So, how does the two party system benefit you? How does the two party system benefit America? How does the two party system benefit itself?
The two party system narrows down your choices to two people who carry opposing views on many things. This way, you have both sides not necessarily saying to vote for their candidate, but saying not to vote for the other candidate. Is that the way it should be? Could there be a system where we choose a decent candidate, not just someone who is “not him/her”? (Could one side “throw the election” by having a terrible candidate?)
I think if we got rid of the party system all together, there would be more money available for other people to run, the parties just gravitate the money toward themselves. Did you know that much of elected officials’ time is used making phone calls and making appearances at events to gain more money for their party? Why not gain money for their personal election fund; or better yet, have the election system be affordable enough so they do not have to spend a bunch of time on sales calls?
What does the party system provide for The People of The United States of America? From my standpoint, it provides us a narrowed pool of candidates, almost fed to us. It assures that there will be people that, no matter what is the right decision, will choose whatever their party says, since they are wanting to be re-elected. (As a disclaimer, there are some elected officials, currently belonging to parties, who are good for The United States.)
As nice as it would be to have a no party system, we have sunk ourselves into a hole which will be difficult to get out of. The party system assures the ability to narrow electable candidates, thus making the people backing those candidates a lot of money. If we were to end this system, those “backers” would miss out on the big bucks they so desperately desire. Since they have had the big bucks for so long, they are pretty well settled in, but there is a way to dislodge them.
More involvement from good, unaffiliated people could be the first step.
Term limits and more people in the Electoral College could be the next steps… There are 538 members of the Electoral College, which is one for every 700,000 people. Do you know how many the constitution says we can have? It says we can have one for every 30,000 people, depending on interpretation.1 Though many people think a bigger government is a bad thing, it would ensure a more diverse set of voices would be heard, instead of two voices. Did you know that no matter the vote in some states, parties can buy an Electoral Collegian’s vote? Does that seem like a huge flaw?
Another thing the two party system leaves us subject to is a single party supermajority. This vulnerability in the system was exploited by the current policy makers in 2009-2011. I will continue with that thought soon.
Did I get your blood boiling?…. Good. Let other people know what you think and let’s get this ball rolling. NO MORE PARTY SYSTEM! NO MORE PARTY SYSTEM!
If you could describe to me the benefit of a two party system, I will hear you out. Add a comment.
1My interpretation of the constitution is thus: Article II, Section 1, second paragraph: “Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature therof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:…”
~I take this as meaning that we can have as many Electors as each State is entitled to, and I take that it does not mean that the number must exactly equal the current number of Senators and Representatives.
This point brings us to Article I, Section 2, third paragraph: “…The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…” along with Article 1, Section 3, first paragraph: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State…”
~These sentences are where I got that 30,000 deal from.
Paid for by Paul Vincent Catanese for President