Americans Elect

[Prunes]

Sorry, but if I understand you correctly I think you are just flat out wrong on this. There are two issues, the practical one of whether a third party is even viable in our system and the second one of whether the two party system exhausts the important ideological options. I am talking about the second one.

Libertarians are no more a good fit for republicans than they are for democrats. On economic issues, they want little government interference in the markets. On social issues, they side more with democrats want the little interference in our private lives - drugs, who marries who, who has sex with who, etc, On something like abortion they could go either way because whether an embryo has rights is debatable.

Its the same way with Christians. Christianity is no more compatible with republican than democrat views. The fact that fundamentalists tend to be Republican doesn't change that. Being against war, capital punishment, or extreme poverty, or lack of healthcare for the poor are very compatible with democratic party values and principles and Christianity.

The point about big government wasn't about the rhetorical use so much as that it obscures more than clarifies. But I think it's popularity in politics is precisely because it obscures things.

Your point about 200k taxes just seems to be an assertion that a third party won't lead to moderation. I disagree. I think your whole analysis is flawed from start to finish. First, democrats don't want to raise taxes as a matter of principle, they think it is appropriate sometimes. That is different from being in principle opposed to tax increases as republicans recently have been. So it is comparing apples and oranges - a principled view - raising taxes is never (or almost never) a good idea and a a view that doesn't have that principle and thinks that in some cases it is a good idea and this might be one of them.

You keep asking yes an no questions and that makes it easy to think there are two political options and a middle. But as soon as you ask more than one question, things break down. That way of analyzing things also breaks down as soon as you realize that different people think different yes and no questions are most important. A person could be a small government Christian conservative, a welfare government Christian social conservative, a small government socially liberal libertarian, a welfare government liberal. if there were enough people, they could all be distinct political parties and there would be less tendency to extremes because people who were say small government conservatives wouldn't feel the need to stick with Christian conservatives on every issue out of fear or being kicked out of office like they are now. They could move to the center on a lot more issues than now.

The idea that you can understand everything in terms of left and right is wrong and a serious political problem because it makes people a lot easier to manipulate because they think they have only two options. So politicians spend all of their time tarring opponents instead of talking about issues. The people pick up the same way of talking about things without really talking about them. It also encourages more extremism because there is incentive to try to change the perception of what is the middle. We see this with republicans and taxes - Santorum didn't even want to admit that Reagan was willing to compromise on taxes - and cap and trade - which is a free market republican idea that republicans have recently rejected and painted as a liberal idea to satisfy their corporate donors. If you had several political parties converging around an idea, then the extreme party couldn't dismiss it as just another liberal idea or whatever. At least not as easily.

[reo]

You keep asking yes an no questions and that makes it easy to think there are two political options and a middle. But as soon as you ask more than one question, things break down. That way of analyzing things also breaks down as soon as you realize that different people think different yes and no questions are most important. A person could be a small government Christian conservative, a welfare government Christian social conservative, a small government socially liberal libertarian, a welfare government liberal. if there were enough people, they could all be distinct political parties and there would be less tendency to extremes because people who were say small government conservatives wouldn't feel the need to stick with Christian conservatives on every issue out of fear or being kicked out of office like they are now. They could move to the center on a lot more issues than now.

The idea that you can understand everything in terms of left and right is wrong and a serious political problem because it makes people a lot easier to manipulate because they think they have only two options. So politicians spend all of their time tarring opponents instead of talking about issues. The people pick up the same way of talking about things without really talking about them. It also encourages more extremism because there is incentive to try to change the perception of what is the middle. We see this with republicans and taxes - Santorum didn't even want to admit that Reagan was willing to compromise on taxes - and cap and trade - which is a free market republican idea that republicans have recently rejected and painted as a liberal idea to satisfy their corporate donors. If you had several political parties converging around an idea, then the extreme party couldn't dismiss it as just another liberal idea or whatever. At least not as easily.

