Ryze - Business Networking Buy Ethereum and Bitcoin
Get started with Cryptocurrency investing
Home Invite Friends Networks Friends classifieds
Home

Apply for Membership

About Ryze


Building an Open Future [This Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts] | | Topics
"Strong Poltical Systems" - Two Party Systems.Views: 275
Feb 28, 2009 3:42 am "Strong Poltical Systems" - Two Party Systems.

John Stephen Veitch
It is my belief that the two party system of the USA has become a curse to the society. The two parties have become captured by the need for funding which comes from the business community. So politics in the USA, has become hopelessly biased in favour of the needs of business and the interests of the rich. This lack of balance has become progressively entrenched in the last 30 Years.

On Common Dreams a writer said what many believe; "The Republicans and the Democrats are two wings of the same bird."

Prof. David Michael Green, wrote an article about the two party system here:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/27-0

Green can't see beyond the two party system either. He thinks the Republicans have failed, and he thinks Obama has done remarkably well. But he can't decide if the two party bird is still flying in the same direction or not. Perhaps hints that the direction is changing mean something. In Green's mind the next election will still be between two parties called Republicans and Democrats. I hope he's wrong about that.

The two party system is entrenched by the voting system, first past the post or winner takes all. It's a very primitive voting system. It's one virtue is that is usually gives a "strong" result, and the "majority rule", even in fact if the majority of the seats only represent 30% of a divided vote as is often the case. The two party system can deliver, two parties both going the same way, which is what tends to be the case in the USA. (And that also happened here in NZ.) Or it can give you two parties that run in entirely opposite directions. So you get violent flip flops of policy when governments change. Both are undesirable.

Proportional voting systems give an entirely different result. There are many more parties elected. Politicians have to negotiate with each other, to get policy implemented. There is much more real debate in public, and in closed political circles. It's harder to "do things" but the things that do get done are better thought out, and less likely to be overturned by any incoming new government. I think the USA needs a proportional voting system, but both the Republicans and the Democrats oppose that, because it would upset the "two party club" that they currently run. During the depression perhaps an opportunity to change the voting system will occur.

Personally I've argued in several places on Ryze, that the 2009 Depression has killed the Republican Party. Once the American people know how much damage they did, it will be impossible for Republicans to get elected. But Dave Bronstein on Common Dreams makes a good case against me. He writes:

"DaveBronstein February 27th, 2009 11:43 am
“...Clearly, Barack Obama is no progressive panacea. Last week I ripped many of his policies and staffing choices as Cheneyesque...”
• It’s nice that DMG is at least partly aware of his own bipolar disorder. Last week was “Democrats are Hopeless!” week. Today it’s back to “But Wait – Republicans are Even Worse!”
“Understanding and critiquing Republican barbarism is the easy part.” The most devastating lampooning of Republicans imaginable still wouldn’t change certain basic truths about Democrats. These disagreeable truths include:
1) The Democrats themselves do not want to (and will never try to) send the Republicans to the dustbin of history, Whig-fashion. On the contrary, the Democrats insist on permanent rule by the two-party system. In other words, even if the continued existence of the R’s was in serious jeopardy, the D’s themselves would ride to their rescue. The D’s can exist only under conditions where the R’s are the only alternative.
2) No matter how barbarous Republicans are – Rove, Palin, Bush, Jindal ad infinitem – there will ALWAYS be a prominent place for them in the framework of American capitalism, because they directly represent the interests of the plutocracy. It’s true that they may sometimes go through periods of diminished popularity, & may lose elections. But they will NEVER be banished from their status as one of the two major parties. Even after the events of the last 8 years, it’s altogether possible that Republicans could retake the reins of power, in 4 or 8 years. And the Democrats would meekly retreat to their usual position as capitalism’s B Team, acting subservient to Republicans, as the latter continued their filthy tricks & traditional raping of the country.
3) Democrats are not “opponents” of Republicans. They are two pistons in the same engine. They are siblings joined at the hip. They need each other. They serve the same class interests, though one does it directly, while the other does it indirectly. Both are instruments of the plutocracy – one proudly and unapologetically so; the other, sheepishly and meekly so."

So what are you thinking?

John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.biz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/

Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch (new win)





Ryze Admin - Support   |   About Ryze



© Ryze Limited. Ryze is a trademark of Ryze Limited.  Terms of Service, including the Privacy Policy