N/A Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 http://en.wikipedia....litical_parties Duverger's law is an idea in political science which says that constituencies that use first-past-the-post systems* will become two-party systems, given enough time. First-past-the-post tends to reduce the number of political parties to a greater extent than most other methods, thus making it more likely that a single party will hold a majority of legislative seats. (In the United Kingdom, 21 out of 24 General Elections since 1922 have produced a single party majority government.) FPTP's tendency toward fewer parties and more frequent one-party rule can also produce a government that may not consider as wide a range of perspectives and concerns. It is entirely possible that a voter will find that all major parties agree on a particular issue. In this case, the voter will not have any meaningful way of expressing a dissenting opinion through his or her vote. As fewer choices are offered to the voters, voters may vote for a candidate with whom they largely disagree so as to oppose a candidate with whom they disagree even more (See tactical voting above). The downside of this is that candidates will less closely reflect the viewpoints of those who vote for them. It may also be argued that one-party rule is more likely to lead to radical changes in government policy that are only favoured by a plurality or bare majority of the voters, whereas multi-party systems usually require greater consensus in order to make dramatic changes. *The term first past the post (abbreviated FPTP or FPP) was coined as an analogy to horse racing, where the winner of the race is the first to pass a particular point (the "post") on the track (in this case a plurality of votes), after which all other runners automatically and completely lose (that is, the payoff is "winner-takes-all"). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanjuicy Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Spare me the bullshit. Washington warned us about political parties and Jefferson said he would rather go to hell ( more or less) than go to heaven with political parties. Research Founders of the Democratic-Republican party then get back to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WG53 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Research Founders of the Democratic-Republican party then get back to me. Nah...I do not need to do that to know what Jefferson, Washington, etc have said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanjuicy Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Nah...I do not need to do that to know what Jefferson, Washington, etc have said. http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/wwww/us/demorepubpartydef.htm I even got the link for kids.....Hope this helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WG53 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/wwww/us/demorepubpartydef.htm I even got the link for kids.....Hope this helps. And your point? Jefferson was not allowed to change his mind? That changes nothing. Go read Washington's farewell address or the federalist papers # 9 & 10. Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, Washington, Henry, Handcock, S.Adams all disagree with you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanjuicy Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 What is your point is the real question? You stated clearly that Jefferson did NOT want parties....period. Now you are saying he was allowed to change his mind? Washington was never in question as I have already stated, but it is funny that you mention the Federalist (a political party) papers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WG53 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 What is your point is the real question? You stated clearly that Jefferson did NOT want parties....period. Now you are saying he was allowed to change his mind? Washington was never in question as I have already stated, but it is funny that you mention the Federalist (a political party) papers. Read the papers or stfu. They advise against factions. Ignore what the founders said because you have a middle school social studies grasp of history. Jefferson was pretty clear on his stance. But you harp on a point about him disagreeing with an administration. Get a clue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prunes Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 How's this? W/ the current level of government do you support smaller gov or bigger gov? Have you stopped beating your boyfriend? Yes or no there is no middle ground. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanjuicy Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Read the papers or stfu. They advise against factions. Ignore what the founders said because you have a middle school social studies grasp of history. Jefferson was pretty clear on his stance. But you harp on a point about him disagreeing with an administration. Get a clue. What you just said does not make any sense about the point. Has nothing to do with middle school. It is nothing about me getting a clue. This is something you were clearly wrong on so I will not stfu. Jefferson and Madison did not like how Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and yes, even Washington were treating the Constitution. Jefferson thought those mentioned were handling the Constitution loosely and basically not following the new (around 1790 now) Bill of Rights. So Jefferson, Madison, and company formed their own party. Hamilton, Adams, and company stood their ground and called themselves Federalist. So, let me explain this to you. Actions speak louder than words. They may have believed that no parties should be involved in 1776, but then reality sets in and differing opinions caused a split. Now, this point goes back to your OP. All of the Forefathers chose sides based on their individual political beliefs....ALL OF THEM DID!!!! It was one side or the other. You either believed this or you didn't and they chose sides. I really suggest you read Jefferson's letters on all his thoughts. Better yet, read John Locke's letters to see where Jefferson was influenced. Read the events leading up to the creation of each party. Read about the events after the formations of each. Alexander Hamilton vs Aaron Burr. Get at least a grasp on what you are talking about before you tell me to stfu. If you think you know more....challenge me. I am prepared. