Would it not be better if the other parties like the Independent, Green, Libertarians, etc were even strength as the dems and GOP?

This is one thing I actually agree with you about – yes.

Probably because not enough people agree with or understand those parties or candidates. Most third parties are single issue based, and you can’t run a country from a single issue perspective.

In Germany there are 5 parties in our parliament. But more than 5 is not a good thing. Therefore every party must at least have 5% of the total votes.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we elected the best qualified and stopped using any party system.

@mattbrowne brings up a good point, but I don’t know if having someone in office who represents x percentage (although 5% is reasonable) is the best when we’re dealing with a democratic society. Interestingly, the less percentage of the population that is your constituency that’s voting you in, the more likely you might be to listen to what everyone wants, regardless of the party – and looked for the best solution.

@noelleptc – I do something like that – often dem/rep parties run under multiple platforms. I vote for them under the non-majority party (i.e., I’m voting for someone who is likely to win, while contributing to the percentage for the minority parties).

We’d end up having to form coalition governments.

And then the coalitions would merge permanently so they could stay in power. And we’d be back to a two party system. Get used to it.

It seems that the older a democracy is, the fewer parties it has. In one hundred years, Germany will probably only have two, as well.

Our government would be immensely better in my opinion if we had at least one more party (ideally a couple more).

@wundayatta The US has only had more than one party twice. The first time was for a few decades in the mid 1800’s, the Whig party. They were largely unpopular and held few offices.

The second was for ONE election, the second time Teddy Roosevelt ran for office. He was so disheartened with the Republicans he started his own party, the Bull-Moose party. It was short lived.

For the rest of the entirety of the United States history, there have always been only two major parties.

Don’t forget Ross Perot’s Reform Party.

Since 1995 or so, there’s been a significant but small Green and other third party presence in New Mexico, but our dipshit state government mostly conspires to keep them off the ballot.

Also, The DNC and RNC have basically conspired to keep third parties out of presidential debates.

Also the Libertarian Party often fields candidates in national elections.

There are deeper problems than that with the two party system. Consider that in our present system it is possible (however unlikely) for one party to win 100% of the representation on 51% of the vote. If 73% of the people in the country vote for a particular party, that party might only pick up 55% of the congress. Heck, in the senate you could win 80%+ and not even pick up a majority because of the discordant nonsense of assigning two senators per state regardless of population (the senators in Wyoming represent constituencies smaller than my neighborhood in Queens).

The ideal (imo) would be to use a parliamentary system for the senate and a regional system for the house. That way you still get the benefits of regional representation, but the more powerful body is controlled by a body representative of the nation as a whole and the people in California aren’t represented 1/83rd as much as the people in North Dakota.

This way if the green party could yield 7% of the national vote, they could hold 7 senate seats. If the libertarians could yield 9% of the vote they would hold 9 senate seats. It weakens the major parties, gives voice to the small parties and forces more coalition.

Sure, there are problems there. A small minor party could hold enormous power if it was willing to swing between to dominant and diametrically opposed parties, for example. That being said, it is certainly a damn sight better than what we have.

It would be a good idea to have additional parties if the the U.S. had a parliament. Our system has rules written in the last two centuries that make it very difficult to the House and Senate to run with more than one party. I guess if the third or fourth party had sufficient numbers, they could re-write the rules. I submit that it would also be a good thing if that was to happen. The problem in the last few elections is that the third or independent candidate would take votes from the best of two terrible choices. The result is almost always that the worst possible candidate wins by default. Further the rules and laws are written so that the incumbent has the advantage. The ultimate result is that the worst win and often stay for more than one term. Many neocons owe their office to the the fielding of a reasonable but unelectable third party candidate.

Personally, I’d rewrite the constitution to provide for a parliament instead of two house but that is very unlikely to happen and we are condemned to our form of non-representative government.

@iamthemob – There are pros and cons for both models.

@mattbrowne – well of course…as there are in all models. ;-)

An answer to @mattbrowne‘s question brought to light an interesting point – what’s missing is a moderate conservative party that is a hybrid of the solid middle that reflects the make-up of most of the country that does not vote a straight party ticket. I used to be a very active Republican, but am now registered as Democrat. However, I do vote for Republican candidates if I feel that they are capable and moderate.

My criteria for voting on a national level is public morality and statesmanship. By public morality, I mean are they capable of setting aside their own personal moral beliefs for a greater common good. As an example, can a candidate recognize that even though they believe abortion is morally wrong, that women have the right to decide what happens to their own body, should have access to qualified health services (as opposed to coat hangers or back alley butchers) and are responsible for their own accountability for their choices? If a candidate cannot see that, then I have a problem with how they will know where to draw the line on other issues. Likewise, gay marriage. There is a religious perspective on marriage and a legal perspective on marriage. Regardless of how an individual feels on the religious perspective on marriage, they will never be able to move marriage from “licensing” people to have sex to a contractural relationship, like the partnership agreement that it really is. If a candidate sees marriage as a religious institution, then they must not recognize heterosexual civil unions either.

It would be beneficial to have maybe an alternative to the Republicans such as the Libertarians and an alternative to the Democrats like the Green. Maybe a centrist type party as well similar to the Whigs. I don’t think it would be great to have too many competing political parties however but like I said just a few extra.