That got your attention, didn't it! Seriously though, democracy would easily fail if the country was full of idiots, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it better to have an extremely strong checks and balance system within the government and not let people vote?
Democracy can only work in a country where the masses are idiots. Idiots are fairly easy to manipulate.
But the problem is that idiots can vote for racist parties like the BNP. For anyone who doesn't know they are a really racist British political party. And an idiot can't be trusted to make the right choice but a country where quite a lot are sensible and keep up to date with current politics can be trusted to put a capable party into power.
1) Checks and Balances only work when he checkers and balancers aren't disruptive/stupid. It works in democracy because these people change and do good for themselves/the gov, but their motives always change. A dictatorship could lead to a bending of all of this. 2) I'd just like to bring this topic up -- A lack in an ordered system of giving power to the next leader has always been a powerful factor in the downfall of civilizations and nations. Democracy solves that, old pres out new pres in he can't really say much. Dictators fight for it, and if they're weak and half dead -- some still stick in office. Doesn't sound too good, Democracy is sounding better.
America has only two main parties. You either get one side or the other. There is no middle choice. Tell me is THAT a fair representation of America?
We're a federal constitutional republic. Of course we are going to have parties. But the people we elect are composed of our own citizenry, and at a local level, though party affiliated, they do represent 'the majority' in an overall quality and support that area's needs. As you go higher up the chain you clearly can't pick yourself to go to congress, you have to pick between the listed representatives, even if none of them are 100% on par with your beliefs. Then again, everybody does so. It's normal for America to lose a chain of autonomy/fairness as it goes up to the national level, but the party is comprised of elected people that people have voted for -- so it's as fair as it'll get.
and besides, what other alternative is there. A dictatorship seems to already be shot down unless somebody can give me some reason as to why it 'would' work.
For example Canada has four majour political parties.
We do have that many, but they're not popular. The country itself/the government are not at fault for there only being two parties - the parties rise and fall in popularity based on the people who are members of those parties, and the American people just so happen to flock to the Republican and Democratic parties. Blaming the government for the people's opinions is silly.
We do have that many, but they're not popular. The country itself/the government are not at fault for there only being two parties - the parties rise and fall in popularity based on the people who are members of those parties, and the American people just so happen to flock to the Republican and Democratic parties. Blaming the government for the people's opinions is silly.
I wasn't blaming the government, I was asking a question. Which with you response offers me a chance to question once more.
If Americans see that they can only have one choice or the other, and it swings back and forth constantly, why not flock to those other parties? Why put up with the same? Is it because the Democrats and Republicans are the only ones known about by the average American because of corporate funding?
If Americans see that they can only have one choice or the other, and it swings back and forth constantly, why not flock to those other parties? Why put up with the same? Is it because the Democrats and Republicans are the only ones known about by the average American because of corporate funding?
That and the democrat and republican parties are just generally the most famous ones, and tend to best describe the differing views of the American people. The usual American citizen's opinions fall enough into one or the other camp to be fine with it. Those who don't go independent or go for one of the smaller parties. The democrat/republican dichotomy is usually sufficient for the political system to work well enough for the government and the people.
It still feels stangnant to me. I mean ten years ago the Green Party had no sway in Canada, now they're looking to compete with the Bloc. And the NDP have had little popularity over the years, but this time they're probably going to have more seats than the Liberals. I dunno, I just like to think more choice is better.
Anyway, the point is that there is just as much choice as in any other country - it's just that there are three choices (democrat, republican, and independent) that are the most popular. There's a fair amount of variety within the two parties, which helps a lot with variety as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I live in Iowa, I suspect you know where that is because you live in America, anyways the Green party is rather influential here. I'm not quite sure if political things vary that much across our great country or not.
I think thisisnotanalt was speaking more in national terms. Sure Green is heard of here and there but the three he mentioned are by far the most popular. And to reply to wolf's feeling of stagnancy, there have been presidents of other parties in the past which shows that there is change (even if it takes a while). New parties start up and old ones fade depending on what people view as key issues. Example, the Tea Party.
Independant...what does independant stand for? Or is independant the name you give everyone who isn't republican or democratic? If it's the latter it isn't much of a party, because independant could mean an assortment of parties.
And to reply to wolf's feeling of stagnancy, there have been presidents of other parties in the past which shows that there is change (even if it takes a while). New parties start up and old ones fade depending on what people view as key issues.
Any examples? Also, what party would be considered a "middle road" party?
Wolf, independents can be on either side of the spectrum, or somewhere in the middle. There are TONS of independent parties, including... the COMMUNIST PARTY!!!11shift+11!!
Independant...what does independant stand for? Or is independant the name you give everyone who isn't republican or democratic? If it's the latter it isn't much of a party, because independant could mean an assortment of parties.
Its a general term for anybody not a democrat or republican. Like Ralph Nader. The only other parties besides democrats and republicans in the presidency were federalists I believe back when america was new.
