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.
5 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 15 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Clint1234 posted 4 arguments, Nemiroff posted 8 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff and 4 visitors agree.
emmaelise16, migu, Aphyllous, Godisnotdead, Clint1234, Gallika and 9 visitors disagree.
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