Should the two party system be abolished?

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 04:32:05 -0400

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 4:35 AM

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 04:35:42 -0400

Response by PO1 Tony Holland made Aug 12 at 2016 4:41 AM

PO1 Tony Holland — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 04:41:12 -0400

The party system was never envisioned by the founders or it would have been included in the Constitution.

Response by SPC(P) Samuel T. made Aug 12 at 2016 4:46 AM

SPC(P) Samuel T. — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 04:46:15 -0400

Yes get rid of it

Response by LTC Eric Coger made Aug 12 at 2016 4:52 AM

LTC Eric Coger — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 04:52:21 -0400

What do you mean by that? There is no law or statute that limits things to two parties. It's just the two major parties dwarf all the others. Every Presidential election for the past 20+ years (my voting history) has had at least 7-9 candidates for President on every ballot. Should WE the PEOPLE choose a third party to replace or compete with the big dos? That's completely up to us.

Response by Maj Rob Drury made Aug 12 at 2016 5:05 AM

Maj Rob Drury — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 05:05:37 -0400

Yep! I'm still a little undecided on the electoral college, however.

Response by COL Lee Flemming made Aug 12 at 2016 5:08 AM

COL Lee Flemming — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 05:08:06 -0400

ENS Private RallyPoint Member there is nothing to abolish. The fact is that we really have a winner take all system. There is no formal arrangement that one of the two parties will win seats, and there is nothing that prevents a viable third party candidate from winning. And the parliamentary system that exists in other countries would take herculean constitutional changes to institute in the US.

As a point of conjecture it may be interesting to consider, but realistically there is very little chance and maybe even less interest in abolishing anything.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Aug 12 at 2016 6:15 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 06:15:39 -0400

If another party can rise up and become a major player, than the two party system would abolish on its own.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 12 at 2016 6:45 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 06:45:37 -0400

Response by PO3 David Fries made Aug 12 at 2016 6:54 AM

PO3 David Fries — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 06:54:09 -0400

A couple people have already stated it, but there is nothing to abolish. Now I'm not a fan, but all the voting public has to do is generate enough votes to elect someone other than either an R or a D.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 7:21 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 07:21:58 -0400

It would take the 2 parties to either implode from within or be surpassed by another. With the power brokers' ability and willingness to maintain in control, both seem options seem out of reach.

With support from power players currently entrenched and mass rank & file support, a third party could emerge- but it would likely replace one of the current two in time.

It's our nature to have two teams on the field, despite more registered voters being unaffiliated than registered Republicans or Democrats combined. (I heard that stat recently, I'm not sure it's true).

For options, feel free to look into a minor part started by a few veterans, Modern Whig party. http://www.modernwhig.org/ there's no candidates yet, but you can be that rank & file that will eventually evolve into mass appeal and turn the players in the system around.

The Modern Whig Party

Welcome to The Modern Whig Party of America. We are a political party based on reason, civility, and service to our country. A grassroots force founded by veterans, we are committed to fighting for a political system based on common sense and courage.

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Aug 12 at 2016 7:25 AM

1SG Dennis Hicks — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 07:25:48 -0400

it already has in the true sense.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 7:43 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 07:43:43 -0400

We have a system where our politicians have more loyalty to the party than to the Nation. So, yes all parties should be abolished. Candidates can run on their record and proposed policies. Let the voters sort it out.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Aug 12 at 2016 7:47 AM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 07:47:37 -0400

Kind of go along with most of the comments that say there is no requirement for just 2 parties, so what's to abolish? Even in 2016 we have at least two other parties running, Green & Libertarian. Issue IMO is that no other party has the organization or funding to successfully challenge the majority Democratic or Republican Parties. I sort of feel that we may see the Republican Party morph into some other party or parties following this election cycle. One could even argue that the Republican Party is already two parties within itself when you consider the Tea Party. Considering the craziness surrounding the 2016 election cycle there certainly seems to be the climate for the establishment of new parties to challenge Democrats and Republicans. All that is needed is a platform or agenda that a majority of Americans can wrap themselves around, tremendous organization and big time funding.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Aug 12 at 2016 8:11 AM