Once again you're misunderstanding the point. You're focusing too much on too many issues and wanting a party that represents everything you want which isn't going to happen. There are too many combination of different issues. No one thinks a like much less agrees on every single issue to make a "party" that respresents every single combination or even a wide variety of them. It's not going to happen. It can't. What you do is focus on general ideas which tend to be left or right leaning on each issue, some more so than others.

The point isn't to ask yes or no questions. The point is to realize that there are extreme examples of the questions but there are also combinations of those extremes which is what a compromise is. Yes, there are religious extremists on the right but there are also extremists on the left.

A person could be a small government Christian conservative, a welfare government Christian social conservative, a small government socially liberal libertarian, a welfare government liberal

A person can be that but a party will not a combination where as a faction w/in a party can be.

If you started trying to break it up and had 10 different parties w/ 10 different combination of their "views" then it actually increases the chance of some extremist getting elected b/c the extremists agree on a lot more issues than normal people. They think way more black and white (due imo to lower IQ and an inabilty to understand topics more clearly but that's another topic). And that is not good for America. Giving extremists an easier path to power is never a good thing. Much better to have 2 parties and let the moderates delute the craziness of the extremists on either side as they compromise on specifics of each issue.

Say you have a "small government Christian conservative, a welfare government Christian social conservative, a small government socially liberal libertarian, a welfare government liberal." Where those issues converge and mix between parties is where the compromise comes from. The "welfare government Christian social conservative" and the "welfare government liberal" end up compromising on their social concerns due to their agreeing on the welfare concern. The "small government Christian conservative" and the "small government socially liberal libertarian" compromise on their social concerns due to agreeing on the small government concerns but they do it through a party. If not then the more idealist thinkers have the advantage of a more even playing field b/c they're not muted by the moderates. You need 11% of the vote to win an election when there are 10 candidates where as you need 51% to win when there are 2.

Instead of trying to find an ideal party, force the one that most fits what you agree w/ to compromise on the other things.

[Prunes]

Once again you're misunderstanding the point.

So state your point as clearly and concisely as possible.

You're focusing too much on too many issues

Why too many? My point is that you can't capture people's political views on one political spectrum of left right, and that I think our system would be better if there were more parties to recognize that fact.

and wanting a party that represents everything you want which isn't going to happen.

I have already said I am not talking about practical points like whether it is gong to happen. I haven't said anything about representing everything I want. I have said a more fine grained set of political parties would be advantageous to society. Whether we can make it happen is comes after we decide whether it is worth making happen.

There are too many combination of different issues. No one thinks a like much less agrees on every single issue to make a "party" that respresents every single combination or even a wide variety of them. It's not going to happen. It can't.

I haven't said anything like this.

What you do is focus on general ideas which tend to be left or right leaning on each issue, some more so than others.

What I do is claim that asserting they are left of right is uninformative. If I am a real libertarian and don't want the government deciding who can marry who or who can have an abortion or what drugs I can put in my body or how carefully I should run my business am I left or right?

The point isn't to ask yes or no questions. The point is to realize that there are extreme examples of the questions but there are also combinations of those extremes which is what a compromise is.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

Yes, there are religious extremists on the right but there are also extremists on the left.

I didn't make a point about extremists being on the right or left. I have been making the point that seeing things in terms of right and left is a problem.

A person can be that but a party will not a combination where as a faction w/in a party can be.

If you are saying that there will always be diversity within a party, I agree. But that isn't a reason to stop at two parties.

If you started trying to break it up and had 10 different parties w/ 10 different combination of their "views" then it actually increases the chance of some extremist getting elected b/c the extremists agree on a lot more issues than normal people. They think way more black and white (due imo to lower IQ and an inabilty to understand topics more clearly but that's another topic). And that is not good for America. Giving extremists an easier path to power is never a good thing.

