Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The US of A

Posted Aug 10, '14 at 10:48pm

rychus

rychus

1,301 posts

I'm not entirely sure if this has been asked before, and I looked around a little bit and didn't see anything, so sorry if I am repeating a question D:.
Anyways (if your American), why is it that we live in "The United States of America" when we have two political parties that separate us? I believe this a good question to ask but have never asked it in a forum before so I am hoping for some interesting answers

 

Posted Aug 10, '14 at 11:29pm

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

7,511 posts

The states are united in that they make a single country. And "The Divided States of America" sounds less appealing.


last edited Aug 10 2014 11:29 pm by MattEmAngel
 

Posted Aug 10, '14 at 11:57pm

rychus

rychus

1,301 posts

The states are united in that they make a single country. And "The Divided States of America" sounds less appealing.


So we didn't take into consideration that we have two political parties that separate America? The parties have contrasting ideas on how the government and the states should be run.

The united states may be together, but I do not think that we are united. Maybe at once we were, but currently the differences between the two political parties have separated us.

My main question that I was asking was why we have two political parties that separate us? Why not three or four? Or just one?
 

Posted Aug 11, '14 at 12:56am

SSTG

SSTG

12,343 posts

Knight

It's not the people that are separated, it's the corrupted politicians that make us believe it.
Before, the Republicans were considered the corrupted ones but today I think they're pretty much the same (Democrats & Republicans = same). All they're interested in is passing bills that make them richer and strike down whatever would help the people when it's against their own agendas.

The solution:
Fired the entire Senate and the House and elect totally new people.


last edited Aug 11 2014 12:57 am by SSTG
 

Posted Aug 11, '14 at 1:01am

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

7,511 posts

The united states may be together, but I do not think that we are united. Maybe at once we were, but currently the differences between the two political parties have separated us.

Maybe at once we were

Bam. There you go. America was called "The United States of America" on the Declaration of Independence back in 1776, when everyone was getting along for the sake of getting the British to go away. The political stance of the country has changed, but hey, imagine trying to get two separate parties (or more, since there are technically seven) to agree on a new name for the country. Knowing American politics, they'd probably argue that the flag needs to be changed. The money flow, debating, protesting and raging would be astronomical, and in the end it would be something stupid that no one would adopt, especially if it involved a new flag.

My main question that I was asking was why we have two political parties that separate us? Why not three or four? Or just one?

Because no one gets along with anyone. America is up to its neck in pride and ignorance, and it's easier to just find someone who thinks the same way you do than do research and compromise. No one wants to compromise anymore.


last edited Aug 11 2014 01:08 am by MattEmAngel
 

Posted Aug 11, '14 at 1:38am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

My main question that I was asking was why we have two political parties that separate us? Why not three or four? Or just one?

There are dozens. People generally go with the lesser of two evils due to ignorance, not knowing that there are more options.
 

Posted Aug 11, '14 at 4:22am

Terry_Logic

Terry_Logic

4,550 posts

but I do not think that we are united. Maybe at once we were, but currently the differences between the two political parties have separated us.


Politics aren't everything when it comes to everyday life. Politics aren't even everything when it comes to politics. The political parties may separate people politically to an extent, but as everyday people, it doesn't make as big of a difference. Democrats and Republicans tend to get along just fine as long as they aren't talking about politics, and most of the time most of them aren't.

I have one Democrat parent and one Republican parent, and they've been married for 27 years. That's about as united as you can get.

My main question that I was asking was why we have two political parties that separate us? Why not three or four? Or just one?


Two parties makes more sense mathematically than three or four would. In an election, if two candidates from two different equally weighted parties are running, one of them will win, and approximately 51% of the people who voted would be happy. With three equally weighted parties, if one candidate out of three wins, approximately 34% of people will be happy. This means that 66% of people are unhappy with their current leader. Would it really be fair if that person won even if 66% of voters voted against them?
 

Posted Aug 11, '14 at 10:20am

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,992 posts

My main question that I was asking was why we have two political parties that separate us? Why not three or four? Or just one?


One would be autocracy, which nobody but an autocrat would want. More are viable, but even nations that have more tend to be fairly two-sided.

Two parties makes more sense mathematically than three or four would. In an election, if two candidates from two different equally weighted parties are running, one of them will win, and approximately 51% of the people who voted would be happy. With three equally weighted parties, if one candidate out of three wins, approximately 34% of people will be happy. This means that 66% of people are unhappy with their current leader. Would it really be fair if that person won even if 66% of voters voted against them?


The problem here is that, once disillusionment sets in and more voters become discontent with their chosen representative, voting by the two-party system is more like a choice between Scylla and Charybdis.
 

Posted Aug 11, '14 at 12:57pm

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

7,511 posts

The problem here is that, once disillusionment sets in and more voters become discontent with their chosen representative, voting by the two-party system is more like a choice between Scylla and Charybdis.


If people vote at all. According to Statistic Brain (verified by the U.S Census Bureau), only 64% of Americans voted in the 2012 elections. Of the top reasons why people did not vote, 13.4% just weren't interested. This, of course, does not stop the other 36% from complaining about the political actions following the election, or the elected president (or previous presidents).
 

Posted Aug 11, '14 at 1:47pm

rychus

rychus

1,301 posts

It's not the people that are separated, it's the corrupted politicians that make us believe it.


Fired the entire Senate and the House and elect totally new people.


Yes. I completely agree with you. I also believe that we should go back when the presidents had military experience, I don't know exactly why we changed to elect presidents who were deep in politics and wanted to change things for themselves, promising things they could never achieve. With Military Presidents, you wouldn't have to worry about them wanting to change things for themselves, because they would have died for the country they would now be running.


and it's easier to just find someone who thinks the same way you do than do research and compromise


Isn't this why we can't make big changes? Because of all the people who would rather jump on the political bandwagon instead of researching and developing their own ideas and opinions about things?


There are dozens. People generally go with the lesser of two evils due to ignorance, not knowing that there are more options.


There are dozens of political parties? Why do we only ever hear of the main two, Democratic and Republican?


Two parties makes more sense mathematically than three or four would. In an election, if two candidates from two different equally weighted parties are running


Isn't this a little unfair? Choose one or the other. What if the population decided to just not vote? Who would be choosing the presidents? The select few who actually did vote. It's all about the votes that come in the poll box, no one asks why we want that president, just that we want them running the country. Not everyone in America votes either, so it would not be equally weighted.


voting by the two-party system is more like a choice between Scylla and Charybdis.


Okay, I understand this.
 
Reply to The US of A

You must be logged in to post a reply!