Topic: What's the point of democracy when there's only 2 parties? (Read 160 times)
Nothing is ever perfect or can never be controlled. People will always have a different say. Freedom to choose is still there, you just have to vote wisely. But if you think these people aren’t worthy, maybe you can run for yourself or have friend or person you know to run so you’d think it’d be fair. Sometimes you just have to do a lot of background check, observe them on and off platform and see if they have what it takes to serve the public.
"What's the point of democracy when there are only two parties?" First, let me start of by saying that this question is simple but deep. It makes us think and realize something. Our choices will define where our country will be heading. But what if we only habe limited choices. And those choices makes you choose between who's the lesser evil? Is there still a point of democracy there? I think that no. However, that doesn't mean that we were leave by such choices only. We cannot exercise democracy by only choosing between two who is lesser evil but we can apply that ideology by adding more choices. These power requires bravery, strong will power, and powerful people voice. But it is not impossible. We should only make a change and take a step.
Taking US for example, what's the point if our choice is always between two parties and we have to choose the lesser of 2 evils 
In reality, there are more than 2 parties in the US. For instance, the third biggest party is Libertarian. The issue is that in order to be admitted to tv coverage and debates each presidential candidate has to show more than 15% of recognition (which is conducted through surveys). And the situation is that only 2 parties are usually capable of showing these numbers. For example, Ross Perot was the third candidate during 1992 and 1996 election and he represented Reform Party. Or there was a businessman George Wallace who run as independent in 1968.
Actually there are two types of party system-two-party system and multi-party system. The reason why most country prefer the two-party system is because the candidate running under the banner of one of the two major parties has the higher to have a legitimate chance at winning a general election. That reinforces why the two major political parties in the United States have an incentive to keep it a two-party system. Democracy rely on the system enforce by parties involved. For that reason the leaders of all parties, old and new, urgently need to engage with their own grassroots and with the wider electorate to give politics and political parties back to the people and to prove that our multiparty democracy is the best means of securing political stability into the future.
Duality! The US democracy is based on the principle of duality. Most of the conceptions on Earth are based on that principle as well. For example, we compare good to evil. In different aspects of our life, that principle exists. In sport, we compare Leo Messi with Ronaldo. In Tennis, we choose between Nadal and Federer. In Formula 1, we choose between Hamilton and Vettel. In politics, we choose between 2 parties. It is a circle. In love, we choose between a man or a woman. Our world is built that way.
So, you are comparing good and evil to two political parties? A person should just which one is good and while is evil? I don't think it's that simple. How can you just choose 2 people from each sport and say we have to make some choice between them? What about Neymar or Harry Kane? I'd love to hear how you actually connect that to politics. How is choosing between two parties a circle?
Duality! The US democracy is based on the principle of duality. Most of the conceptions on Earth are based on that principle as well. For example, we compare good to evil. In different aspects of our life, that principle exists. In sport, we compare Leo Messi with Ronaldo. In Tennis, we choose between Nadal and Federer. In Formula 1, we choose between Hamilton and Vettel. In politics, we choose between 2 parties. It is a circle. In love, we choose between a man or a woman. Our world is built that way.
1. For those who don't know the difference: A republic is a state with an elected leader, mostly called a president. It is not necessarily a democracy.
2. Democracy means the rule of the common people - and no, the US are an oligarchy (rule of the few), ruled by the few with money and/or media influence. So are most other so-called "Western Democracies" today.
The input of the people is restricted to voting every so often, after that they can only protest in the streets, and we all know how much impact that has.
2. Democracy means the rule of the common people - and no, the US are an oligarchy (rule of the few), ruled by the few with money and/or media influence. So are most other so-called "Western Democracies" today.
The input of the people is restricted to voting every so often, after that they can only protest in the streets, and we all know how much impact that has.
As noted previously, there's really just not a better option that we know of yet. It's definitely not a perfect solution. In the US it usually ends up being something like a choice between a Coke or a Sprite. Neither is very good for you, but you don't get any other choice. One of the big problems with a system like this is trying to change people's beliefs. It's really hard to introduce new ideas in these parties that have been around for decades. If a new politician comes up with new ideas, he first has to choose a party that seems to be sort of close to what he believe. Then he has to go to the and try to get people to believe in what he has to say. If that's not hard enough, then he has to get all the people who are used to supporting that party to get on board.
Well democracy is not a perfect system but so far the best that we got. CGP Grey have a good playlist of videos about electoral systems. You can start by checking this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638
As Winston Churchill once said -- “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” So it's not like Democracy is a bad system, nor is having a two-party system something that is bad. This is the best political governmental system which is currently being used to this day.
I do think that the two-party system has its flaws, but even in countries where there are multiple political parties -- there is still two parties ( in theory) in the end when multiple parties form together to create an opposition government or a coalition government.
Taking US for example, what's the point if our choice is always between two parties and we have to choose the lesser of 2 evils
Every where the big is eating the small. if u know there is a term in politics " horse trading " that means buying and selling of selected candidates in between parties. So the richer party can make government even if they are not chosen by citizens.