I think ten would be too many, just like I think two is too few. My point has been I think more than two is less likely to lead to extremism. It is true that the parties would be more narrowly focused, but a) that doesn't mean they individuals would be any more or less inclined to extremism and not every issue would line up with the main concerns of the party. A war for example could be debated on its merits instead of the nonsense we have now. There may be a more war inclined party and a less war inclined party, but if you had another two or three parties that were more concerned with other issues, they would cancel out the war could be debated on its merits by people who were willing to think about the problem faced in a pragmatic way.

Much better to have 2 parties and let the moderates delute the craziness of the extremists on either side as they compromise on specifics of each issue.

We have that and it isn't working. I see that you think it is better, and that it is better because it will lead to more moderate politics, but I disagree that it will.

Say you have a "small government Christian conservative, a welfare government Christian social conservative, a small government socially liberal libertarian, a welfare government liberal." Where those issues converge and mix between parties is where the compromise comes from.

I agree

The "welfare government Christian social conservative" and the "welfare government liberal" end up compromising on their social concerns due to their agreeing on the welfare concern.

OK, maybe, it will depend on the specifics.

The "small government Christian conservative" and the "small government socially liberal libertarian" compromise on their social concerns due to agreeing on the small government concerns but they do it through a party.

OK maybe, it will depend on the specifics.

You need 11% of the vote to win an election when there are 10 candidates where as you need 51% to win when there are 2.

But the extremists can cancel each other out. I think I see where we are disagreeing. I agree that more parties could easily lead to some more extreme candidates being voted into office. But I also think those extremists would be less effective because getting anything done would require compromise. As it stands now you can have a party taking an extreme position and pretending it is a matter of principle and the result is gridlock. If on the other hand we have a 4 or 5 parties and I am a member of any one of those I am not necessarily an extremist, I just have a certain set of values and principles. Compromise is more likely because I don't see every compromise as a concession to my mortal enemy.

Instead of trying to find an ideal party, force the one that most fits what you agree w/ to compromise on the other things.

It has nothing to do with finding an ideal party, is about getting rid of the either / or black / white thinking that is crippling the country by encouraging politicians to be obstructionist when they are in the minority in the hopes that they will have the majority in a couple of years and voters to think in overly simplistic terms that encourage us/them thinking instead of thinking about issues and what is best for the country.

[Titanjuicy]

Like I said read the papers or be quiet.

I assure you they have been read. You probably should back up what you say.

In a perfect world no parties would be needed because everyone would think alike. We all know that will never happen. You think the Forefathers thought any different? Even Jefferson said that "each generation deserves its own revolution." Well, to have a revolution you must be in disagreement with the current political system....which leads to different political thought and therefore a party is born.

Changing their mind?....lmao

[abenjami]

In a perfect world no parties would be needed because everyone would think alike.

This is such a crock of shit. In a perfect world, I would be the supreme ruler with uncontested powers. There would be tons of parties, most of them containing some sort of nudity.

[reo]

Apparently you can only have 10 quotes in a post, so I changed the top 2 to bold

Once again you're misunderstanding the point.

So state your point as clearly and concisely as possible.

I've been trying to

You're focusing too much on too many issues

Why too many? My point is that you can't capture people's political views on one political spectrum of left right, and that I think our system would be better if there were more parties to recognize that fact.

You can't capture people's wide range of political views at all which is why you don't try. You have wide ranging sides and then you compromise between the two.

and wanting a party that represents everything you want which isn't going to happen.

I have already said I am not talking about practical points like whether it is gong to happen. I haven't said anything about representing everything I want. I have said a more fine grained set of political parties would be advantageous to society. Whether we can make it happen is comes after we decide whether it is worth making happen.

