majority. In fact, the Democrats realized that if they change the filibuster rules now, they could potentially be hurting themselves in the future when they need the filibuster to stop some crazy Republican law.

Let's use this as an example. Say that the Republicans have a majority in the Congress and they wanted to pass a law to expedite the building of 100 coal plants or they wanted to ban gays from civil rights or ban circumcision or force everyone to tip waiters or something drastic that you don't like. Do you want the Democrats to have no power whatsoever to stop this from passing? I would say hell no.

 

[Sol..]

We may have two parties but each party has plenty of sects. Especially with the democrats. They can have both houses and still be split on every topic.

 

[Misanthropy]

.

 

[Kusagari]

The two parties are too ingrained into our culture right now for another party to ever spring up from nowhere. The only chance of an actual, legitimately threatening, third party springing up is if they come from inside the Democratic or Republican party. The Tea Party is the best example of this in modern times. Unfortunately, the sane Republicans would rather bow down to the Tea Party then kick that sect out.

 

[ampere]

Because of the winner take all setup, the system gravitates towards two parties.

There are other political parties, but they aren't very relevant. The most they can do is take votes in a close race and change the winner, as in the Bush/Gore 2000 election.

 

[Regulus Tera]

I thought this video explained pretty well how and why two-party systems arise.

 

[ampere]

I thought this video explained pretty well how and why two-party systems arise.

Yeah, that video does a good job explaining it.

Unfortunately the two party system in the US isn't likely to change. It's similar to pension and pay plans for Congressmen. Nobody is going to vote to lower their own pay or pension.

 

[Dead Man]

In order to avoid a 2 party system you need at least one house of government to have a proportional representation or preferential voting. Neither of which are likely to occur in the US any time soon.

We have 1 independent in the Senate though, Bernie Sanders. He calls himself a Socialist even though the right has tried to make that a dirty word the past few years.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

I really like that guy, I follow him on facebook.

It's more of a corporate oligarchy with a veil of representative democracy.

Indeed.

 

[Enduin]

The two party system and general framework of the US government isnt really a problem. Rather its the political culture in our society today. Sure there are a good few things that could and should be changed in how our governing bodies are elected and how they work, but the really urgent and damaging aspect is how the public views and approaches politics and the two parties. Until the public changes their habits and views, government officials will have little to no reason to positively change anything.

Since 9/11 it seems like more than ever that the US "needs" to defend itself from evil forces that want to change us and destroy us. Politics and Governance is no longer about improving and making a better America but preventing the "others," both foreign and domestic, from subverting the "American way" and destroying it.

The public isnt nearly as engaged in politics and governance as they should be and theyre even worse when it comes to being informed about whats going on and what urgently needs to get done. Even those people who think they are well informed more often than not just know a few sound bites from the news networks, which are less new and more entertainment than anything else.

I really despise all of the 24 hour news networks, they rarely if ever bring anything worthwhile to the table. They thrive off division and petty politics and just repeat and over analyse the most inane and meaningless stories. I certainly dont think its been their intention to diminish the American political system but it definitely seems like a result as their role in our political culture has risen over the past 15-20 years.

 

[speculawyer]

I thought this video explained pretty well how and why two-party systems arise.

Bookmarked. People need to watch that to understand why the USA is Democracy 1.0 and has been stuck with a flawed system.

 

[akira28]

USA democracy is broken.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Bookmarked. People need to watch that to understand why the USA is Democracy 1.0 and has been stuck with a flawed system.

We just need to research 'Star Federation'