Compromise is a choice. And yes, 3rd party candidates can and have been elected into office before. Just not as President.

Your statement is wrong...we do not have a two party system. We have no limit on the number of parties, it;s just that the vast majority of Americans choose to vote for one of the two major parties. No one is forcing them to do so however. The Green Party typically gets 2-5% of the popular vote in Presidential Elections.

Opinions aside, your statements are wrong.

No, we do not have to. Our political system does not require them to choose either major party if they dont want to.

We fit the definition of a democracy. So you assertion that we are not a democracy is wrong.

I did not see that in the definition I posted. Do you have a link to a different definition? Or are you re-defining words now?

@Sadistic

I know you do not HAVE to choose from these two, but since the US has started out with these two, they are the only realistic option of actually getting your voice heard. Especailly since the winner (president) basically takes it all.

If your president was less powerful and the House basically had the last say, a true democracy would be the case. But right now, even a 20% vote for the greens doesn't mean one squat as long as a conservative republican gets to be president. He just vetoes the stuff. And try unblocking his vetoes. Good luck. You need 2/3 of the house.

See what I am saying?

But in my nation, a 20% vote for a party actually makes a difference and they will usually form a coalition and get things done, without somebody else vetoing it.

__________________
They know... Saddam Hussein is no threat to the US. But at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel. Gen.W.Clark

The US did NOT start out with these two...geez, if you are going to make such sweeping condemnations of our political system, at least bother to do some minimal research first.

The Federalist and Wig parties were major parties that pre-dated the Republicans. I think Lincoln was one of the first Republicans.

They are the two major parties in modern times, but they have not always been so and were never the only two parties. Sheesh.

The President is not a King (...god, and they say our education sucks, heh heh).

The President is held in check by the other two branches. Congress can and has overidden Presidential Vetos before. The President cannot enact new legislation...only congress can do that.

Unlikely...the House is currently dominated by conservatives.

Of course we are still a democracy in any case...The "we are a Republic" argument is retarded...the two are not mutually exclusive.

They have as much a chance to become the dominant party as anyone else. Why should a minority party make decision for the majority?

His vetos can be overidden.

What nation is that? Certainly not the PRC...

You make the President out to be all-powerful and then post examples of the checks on his power. Give me a break.

...is there anything good about the USA, in your opinion?

The US isn't technically a two-party state, but in practice it very much is.

With both the Democrats and Republicans firmly entrenched, both with their rich backers and media access, it is hard for a new third party to break into the fold. It would need to get large amounts of media coverage and the money to run adds, etc. And some truly kick ass (and elephant) candidate(s).
I'm not sure how US presidential debates work, but isn't it only a two candidate thing always?

The 'winner takes all' system is also very difficult for any new party, because it intristically favors already existing parties. Then they need to win the majority of the vote in a considerable number of states to actually be of any influence in the House and Senate. And with the existing party base camps that would be a very difficult thing to do. The fatalism of many voters 'if you don't vote D or R, you wasted your vote', doesn't help the situation.

European parliamentary systems favor smaller parties (once they have crossed the threshold), and with multiple parties it becomes harder and harder for such polarization to occur.
Even though people will vote for their 'favorites', their stay in power isn't guaranteed, as a new party can rise and get voted in.

That said, there is no question whether the US is a democracy. Of course it is.
"US=North Korea!"
I can't roll my eyes enough at this statement.

Well first thing's first. Thank goodness we are not a true democracy. In a true democracy you have no rights, it's basically mob rule. I like the republic that we set up. However, Capt does have a point here. While there is no stipulations on the number of parties, which parties, etc. in the Constitution; the sad fact is the two parties have been in power long enough to set the system against the emergence of other parties. Nothing is stated in our founding documents about a party system, but Democrats and Republicans have done a darn good job at keeping the third parties out of public view and at promoting this "voting for third parties is wasting your vote" mentality that the population as a whole seems to have. There are other reasons why our current country is not the country our founding fathers have set up, why we aren't as free as they were, why our liberties are being taken away, etc. But that's another thread for another time. I do think the American people should wake up and quit voting for Democrats and Republicans.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Not always. But recently it has gotten more so because.. guess who runs the Commision on Presidential Debates? Dats right, the DNC and RNC. Those two parties get to decide who to invite to a debate and ofcourse they'll never invite an outsider.

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts

The general media is not bound by those rules...they can set up debates with whoever they want. The Republians and Democrats can decline of course.

Ross Perot was involved in the Presidential Debates when he ran.

And the DNC and RNC learned from that. Both parties have taken steps recently to prevent that from happenning again. I forgot the name of the assoc running the debate commission now... but its a RNC/DNC tool.


Eggxactly. Presidential Debate without a President is not a presidential debate.

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts

Ross Perot will be the last third party candidate allowed into the debates. Now the "debates" are scripted shams that deliver no new information to the people. And the press....well the press is no help what so ever. How are we to get third parties out there when the major "news" sources are just lap dogs set in place to keep information out of the hands of We the People and maintain the status quo?

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH