TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Should countries abolish the two party political system ?

The reasoning for my argument is that with a two party system political system, is that politics has become a battle for power or to maintain that power, rather than its initial purpose which is to represent the people, act as a voice for the people and do what is best for the people
I get the fact that people have different ideology but in all honesty all ideas basically result in that group of people having maximum gain, minimum loss.
in the end i just think that government should stop focusing on the balance for power but rather focus on what is best for the people.

+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Oct 6 2012: We should get rid of the 2 party system. It is no longer an accurate representation of what is happening in the physical world. Now Democracy still works, but this red vs blue, black vs white, left vs right, man vs machine, all it is doing is still trying to divide us a nation/world.
    • thumb
      Oct 6 2012: How would you restructure the voting system to detrmine a winner during the election then? If the election had 4 candidates, then a winner could be elected with only 26% of the popular vote. Is that a fair representation of what the majority of the populaion wanted? 74% of the voters DIDN'T want that candidate.
      • Oct 6 2012: If you take that situation where a candidate wins with 26% of the vote and then remove two candidates during the next election, you're just gonna have a situation where half the people don't vote or half the people vote begrudgingly for the lesser of two evils. The candidate that wins with 51% of the votes would still only have the support of 26% of the people. In parliamentarian elections the problem you fear would be entirely irrelevant since 26% of the votes will just result in 26% of the seats.
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2012: There would just a larger primary and it would still get narrowed down to 2 and then the general public would vote based on popular vote making every vote count. The electoral college is out dated and barbaric in today's age as well as having delegates. Those are the things that need to change and have nothing to do with democracy.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2012: That was my whole point of my question, Casey. We already DO that. If there are more than 2 candidates we hold primary elections. Eventually, the voters end up choosng between two candidates in the end. So what has really changed?

          @ John Smith: Yes, maybe the candidate that eventually won with 51% of the vote would have only got 26% of the ORIGINAL vote when there were FOUR candidates. But when you hold the run-off election, there are only TWO candidates for THAT vote. If that's all the choices the voter's have left, then they can at LEAST make a choice for "which one they want" then. 51% in that case is representative of the TOTAL population of voters in that case. Or, like you said, they can just not come out to vote in the run-off. But then they shouldn't be complaining about who ended up getting elected in the "finals".

          Taken to the extreme, what if every citizen in the country who was eligible to hold the office of President was placed on the ballot. If your name was on the ballot, who would you vote for? And if there needed to be a run-off election after that, and you weren't in the run-off on the ballot then, would you not vote in it because you thought the "best candidate" wasn't available anymore?
        • Oct 6 2012: "If that's all the choices the voter's have left, then they can at LEAST make a choice for "which one they want" then."

          That's barely an improvement and may very well be offset by more than 50% of the people not liking either candidate because the quality of candidates will degrade (when there are only two viable options, the least worst candidate can get away with stuff that not even 26% of the people supports, if the worse candidate also becomes worse the least worst candidate can get away with even more, etc...)
      • thumb
        Oct 8 2012: Rick,

        The best part of getting rid of the 2 party system is that we could have people like Ron Paul and Obama on the same ticket, both men who at least in the political world seem to be honest and willing to come to agreement about the best way to move forward. The problem is people are so stubborn and the system is so corrupt we just keep pushing through extremes from the right and then the left trying to "fix" what the other party "messed up. Instead of moving forward as a nation of free people, not free business.
        • thumb
          Oct 8 2012: What makes you think a nation of "free people" making all the decisions would result in the country "moving forward"? That's a very dangerous assumption to make.

          Here's the real problem. People think that any ONE person in our U.S. government has enough power to "do it all". Not true. Even the President can't make a decision all by himself. He has to get majority approval of 100 Senators, 430 Congressional Representatives, and ultimately the Supreme Court if the decision is challenged as being unconstitutional.

          So why do we even have a President? Human Nature. It's a status symbol that represents the "leader" of a nation-state. A President doesn't run a country anymore than a husband or wife has total control over running a marriage.

          Heck, let's change the office of President so it has TWO people in it...one from each party. Nothing can be decided until BOTH of them agree on the decision. That would be interesting, don't you think? They would both have to eventually agree on SOMETHING, or NOTHING would ever get done. But wait...that's what really happens nowadays already, as long as the President, the Senate, and Congress aren't all majorities from the same party.

          Or maybe that's not such a good idea either. It would be like trying to run a marriage. And since statistically almost 50% of marriages end up in divorce within the first 3 years...... ;-)

          I always find it amusing that when, for instance, a Democratic President proposes a solution to something, then a Republican Senate or Congress eventually (after much posturing, of course) approves the action be taken, that none of the Republican citizens blame the Republicans in the Senate or House of "being wrong". Works both ways, too.

          Maybe it's because compromise DOES exist within the two parties in the government when a decision HAS to ultimately be made to keep the country running? Something the average citizen can't comprehend is needed for any system to work...or is unwilling to accept?
      • thumb
        Oct 8 2012: I don't think the problem is democracy it is the only current government system that is suppose to provide change as well as having a check and balance system. We do compromise but instead of compromising for the good or advancement of "free" people we swing big and hope the most sh!t sticks to the wall. When the next party comes in to change the things that they wanted but didn't have enough votes to make it happen. The simple idea of of electing officials every 2/4 years to in essence create new laws that make criminals is ludicrousness. Politicians and lawyers and judges don't stop crime from happening they create crime. So they have a job. If we could live in a "minority report"(movie "no crime") our unemployment rate would be through the roof. However that being said we need to get rid of the 2 party system and create a unified group of individuals that will always act in the best interest of the whole. One such interest would be equality.
    • Nov 4 2012: RE Casey: but the news and media system is corrupting our view on what is happening during the debates as well

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.