It's time to move away from the two party democratic system

You want to force politicians to think about the public rather than giving them the freedom that all individuals have to determine what actions they take of their own will.

If a politicians freely joins a political party and chooses to follow their policies, why should they not have that choice?

 

They should not have that choice because they are servants of the entire nation, not one section. If you prefer a system where a politician is free to advance themselves and the powerful members of their party at the cost of the public then so be it. I can respect your drive to protect their freedom to do so but to me holding political office should be a sacrifice you make not a privilege you hold. It should be something you do for others not for yourself.

 

I want a system with the maximum amount of freedom possible.

 

I'm not sure we'd like the change even if it was possible. Hell, we (the idiot masses) can't even decide on an enemy. For my part, tho, I'm willing to start with the corporations and the religions or maybe the corporate/religions who have their fingers in everything except their own business. If that doesn't work, we can move on to another enemy, maybe the flunkie government. Or maybe the media.

 

Unless the candidates in question are running for the same office/position, why couldn't two or more parties work together and share resources and still remain separate? Why can't I be member of several parties at once?

 

Anarchy? That's hardcore my friend. What is your idea of a utopian society? Something akin to what went on in Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire? This isn't an attempt to belittle your beliefs I am genuinely curious about your philosophy on life.

 

If multiple candidates have the same policies and goals, what is the point in them each having their own party?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually Libertarianism.

 

So you are of the belief we should be free to do whatever we please so long as we do not interfere with the freedoms of others?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runoff_voting

I think that either an instant-runoff system (probably more practical) or an exhaustive-ballot system (better results) would be a vast improvement over our current system, allowing for viable third-, fourth- and fifth-party possibilities. The Greens would no longer be absorbed by the democrats. The Libertarians would no longer be absorbed by the republicans. They could stand on their own while still supporting the lesser-evil of their choice so as to prevent giving effective support to their ideological opponents.

- - - Updated - - -

What about the not-so-idiotic masses? They get things done now and then.

 

We do not really have a two party system we have a two party result.

There is no law or legal structure stating we are limited to two parties. The two major parties exist simply because most voters choose one or the other.

If you want a better system with more than two parties vote libertarian. Or one of the idiotic third parties out there.

 

So how do we get that system? Neither the Dems nor the GOP have an interest in making third parties viable - with a two party system, they can both rely on being the lesser of two evils to their respective bases without having to do anything to actually improve the country.

Voters don't believe they have any power to change things, and given the state of things, it's hard to blame them. How do you convince people that they can actually stand up to the corporate shills in both parties and say "Enough! This time we're actually going to vote for the Greens and the Libertarians!", and then have them actually follow through with it?

 

I can see that argument philosophically, but practically-speaking, wouldn't it actually improve everybody's ability to freely associate -- or not associate? As it stands, you don't really have a choice as to whether or not you want to support one of the big two.

 

Slowly. County by county. The states have a lot of latitude in how they determine who they're voting for. I'd say, start small and if it works it'll catch on.

 

Generally yes, although freedoms have a broad definition.

 

The problem in America and the reason why we only have two parties is due to the way our election system works. Get rid of first-past-the-post and winner-takes-all and implement a proportional system and we could easily have a half dozen major parties and probably and dozen more minor ones.

 

Doesn't every action of a politician effect the entire nation regardless of what party they favor? So wouldn't it be better if they were to consider the needs of the entire country instead of limiting one group by favoring another?

 

You say that like you believe the problem is that the people do not already know. The reality looks them in the face each and every day. I refer to them as idiots, not because they lack the ability to understand, but because they lack the personal integrity to face the facts that stare them in the face every day. The people already know their tax dollars are used to murder and oppress people worldwide, they already know their government is bribery ridden and corrupt, they already know their legal system is a sham, they already know that economic inequality is shameful and getting worse by the day. You can not fault a man for lacking the knowledge to fix something, but you can fault him for knowing the problem exists and refusing to admit or acknowledge it because it imposes on his comfort.

 

We don't have a two party system. We have two parties that dominate the system.

 

It would be better, sure, but I am not willing to infringe upon their freedom to enforce subjective values judgements in them.

- - - Updated - - -

How that functionally any different from a two party system?

 

I am willing to vote for the party that ends our War on Drugs, ends simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure, and gets us into fusion (an energy with a future) in eight years or less.

 

Because the system is not predicated on having only two parties. There have been times when we only had one and there have been times where we have had more, depending on what you mean by "system". Regardless, a system dominated by two parties is not surprising in a "you are with us or against us" nation.

 

When have we only ever had one party?

 

The Era of Good Feelings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_Good_Feelings

 

I would vote for any party that claims to be able to achieve an agenda that includes, ending our War on Drugs, ends simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure, and gets us into fusion (an energy with a future) in eight years or less.

 

Knock yourself out.