LTC Kevin B. — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 08:11:14 -0400

I certainly would, but I suppose this depends on how you see the two-party system being abolished. If you mean "no parties", I don't think we'd ever attain that goal (although I'll admit that I detest labels that help opposition candidates use to predefine someone). If you did away with the formal party structures, I think we'd still have politicians and voters aligning via informal coalitions, using common ideologies, rather than along formal political structures. If you mean "more than two parties", I'd love to see viable options to the Democrats and Republicans. I've even voted for 3rd-party candidates in an attempt to help them get up to 5% so they can achieve Federal funds to grow their movements. Problem is...our society has shown a desire to compress their votes down to the two major options, and no viable option has ever really taken hold. And, the main reason for that is due to the two major parties ever so subtly shifting their stances to absorb any breakaway momentum. I saw it happen with the Reform Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party. The Democrats and Republicans both ever so subtly shifted their platforms to absorb the breakaway movements that were gaining steam. As a society, we need to resist that temptation.

The new tactic I'm seeing is the "double label", and I'm interested in seeing how this plays out. For instance, Rand Paul and Justin Amash have openly called themselves Libertarian-leaning Republicans. That's an attempt to pull Libertarians into the GOP. I've seen Gary Johnson and William Weld call themselves former-Republican Libertarians, in an attempt to pull Republicans into the Libertarian Party. The former are trying to squelch and/or exploit the alternative, and the latter are trying to grow an alternative, both using the legitimacy of one of a major party (but in different ways).

Regardless, I'd love to see a political environment with either "no labels" or "many labels", rather than just two main labels.

Response by SFC Don Vance made Aug 12 at 2016 8:17 AM

SFC Don Vance — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 08:17:28 -0400

No, we don't need to abolish the two party system; we just need to take their power away and return to electing Senators and Representatives the way the Constitution proscribes!

Response by MSgt C Madd made Aug 12 at 2016 8:42 AM

MSgt C Madd — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 08:42:37 -0400

ENS Private RallyPoint Member 2 party system is in name only, not action. They both talk a big game, but not in representing their constituents. Nobel class of America, only interested in personal wealth and re-election.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Aug 12 at 2016 9:16 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:16:19 -0400

Get rid of those who have made a career out of this. We need new blood and new ideas!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 9:18 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:18:00 -0400

We really do not have a two party system, we just have two dominant parties. I wish a third party would evolve that would put some pressure on the Dem/Rep but so far that has not happened.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 9:41 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:41:20 -0400

The individual states decide a lot on their own. If they wanted to abolish the use of D, R, I, G, or whatever from the ballot and just list names, they could. But then who would single-issue and low-information voters know who to vote for?

Response by SSG Stephan Pendarvis made Aug 12 at 2016 9:55 AM

SSG Stephan Pendarvis — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:55:01 -0400

yes

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Aug 12 at 2016 9:59 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:59:25 -0400

ENS Private RallyPoint Member There are several parties as well as those with no party affiliation (independents). The problem with our current system is that there are so many SHEEP who have been conditioned to vote either R or D regardless of who those two parties parade out as candidates. Case in point one of the two horribly unqualified candidates will win the election this November because lazy Americans who don't want to think will go and vote for Chump or Swillary at a level that will give one of the two the white house.

Neither one should be acceptable to the American People. American Citizenship, in theory, requires the public to educate themselves on the candidates. Our society has become LAZY. Lazy to the point that overall people are not willing to put in the effort to be a well informed voter. A voter who is capable of voting intelligently, as opposed to voting for spoon fed option A or spoon fed option B.