Saying it "ain't gonna happen" isn't just about the way our system works and logistics of trying to change it. It's about the nature of any poltical system. You don't have 2 parties b/c of some all powerful maneuvering behind the scenes. You've got 2 parties b/c that's just the way things tend to fall out. It's like trying to make a structure out of water. Sure, you can set it up all nice and neat and pretty but once you let things run its course, it's going to fall the same and end up in pools on the floor. The 2 party system creates itself b/c of the nature of each specific problem having 2 polarized solutions. The 2 parties represent those poles and then you work to a compromise b/c the parties themselves aren't made up of only extremist view points.

There are too many combination of different issues. No one thinks a like much less agrees on every single issue to make a "party" that respresents every single combination or even a wide variety of them. It's not going to happen. It can't.

I haven't said anything like this.

It was an extreme extentuation of that type of idea.

What you do is focus on general ideas which tend to be left or right leaning on each issue, some more so than others.

What I do is claim that asserting they are left of right is uninformative. If I am a real libertarian and don't want the government deciding who can marry who or who can have an abortion or what drugs I can put in my body or how carefully I should run my business am I left or right?

On each of those issues you are left or right. You're left on marrage, abortion and drugs but right on business. You can call it whatever you want. You can label it whatever you want or be completely against any labels but those specific issues have polarized opposite sides. Even if the solution isn't a pole, those examples have an extreme sides. You can't change that. Thats where the parties come from, not some outside influence. They are created by the nature of the discussions. And b/c of that, only 2 parties will exist, b/c there are not 3 polarizing opposite sides. The GOP will absorb any right leaning party and then that absorbsion will influence the party's very nature of how it works. Having more people in the GOP that believe in a lot of what they say but also lean to be socially liberal will make it more easy for a compromise on that issue.

The point isn't to ask yes or no questions. The point is to realize that there are extreme examples of the questions but there are also combinations of those extremes which is what a compromise is.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

The point isn't to ask a yes or no question but to realize that grey is a combination of white and black, not something completely on its own?

Yes, there are religious extremists on the right but there are also extremists on the left.

I didn't make a point about extremists being on the right or left. I have been making the point that seeing things in terms of right and left is a problem.

A label of "left" or "right" isn't the problem. Those views exist. Those are the extremes sides. The extreme in absense of light is black. The extreme abuncance of light is white. That's the way it is. There are 2 extreme sides. It's just that the majority of things is a combination of the two.

A person can be that but a party will not a combination where as a faction w/in a party can be.

If you are saying that there will always be diversity within a party, I agree. But that isn't a reason to stop at two parties.

I'm saying the party itself will always represent a specific side where as the people themselves that are elected in that party will never completely represent everything about it nor could you define a party that could completely represent every different combination of view points.

If you started trying to break it up and had 10 different parties w/ 10 different combination of their "views" then it actually increases the chance of some extremist getting elected b/c the extremists agree on a lot more issues than normal people. They think way more black and white (due imo to lower IQ and an inabilty to understand topics more clearly but that's another topic). And that is not good for America. Giving extremists an easier path to power is never a good thing.

I think ten would be too many, just like I think two is too few. My point has been I think more than two is less likely to lead to extremism. It is true that the parties would be more narrowly focused, but a) that doesn't mean they individuals would be any more or less inclined to extremism and not every issue would line up with the main concerns of the party. A war for example could be debated on its merits instead of the nonsense we have now. There may be a more war inclined party and a less war inclined party, but if you had another two or three parties that were more concerned with other issues, they would cancel out the war could be debated on its merits by people who were willing to think about the problem faced in a pragmatic way.

I think the problem is that you're thinking there are only 2 parties due to some manuevering. There are 2 parties b/c there are 2 basic sides of each issue and those parties represent those basic sides. Parties aren't meant to represent the views of everyone.

Much better to have 2 parties and let the moderates delute the craziness of the extremists on either side as they compromise on specifics of each issue.

We have that and it isn't working. I see that you think it is better, and that it is better because it will lead to more moderate politics, but I disagree that it will.

It's "worked" for years (worked being a loose term). I'm pretty sure it's only been recently that the polarizing has really gotten out of hand.

