Forums → WEPR → The US of A
| 14 | 5813 |
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
- 14 Replies
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
???
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?
It's because people like to associate themselves with a group. When they can look to a name or place and say "that's where I belong" it's comforting to them. They don't have to really think about their choices because they just follow the party lines.
Why do we only ever hear of the main two, Democratic and Republican?
Money.
Who would be choosing the presidents?
The electoral college chooses regardless. Our votes don't matter.
It's all about the votes that come in the poll box
Nope.
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?
In short, yes. It's easier to pick a side than to try and introduce a new topic
There are dozens of political parties? Why do we only ever hear of the main two, Democratic and Republican?
Because they have the most money. The more money = the more campaigning = more people hearing about that party.
The problem with electing people is that it's all about money. Candidates have lobbyists (what I think they're called, I could be wrong) who sponsor that politician's campaign, and in return, that politician will vote, make laws and what not to the favor of that lobby. That's why the system is ****ed up as it is.
Our votes don't matter.
Then why make a big deal out of voting every four years? Why even vote?
Nope.
How so?
Because they have the most money
So the party with the most money, achieves the Presidency?
Then why make a big deal out of voting every four years? Why even vote?
Why indeed? Two parties overwhelmingly garner the most votes and both parties are extremely similar except for a few issues. They each have cult followings and an extreme amount of money to campaign. And regardless of what you vote, the electoral college is what actually determines who is elected president - it's simply a correlation between popular votes that sort of determine who gets what electoral votes. Bush won in 2000 and he didn't have the popular vote. A majority of the country didn't vote for him, but he was still elected president.
How so?
Voting is almost entirely determined by money. Whoever has the most to campaign and bribe (aka, I'll work to pass this policy if you contribute to my campaign) is by far the most likely to win. After all, the Supreme Court ruled that money is speech - whoever has the most speaks the loudest is what they think is right, I guess.
So the party with the most money, achieves the Presidency?
Look it up and tell me what you find.
Look it up and tell me what you find.
I found this
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/opinion/krumholz-money-elections/]
It states that Obama and Romney had both used, and made quite a bit of money for their election, but Obama had spent more than Romney did. This doesn't prove that if you have more money, you win, but it is some evidence towards it. And I can understand that with more money spent, you reach more and more people. And if you can reach the people the other candidate can not, that seals your victory right?
Hmmm...
As a comparison in the effectiveness in spending more to win, in the last UK general election in 2010, the result was no overall majority, and resulted in a coalition between the parties with the most and third most seats. However, the difference in campaign spending between the parties was very big. For the largest three parties, in order of the number of seats won, spending was:
Conservative Party: £16.6m
Labour: £8m
Liberal Democrats: £4.7m
(Source: Electoral Commission)
The Electoral Commission also set a £30,000,000 spending limit per party.
Because the parties are not a physical separation
Then Alaska and Hawaii shouldn't count because there is one.
You must be logged in to post a reply!