I will not wast my vote on either chump or swillary. I will vote for a candidate that I actually support. Win or lose I will sleep peacefully knowing that I did not vote for a poor a candidate. I will never look down at someone who genuinely supports the R or D candidate. The ones I want to bitch slap are the ones who vote for "the lesser of two evils." Voting for a bad candidate just because they are better than another bad candidate is not a valid reason to vote for someone. I have heard people who said they will vote for swillary because she is a woman. Voting for a person because they are a "historic" candidate is also no a valid reason to vote for a candidate.

In a perfect world American voters would research the candidates ACTIONS not words, find a candidate whose record actually lines up the best with their world view, and vote for that candidate regardless of party affiliation, color, gender, religion, ethnicity, or other superficial factor. Sadly, most Americans are too lazy to do that. They will just vote for the rotting turkey carcass. Right wing, left wing. Same turkey.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Aug 12 at 2016 10:01 AM

MSG Stan Hutchison — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:01:53 -0400

How would you go about abolishing a political party? Our 1st Amendment would prohibit that.

Response by CSM David Heidke made Aug 12 at 2016 10:11 AM

CSM David Heidke — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:11:51 -0400

I wish other parties could get a foot hold, I really do. But we have something called the 1st Amendment, which by virtue of being the first, it tends to be the most important. It guarantees the freedom of assembly, which the party system is. "Abolishing" this system would be unconstitutional.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Aug 12 at 2016 10:16 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:16:58 -0400

Take a look everywhere else. When you don't have a state enforced (e.g. Communist, dictator, etc.) single party, the systems most always gravitates to two parties anyways. There may be 8 parties, but only two that ultimately matter. The exception is where old tribal and other connections remain strong and you have to have a coalition of say the largest 3-4 parties to make a go of it.

The problem is when both parties move so far away from each other and the majority, their relevance, hence their power is questioned. That has created a very large independent voting block here. I expect it to get larger. In the larger scheme it will be a matter of how bad the uber types want to lose. It's been coming for a long time. Remember Blue Dog Democrats were middle of the road Republicans 50 years ago.

Response by SGT David T. made Aug 12 at 2016 10:18 AM

SGT David T. — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:18:57 -0400

I don't think there is a way to "abolish" the so called two party system. I think the best we can hope for is a level play field that would allow minor parties equal access to the ballots and debates. Also, term limits would be good too.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Aug 12 at 2016 10:24 AM

MSG Stan Hutchison — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:24:01 -0400

I have written of this before, but if I may repeat myself for this thread;
In 2004, I was involved in an attempt to form a viable 3rd party, the Veterans Party of America. (yes, I know there is one now. Not the same people). I invested a lot of my own time and money, travelling around the state of Washington, speaking at VFW's, AL, and other places where we could gather Veterans and their supporters. This effort failed for two very basic reasons. One, those at the top, the national level, had too much internal struggling over who was going to run things. Second, it was very difficult to enroll members because we had no set ideology. Often I heard: If the party is going to be liberal I will stay with the Republicans, or, If the party is going to be conservative, I will stay Democrat. We tried to form with a moderate ideological platform, but could satisfy almost no one. So, the effort failed.
We see the same today. The two most viable "other" parties are the Greens and the Libertarians. The former is considered by many as being to liberal while the latter is considered to conservative. So, they become simply extensions to the existing two major parties.
I feel it would be far better to organize a means to improve on what we have, through election finance reform, plus a more active involvement by our citizens in the actual operation of the parties, at all levels.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Aug 12 at 2016 11:12 AM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:12:49 -0400

Great question. Both parties are more alike than different it seems. They are filled with career politicians that line their pockets with our money and leave office wealthy without making a positive impact on the rest of us.

Americans need more choices. But under our current system I think it would be difficult to make the change as both current parties would fight hard against it.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 11:15 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:15:48 -0400

For those who haven't read it, i'd suggest reading George Washington's farewell address. If PEOPLE would stop thinking in terms of faction/party, we could shatter the symbiotic relationship between government and lobbyists. It's time to put our future back into the hands of the people. The career politicians have forgotten what "representative republic" actually means.

