The debate "Blue for biden red for trump.nthis is an expirment please replie to why you chose who you did." was started by
July 9, 2020, 8:30 pm.
By the way, emmaelise16 is disagreeing with this statement.
11 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 19 people are on the disagree side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Clint1234 posted 4 arguments, Nemiroff posted 8 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff and 10 visitors agree.
emmaelise16, migu, Aphyllous, Godisnotdead, Clint1234, Gallika, JDAWG9693, kapil and 11 visitors disagree.
and i can gaurantee you any nation where half the population are gullible fools eating up propaganda will fail, no matter what system is in place.
so lets take america off the table and not look at the chaos unfolding because of an idiot population, and examine the 2 systems on a technical basis. i am curious as to which is better, but i do think that the 2 party system is underestimated.
without the primary election, yes this would be a terrible system. but in the primary, many voices are heard, debates are had, and votes are cast on nuance. rather than a coalition of parties, in usa, our parties are already coalitions.
alright. so the reasonable half of the usa will divide their vote amongst nuanced policy... and the idiot half will vote as a block to do nothing.... and nothing gets done.
wouldn't it.make more sense for the reasonable half to hash out their differences in the primary (with voter input) and then show a unified front when dealing with the idiot half?
i think your ignoring the whole primary part of the system.
With 2 parties issues are broken into 2 views. The complexities are lost.
Using the climate change issue as an example, in the USA it's an argument of whether it exists or not. Other countries have that debate too, but the parties that accept it also disagree over how we should mitigate climate change. The debate between those parties creates public discourse and pushes the Overton window in their direction since it's less extreme than the view that it does not exist.
i know how coalition government organizes on a fundamental level, but can you help me out with explaining how the parties differentiate themselves?
if you divide by policy, what of people with opinions on many issues? if 99% of people who support clean energy, also support commercial regulations, why would they not combine?
if you divide by region, religion, or other personal groupings, that just creates identiy politics. thats believed to be a cause of
maybe the reason the usa is 2 party is because our population is split into 2 groups. and i would argue that 1 side is objectively wrong. the side that claims scientific consensus and all of academia is biased against them. its hard to make many parties to hash out details of how to approach a policy like climate change or taxes when half your population is convinced they shouldn't exist. it becomes a yes or no question, thus 2 positions, neither of which is addressing the actual issue. america is screwed.
I'm not saying the 2 party system is the only thing that stops people from cooperating, but it's clearly not a system that fosters cooperation between parties.
I just assumed you knew what a 2 party system was so I didn't need to clarify.
And a minority government must receive enough support from the other parties to break the 50% margin in order to actually lead. The majority party has the first opportunity to get other parties on their side, but if they fail the second party can try. What this does is balance the power between the seats. To get other parties on-side the major party must negotiate with the smaller parties. They must change their platform enough to appease the other parties.
If socialists get 30% of the vote, they would need to moderate their policies for the other parties to get on side. If they do not, and no one gives them the extra 20% they need, then the second largest party gets the opportunity to reach 50%. If no one gets it then, our propoganda tells us, another vote would be cast, but that's never happened.
wow, that was some bad grammar lmao :p gonna have to rewrite that
obama tried to negotiate and appease republicans. cooperation was the norm in usa. look at israel where coalitions can form between conservatives and hyper religious groups (like usa Republicans) and refuse to talk to progressive or arab groups? this is more a fault of the leaders and how they function in the system rather than the system itself.
why are you laughing at your failure to clarify? a 2 party system can be a system with only 2 parties, or a system dominated by 2 parties. Other nations 1 party system allows for only 1 party to hold any power. would you prefer debating with someone who simply assumes your meaning and runs with their assumptions?
so lets say we split the democratic party into moderates and socialists, and split the republican party into moderates and liberitarians. (we can split more, but just for example). is this 4 way general better than letting each side choose a coalition candidate in the primary? lets say 70% of the population does not want socialism, but they divide their vote amongst the nonsocialist options... but 30% go for the socialist and they win with a winning minority. is that democracy?
what im saying is the American primary system and mostly 2 way general election is the superior system.
Hahaha the USA isn't technically a 2 party system? I'm sorry, but that is so absurd it shows I need to explain what a 2 party system is. A 2 party system isn't a political system with only 2 parties running, a 2 party system is a political system where only 2 parties represent the views held by the majority. That's more the case in the USA than any other developed country. A multi party system is breaking down the range of views held in the 2 party system into smaller parties.
Your argument is a multi party system gives more power to extreme views. Let's say we map the views held by the 2 major parties in the USA onto smaller parties, that wouldn't change the views, it would only change how they're represented.
You're justifying 3rd parties are extreme because in the USA 3rd parties only exist because their views are not represented within the 2 party system that encapsulates the majority, their views aren't even represented by the extremes in the major parties. So obviously they're going to be absurd views. Look at Canada to get a better understanding of a multiparty system, a system where it isn't taboo for conservative parties to negotiate and appease progressive voices, it's a requirement of politics.
i don't understand.
why can't a nation with a 2 party system have reasonable 3rd parties?
the usa isnt technically a 2 party system. other parties exist, and there have been more than 2 candidates in presidential general elections many times. it only feels like a 2 party system because the other parties have extreme policies.
As I said, a country with a 2 party system will not have reasonable 3rd party options. That is the nature of a 2 party system. You need to look a parties outside a 2 party system to make a reasonable assessment on a multiparty system.
the 3rd parties are not extreme because they aren't part of the big 2, they are extreme because of their extreme policies.
liberitarians promote a pure free market unseen in any nation that can afford to enforce laws. greens promote a green technology no matter what, somewhat feasible now but they were promoting the same policies when the technology didnt even exist. theres a prohibition party whose primary platfork revolves around banning alcohol. i cant think of a single 3rd party with reasonable policies with national appeal.
the preventing an extreme candidate from winning via a largest minority is a seperate point from my ciriticism of existing 3rd party options.
I think this is begging the question. You're saying a 2 party system is good because it stops extremist 3rd parties taking control, however 3rd parties are only extreme in the USA because you have a 2 party system.
What a multi-party system does is force cooperation between competing interests. A 2 party system creates an us vs them dichotomy where cooperation is usually weakness.
personally i like the 2 party system. both parties represent a wide range of views which are sorted in the primary. all the 3rd parties are extreme and not good.
A 2 party system avoids the risk of an extemist candidate with minority support winning because multiple mainstream candidates split the majority. a multi party system would require secondary choices or multiple runoffs to avoid that problem, but a single primary season gives 2 party systems plenty of flexibility.
It's idiotic to pragmatically engage with the system that governs your life?
cant believe its this quite this close to election day
Trump is our president, deal with it
Why don't you go eat a dick and get back to me after I got done f***ing your mom, about that
wouldn't people who agree naturally congregate into parties to promote their ideas?
I would prefer a total revaluation of the voting system. Abolish all parties and focus on issues individually rather than dialectically.
Why don't you pick up any book on sociology or dialectics and get back to me when you can think for yourself?
what system would you prefer?
trump is an embarrassment.
Why don't you get 20 dollars to buy yourself a brain.
Trump is what makes this country great
The two-party system is idiotic and blind. Whoever votes for either is an idiot and a fool