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Yes or no there is no middle ground. who said anything about there not being a middle ground in politics? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WG53 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Like I said read the papers or be quiet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 What we need is for the leaders of both parties to look to compromise more and pander to their base less by trying to stick to firmly to extreme ideals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prunes Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 who said anything about there not being a middle ground in politics? it seems to be what you are saying There are really only 2 sides. Left and Right. Ideally you get a merge of the two in order to have the government function correction but until there's another side (which I'm not sure is possible) then there will really only be 2 parties. Comprise isn't really a party or a side. Middle isn't really a side, it's a combination of two sides. You posts seem to imply that you think there is one ideological spectrum and everyone is either on one end, the other, or have some sort of compromise position that isn't really a position. I may be misunderstanding you, but that seems wrong. The big government question is a good example - it is a phrased that is tossed around a lot, but that is because it is such a vacuous question that people can talk about it and seem like they are saying something and score rhetorical points. Sometimes it refers to a real issue/debate (like whether the government should be involved in providing healthcare) and sometimes it is a way to obscure things for rhetorical purposes, such as implying democrats are in favor of large inefficient government agencies. A third party wouldn't be a middle party, it would be a different party based on different principles. Libertarians don't really fit with democrats or republics for example. The benefit of having more than two parties would be that there would be more incentive form coalitions with other parties on certain issues and to go for the center rather than the extremes. Right now all of the either or rhetoric and the political system reinforces the two party system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prunes Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 double post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 it seems to be what you are saying You posts seem to imply that you think there is one ideological spectrum and everyone is either on one end, the other, or have some sort of compromise position that isn't really a position. I may be misunderstanding you, but that seems wrong. The big government question is a good example - it is a phrased that is tossed around a lot, but that is because it is such a vacuous question that people can talk about it and seem like they are saying something and score rhetorical points. Sometimes it refers to a real issue/debate (like whether the government should be involved in providing healthcare) and sometimes it is a way to obscure things for rhetorical purposes, such as implying democrats are in favor of large inefficient government agencies. you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Saying there are really only 2 sides, doesn't mean there are only 2 extreme sides. Libertarian ideals definitely fit w/ the Republican party. It just doesn't fit w/ the extreme right. Bigger government or smaller government are vague notions and can be meaningless and used to score points but not necessarily. A third party wouldn't be a middle party, it would be a different party based on different principles. Libertarians don't really fit with democrats or republics for example. The benefit of having more than two parties would be that there would be more incentive form coalitions with other parties on certain issues and to go for the center rather than the extremes. Right now all of the either or rhetoric and the political system reinforces the two party system. That sounds all well and good but it'll never happen (ignoring that libertarians fit very well w/ the GOP actually for now for the sake of argument). What happens if there's a 3rd party is that the other 2 go more extreme. Take taxes on anyone making over $200k for example. There are really 3 options to that problem. Either you want to tax them more (for whatever reason) or less (for whatever reason) or you want a compromise between the 2. There's not another option. Seriously, more, less or the same. Left, right or compromise. No real room for another option here. The GOP is generally the party that wants to tax less. Dems want to tax more. The key is forcing a compromise between the 2. If there's a seperate party for that 3rd option then it doesn't force the 2 extremes to compromise. It legitimizes their options and they polarize. Sure, you can vague up the Libertarian ideals and say they're a seperate party from the GOP but really when you get down to the actually topics, they're a right leaning party which means all they'd do if they had their own party is let the GOP polarize even more which of course makes it easier for the left to win which of course causes them to polarize since they mostly just have to have a strong base. When it comes to specific issues, there's really no room for a 3rd party. There's a left side of an argument and a right side and what you want is a compromise which is hopefully the solution, not a stance in and of itself. The people that lean left work w/ the people that lean right to get something they agree on as the exremes of both fume. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.