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 11:34 AM

CDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:34:27 -0400

I would have to say it is not the two party system that is the problem but those elected who do not work with the other side and know how to compromise to achieve results that is the real reason we are having so many issues today. The two party system that developed, shortly after the constitution was adopted, has functioned for better or for worse for the last 216 plus years. Sure there have been bad times but there have also been several very productive years in congress and the government as a whole. It comes down to leadership in congress and a willingness to work with the other side.

While a multiparty system might brink about coalition building and compromise it also can be extremely ineffective, just look at most of Europe.

Also if you really get into the weeds we have a multi party system. There are members of Congress across the political spectrum form right wing conservatives, to conservatives, to socially liberal conservatives, moderates, fiscally conservative liberals, liberals and progressive liberals.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Aug 12 at 2016 12:06 PM

SSG Ed Mikus — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 12:06:47 -0400

YES!

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Aug 12 at 2016 1:18 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:18:41 -0400

The founders never envisioned one. Then the loser became the VP.

Response by LTC Thomas Tennant made Aug 12 at 2016 2:45 PM

LTC Thomas Tennant — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 14:45:12 -0400

SHOULD THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM BE ABOLISHED? A good question ….JUST REMEMBER – POLITICS IS PERSONAL.

When I lived in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (now more accurately called "Socialist State of") Tip O'Neal was my Congressman and Speaker of the House. His favorite saying was "All Politics is local." But I would go even further...Politics is Personal. Many of you just might be scratching you head on that one...just let it sink in...because it has a profound effect on how you look at this election. Before I answer there are some points that need to be considered.

Ask yourself this simple question, “Who best represents YOU?” Or as Bill O’Reilly asks, “How is looking out for you?” When you step into that voting booth (as I have for over 40 years of elections) you are selecting the man or woman who will be representing you on issues of governance at the local, state and federal levels. You are in effect giving your consent for them to make rules, regulations and laws as well as take actions on your behalf which have consequences in your life.

You want that elected representative, senator, governor, president or whomever to be responsive to and sensitive of your needs and desires. You want them to be loyal and beholding to you the voter who put them into office and who in theory vote them out. But often your needs are secondary to those of party and even some pressure/special-interest group. So we have a situation where the past few election cycles you have the RINOs talking like conservatives and then cynically acting like elitists after we give them another term. On the liberal Democrat side, they just keep lying about not being socialists (at least until Bernie Sanders).

Are you comfortable with the corruption and reality of the current political situation? With the way the two party system has evolved into the “elitist establishment” vs. the rest of us, it scares the hell out of me. I am not and now realize I have no voice in the way the nation is going. From a personal freedom and economic point of view, I am seeing “We the people” slowly being ground down into serfs (peasants with no freedoms). So yes…the two party system should be abolished and I think we are witnesses of that systems destruction.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 2:57 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 14:57:11 -0400

I can't help but wonder what would happen if political parties were outlawed altogether. Every candidates voting record and stance on the issues should be public knowledge and when it comes election time, news media should publish the incumbents record as well as statements from a challenger explaining what they would have done differently and why. No buying politicians with campaign money, no politicians focusing on getting reelected instead of doing their job.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 3:09 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:09:03 -0400

YES , please we need more options !!

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Aug 12 at 2016 4:00 PM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:00:17 -0400

You're asking the wrong question. It's EFFECTIVELY a two-party system, but in fact it's a party system with a virtually unlimited number of parties, that happens to be dominated by two major parties that have a virtual stranglehold on the system.

The questions to ask are:

How can we reduce or eliminate the dominance of the two major parties?
and
Is that something we want to do?