You need 11% of the vote to win an election when there are 10 candidates where as you need 51% to win when there are 2.

But the extremists can cancel each other out. I think I see where we are disagreeing. I agree that more parties could easily lead to some more extreme candidates being voted into office. But I also think those extremists would be less effective because getting anything done would require compromise. As it stands now you can have a party taking an extreme position and pretending it is a matter of principle and the result is gridlock. If on the other hand we have a 4 or 5 parties and I am a member of any one of those I am not necessarily an extremist, I just have a certain set of values and principles. Compromise is more likely because I don't see every compromise as a concession to my mortal enemy.

I think you get part of the issue now at least.

Instead of trying to find an ideal party, force the one that most fits what you agree w/ to compromise on the other things.

It has nothing to do with finding an ideal party, is about getting rid of the either / or black / white thinking that is crippling the country by encouraging politicians to be obstructionist when they are in the minority in the hopes that they will have the majority in a couple of years and voters to think in overly simplistic terms that encourage us/them thinking instead of thinking about issues and what is best for the country.

It's not the either/or black/white thinking that's causing them to be obstructionists as much as it's their willingness to play the political game. They do it in large part in an effort to make Obama look bad imo. If he gets nothing done, if they don't let him do anything then he doesn't get re-elected. It's more about that than any specific issue imo.

[reo]

This is such a crock of shit. In a perfect world, I would be the supreme ruler with uncontested powers. There would be tons of parties, most of them containing some sort of nudity.

Actually... one could make a case that in a perfect world, 1 genius benevalent ruler that listened to the people and advisors would be ideal. Actually be able to get things done. The problem, as in any government, would be corruption which makes it completely impossible in the real world.

[abenjami]

Actually... one could make a case that in a perfect world, 1 genius benevalent ruler that listened to the people and advisors would be ideal. Actually be able to get things done. The problem, as in any government, would be corruption which makes it completely impossible in the real world.

I don't think there would be any corruption at all. As supreme ruler, my ideals would be accepted by all. Everyone would accept the fact I would have a superior quality of life. I would get whatever I wanted without the need for corruption. And if I caught anyone else violating my ideals, I would have the power to swiftly deal with them in an appropriate manner.

[reo]

I don't think there would be any corruption at all. As supreme ruler, my ideals would be accepted by all. Everyone would accept the fact I would have a superior quality of life. I would get whatever I wanted without the need for corruption. And if I caught anyone else violating my ideals, I would have the power to swiftly deal with them in an appropriate manner.

All Hail Supreme Ruler Kim Jung 'Jami?

[abenjami]

All Hail Supreme Ruler Kim Jung 'Jami?

Sounds good to me. There would also be pa-jami-jam-jams sponsored by Vicky's and Frederick's.

[Prunes]

I think the problem is that you're thinking there are only 2 parties due to some manuevering.

I think the two party system perpetuates itself once in place, or at least it has.

There are 2 parties b/c there are 2 basic sides of each issue and those parties represent those basic sides. Parties aren't meant to represent the views of everyone.

There aren't two basic sides to each issue as I have said. You think there is because you oversimplify with either/ or yes/ no. This is where you go wrong, as I showed above with the libertarian example. Just because you can drop things into a left or right box or ask yes an no questions doesn't mean that those are the two basic sides. It means you have a simplistic way of thinking about things. A libertarian isn't part left and part right, they are libertarian. A Christian isn't part left and part right, they are Christian. You are so locked into the either or thinking you can't see the point. Which is why you keep making points like "parties aren't meant to represent the views of everyone" that don't amount to a criticism of my point because it isn't my view and doesn't provide any support for yours, why you don't distinguish extremist single issue voters from political parties organized around values or principles, and why you don't distinguish taking a position on a topic from a principled stance.

There are plenty of countries with more than two parties, so the point about two parties being natural is mistaken too. You are taking your culture as what is natural, which is why you can't see past your own view.

[reo]

I think the problem is that you're thinking there are only 2 parties due to some manuevering.

I think the two party system perpetuates itself once in place, or at least it has.

I disagree.

There are 2 parties b/c there are 2 basic sides of each issue and those parties represent those basic sides. Parties aren't meant to represent the views of everyone.

There aren't two basic sides to each issue as I have said. You think there is because you oversimplify with either/ or yes/ no. This is where you go wrong, as I showed above with the libertarian example. Just because you can drop things into a left or right box or ask yes an no questions doesn't mean that those are the two basic sides.

I'm not making any either/or or yes/no questions. You didn't show anything w/ the "libertarian example" b/c you looked at multiple problems. Take one of the big problems and show where there aren't 2 polarizing sides and then a compromise.

Your example of: "small government Christian conservative, a welfare government Christian social conservative, a small government socially liberal libertarian, a welfare government liberal" screams of taking multiple problems into the scenario. Once you break them down issue by issue each one has a dem side and a republican side which are polar opposites w/ the ideal side a lot of times being somewhere in between.

The problem w/ American politics isn't that there are only 2 parties b/c the parties themselves don't consist only of extremists. The extremists getting in power are the problem but they're not getting in power b/c it's a 2 party system.

[Prunes]

I'm not making any either/or or yes/no questions. You didn't show anything w/ the "libertarian example" b/c you looked at multiple problems. Take one of the big problems and show where there aren't 2 polarizing sides and then a compromise.

You are and you did it in that paragraph. You take a single issue, frame it as a yes or no question and then say there are two sides. And then you say we can only talk about one issue at a time lol. It is true that you can always do that. It is false that it provides meaningful analysis or a reason to think that two parties are enough.

Your example of: "small government Christian conservative, a welfare government Christian social conservative, a small government socially liberal libertarian, a welfare government liberal" screams of taking multiple problems into the scenario.

You are proving my point again, that you can't see my point because your own view is in the way. A Christian who takes seriously the value of life has one principle that won't sit well will either of the parties because they would be anti-war, anti-capital punishment, anti-abortion. That is one principle consistently applied to a variety of issues in a way that gives them no place in politics because there is no party like that. The same with libertarianism. But you want to insist that we start with the way politics is talked about now instead of people with principled views and what parties might best represent them.

Once you break them down issue by issue each one has a dem side and a republican side which are polar opposites w/ the ideal side a lot of times being somewhere in between.

You should say "once you accept the type of analysis we see everyday in the news". I don't and there is no logical reason to. The only reason to do this is to save the point that two parties are enough, and even then it doesn't work because as I have shown, people don't always fall into a left or right box. Every time you insist on this, you are proving my point - that the two party system leads to oversimplified thinking. I make my point and you essentially respond by saying "look, I can still oversimplify!" Who care if we aren't talking about real people or their values and principles anymore? Who cares if we aren't noticing the difference between a practical decision about what we should do in a particular situation and a persons basic principles? There is oversimplifying to do.

The problem w/ American politics isn't that there are only 2 parties b/c the parties themselves don't consist only of extremists. The extremists getting in power are the problem but they're not getting in power b/c it's a 2 party system. I agree the problem isn't that the parties consist only of extremists - I haven't said that. It is that it allows people to think in oversimplified ways like you are in this thread and gets people thinking there are only two sides to an issue instead of thinking creatively about the issues and that results in more partisan politics. It also makes it easier to adopt extreme positions because you always have two parties disagreeing and claiming that the other one is unreasonable, with no possibility of consensus among parties. I think about three to five parties would increase pressure to stay connected to the majority of the public.

I haven't proven my point, but you can't even see it.

[reo]

You're still not getting it and i'm getting frustrated b/c you're not getting it and b/c of that i'm not putting as much effort into my responses.