I certainly would love to see it happen, and I have some ideas on how that I have shared here before.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 6:18 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 18:18:37 -0400

Each year those who run for office fall under R or D. Outside of this they are very different to include extremes like Santorum and Sanders to moderates like Romney and Clinton. A Democrat in the south is more like a Republican in the north. Now inner city are typically very progressive. So on paper there is 2 major parties, but reality there is a spectrum of ideologies.

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 9:14 PM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 21:14:10 -0400

Yes

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Aug 13 at 2016 12:05 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Sat, 13 Aug 2016 00:05:25 -0400

It's a mathematical error that should be corrected.
http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/

Politics in the Animal Kingdom

Homepage for CGP Grey. Videos, articles and links.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Aug 13 at 2016 1:03 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Sat, 13 Aug 2016 01:03:03 -0400

"WE THE PEOPLE" need to wake up and take charge. In theory there may be two major parties, but they both are the same. People need to revolt and vote in others. But as usual, it's all about the money, where the money comes from, from whom, and what "their" agenda really is.

Response by PO1 Jack Howell made Aug 13 at 2016 7:47 PM

PO1 Jack Howell — Sat, 13 Aug 2016 19:47:22 -0400

The two-party system exists because it has become an accepted part of American politics and because people who followed Goerge Washington failed to heed the warning he gave during his farewell address. He warned that having political parties would divide the country (look at how divided the country is now). This system will stay in place until enough people decide that a change needs to made to the current system. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that will happen anytime soon.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2016 12:56 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Aug 2016 00:56:39 -0400

Nope, just these two parties!!!

Response by 1SG Al Brown made Aug 14 at 2016 10:59 AM

1SG Al Brown — Sun, 14 Aug 2016 10:59:48 -0400

I've seen on TV lately that some other countries have had their multi-party systems destroyed, via military coup or foreign operative intervention . It seems to have worked out well for the folks that are now in charge. Politics is always ugly. Both sides lie. Power will always corrupt. Pick your poison.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2016 7:48 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:48:11 -0400

No. What we need to do instead is focus on providing the states more rights and making our country a constitional republic again, which what we were founded as. I would love to see a state's convention again. The executive branch has grown too strong because the checks and balances within the three branches are failing. The legislative branch is unwilling to keep the executive branch in check and the judicial branch is more concerned with activism. It's up to the states to make things right.

Response by Cpl Anthony Pearson made Aug 15 at 2016 10:07 AM

Cpl Anthony Pearson — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:07:19 -0400

No, but the two parties should make a HUGE concerted effort to raise up and make viable a 3rd and/or 4th party. Is it in their best interest? NO. Is it in the best interest of America and her people? YES.

Response by SFC Alfred Galloway made Aug 15 at 2016 11:35 AM

SFC Alfred Galloway — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 11:35:41 -0400

Rather than abolish the D's and R's outright, get a constitutional amendment, that requires one of several routes to allow voting:
Veteran
Home owner
Employed/self-employed
Business owner (not a board but actual ownership in a small business)
Retired over 60

As qualifications for the right to vote, any of those paths show a stake in our country, which equates to ensuring that special interests become limited in their political clout as the numbers of unemployed, welfare recipients and those who do not hold a stake in our government will have no say in how our government is ran.

I know its a stretch and will probably garner me a lot of rebukes but lets face it, those people who are on hand outs (not Social Security) play to those who give them their money.

Response by PO2 Pete Haga made Aug 15 at 2016 3:15 PM

PO2 Pete Haga — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:15:59 -0400

We were well on our way to a legit third party until the Tea Party threw all in with the Republicans and went the way of the doo doo and the libertarian party has never really gained ground on the 2 major parties maybe we can get Collin Powell to run on the modern whig party with stormin Norman as his VP. who Knows stranger things have happened!

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2016 3:04 AM

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Aug 2016 03:04:07 -0400

Excellent responses! Thank you. I've definitely learned a lot from this! This was not as black and white as I originally thought.