I'm not making any either/or or yes/no questions. You didn't show anything w/ the "libertarian example" b/c you looked at multiple problems. Take one of the big problems and show where there aren't 2 polarizing sides and then a compromise.

You are and you did it in that paragraph. You take a single issue, frame it as a yes or no question and then say there are two sides. And then you say we can only talk about one issue at a time lol. It is true that you can always do that. It is false that it provides meaningful analysis or a reason to think that two parties are enough.

I'm not framing anything as yes or no questions. I'm taking each basic issue and using them as examples. Pick an issue yourself then. I'm not getting into complex issues b/c they're examples.

You are proving my point again, that you can't see my point because your own view is in the way. A Christian who takes seriously the value of life has one principle that won't sit well will either of the parties because they would be anti-war, anti-capital punishment, anti-abortion. That is one principle consistently applied to a variety of issues in a way that gives them no place in politics because there is no party like that. The same with libertarianism.

It's a principle yeah but on each issue whether it's anti-war, anti-capital punishment or anti-abortion, there's a take that is left or right or some compromise in between. Pro or Anti-capital punishment is a left or right issue. Where's the room for the 3rd party here? You want to get into the specifics of why someone would want to be one or the other? The reasons for believing either are irrelavant. Pro or Anti-abortion? Another left vs right issue w/o room for a 3rd party. Can you be a Republican and still be pro choice? sure ya can and that's a good thing.

people don't always fall into a left or right box. Every time you insist on this, you are proving my point

How many times must i insist quite the opposite? How many times do I have to say that people don't generally fall into a left or right box themselves? And you don't want them to. Geez you still don't get it.

- that the two party system leads to oversimplified thinking. I make my point and you essentially respond by saying "look, I can still oversimplify!" Who care if we aren't talking about real people or their values and principles anymore? Who cares if we aren't noticing the difference between a practical decision about what we should do in a particular situation and a persons basic principles? There is oversimplifying to do.

The two party system doesn't lead to over simplified thinking. Give me a break. People's lack of interest and wanting things made simple and easy is what leads to over simplified thinking. Oversimplified thinking exists well beyond politics. Hell it exists on this damn forum every day in every topic. You're way too caught up in politicians using buzz words and phrases (mostly the GOP) to catch stupid voters who aren't paying that much attention.

The problem w/ American politics isn't that there are only 2 parties b/c the parties themselves don't consist only of extremists. The extremists getting in power are the problem but they're not getting in power b/c it's a 2 party system. I agree the problem isn't that the parties consist only of extremists - I haven't said that. It is that it allows people to think in oversimplified ways like you are in this thread and gets people thinking there are only two sides to an issue instead of thinking creatively about the issues and that results in more partisan politics. It also makes it easier to adopt extreme positions because you always have two parties disagreeing and claiming that the other one is unreasonable, with no possibility of consensus among parties. I think about three to five parties would increase pressure to stay connected to the majority of the public.

Completely disagree. The 2 party system has nothing to do w/ over simplifying issues. The over simplication of issues is due to people not paying enough attention either b/c they don't care enough or they're not capable of understanding the complexity of a lot of issues.

Which issue would you like to discuss? The GOP's propensity to cut taxes of the upper class due to their general additude that giving the businesses and upper class more money in their pocket will lead them to expand and create jobs which in turn will help the economy as the middle class is sees more employment. This imo is faulty logic b/c businesses don't expand for the sake of expansion. They expand due to increased demand. They expand b/c demand shows that if they expand they'll make more money and if the gov doesn't cut taxes to the middle class, demand stays the same but the rich gets richer b/c they just pocket the money. Where the left generally thinks the opposite. If you cut taxes to the middle class, they'll spend it which increases demand and the money goes into businesses the right way. Then the businesses still get the cash increase but they also get the increase in demand that warrants the expansion. Where is the over simplication in this? It's still about cutting taxes to the upper class or cutting taxes for the middle class which is a left vs right issue.