Taking US for example, what's the point if our choice is always between two parties and we have to choose the lesser of 2 evils
There are countries in which there are hundreds of political parties. But this is a fake. The ideology and programs of these parties are the same. They all talk about how they love their people, they know the secret of the country's success, and so on. The usual populism. I think that in terms of politics, we always choose from two evils. It is better to choose from two than two hundreds. 
That is a regular topic here and there. The point of democracy is the ability to change that bipartisan system. Yes, it is obsolete and very inefficient, working mostly as a deceit for the actual oligarchy.
Lets presume, that you are talking about the US example (there are a couple more, yet that one is the most representative). It is very flawed and by itself since the lack of real competition for representation and very similar ideas among both the parties establishment, most differences are more like ripples on the surface and do not represent conceptually different ideas, if you compare them even to EUs political diversity [US is very much like Russia or China, and that was arguably the only historical way for that large countries, where strong diversity in the public politics might likely cause country separation, as it happens to empires]. It is even more flawed cause of historical predisposition and lots of obsolete practices in both the whole voting procedure, the legislation and general governance. Many things such as gerrymandering, nominations, campaign funding loopholes, lobbying and many others are the bad heritage yet to overcome by next generations. Most of these things are indeed undoubtedly harmful for both the democracy and the society, yet they have and will have their vested advocates. And the bipartisan system has those advocates, saying it is what it is, it is a tradition and a very strong and efficient governance tool, and that you can leave, if you don't like it. My position is that it can, shall and has to be amended alongside with changing the electoral rules and legislative procedures, which would include regular referendums to amend and pass the most important laws and popular private law initiatives (as it is done in several countries, e.g. Switzerland). Taking modern state of decentralized technologies, the last part looks like a piece of cake.
Lets presume, that you are talking about the US example (there are a couple more, yet that one is the most representative). It is very flawed and by itself since the lack of real competition for representation and very similar ideas among both the parties establishment, most differences are more like ripples on the surface and do not represent conceptually different ideas, if you compare them even to EUs political diversity [US is very much like Russia or China, and that was arguably the only historical way for that large countries, where strong diversity in the public politics might likely cause country separation, as it happens to empires]. It is even more flawed cause of historical predisposition and lots of obsolete practices in both the whole voting procedure, the legislation and general governance. Many things such as gerrymandering, nominations, campaign funding loopholes, lobbying and many others are the bad heritage yet to overcome by next generations. Most of these things are indeed undoubtedly harmful for both the democracy and the society, yet they have and will have their vested advocates. And the bipartisan system has those advocates, saying it is what it is, it is a tradition and a very strong and efficient governance tool, and that you can leave, if you don't like it. My position is that it can, shall and has to be amended alongside with changing the electoral rules and legislative procedures, which would include regular referendums to amend and pass the most important laws and popular private law initiatives (as it is done in several countries, e.g. Switzerland). Taking modern state of decentralized technologies, the last part looks like a piece of cake.
I agree with this. Bipartisan system is definitely obsolete but it also has it's merits. Such as projects or principles from previous administrations could actually be continued to the next because they have the same party. Although this could also be done in a non bipartisan system if politicians don't have a pissing contest with each other and put their constituents' needs before their pride and aknowledge a good project when they see one. Then again, I don't know much of the inner workings of the government.
There are numerous parties in countries of the world however it's seen that political party are simply working into becoming two party frameworks in light of the group these two parties can marshal their people together and hence conquer others. I still prefer two party system as well
Not really. The parties too will have democratic ways of electing their leaders.
But again if all the leaders are bad than again it's the fault of civilians for not being involved in politics.
But again if all the leaders are bad than again it's the fault of civilians for not being involved in politics.
It's all just a show, all the republican and democarat candidates are all friends. You don't even have a choice, the entire system is a sham.
Which country has two or more parties - not the UK or the US. We only have one, and that is the unelected banking/globalist elite. You can see the results in immigration policies, the UK poisoning of Skripal, the US supply of chemical weapons to create propaganda against Assad, the Unicorn politicians who are trying to derail Brexit to save the moribund EU. There are numerous other examples. of multiple political parties conspiring to support the globalist agenda.
We would call that bipartisanship and it is rather an oligarchy. Added to this the presidential election system, where the lobby is the highest elector and with a second-grade election, must affirm that democracy in the USA is a second-hand democracy. Society must take a step forward and ask for modernization in its system.
Everyone says, votes matter! Choose the right party! What's the point if our choice is always between two parties and we have to choose the lesser of 2 evils
We ve been fooled! At list you have 2 parties to choose from, some countryes have only one real party or even no freedom at all to chose.
So choose one of lesser evils, and be thankfull that u have a freedom to chose
OR....
Support UNIFY World Revolution
We are aiming to eliminate corrupt governments and unify the world under one decentralized voting system.
Find more on http://unifyworldrevolution.com/
donate BTC: 1Aj6phPendS29XRaJGH6HJDouwo9pbgyya
donate ETH: 0x42202762f42499543748bbb221e8337452070d0f
Well democracy is not a perfect system but so far the best that we got. CGP Grey have a good playlist of videos about electoral systems. You can start by checking this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638
To compete with each other, it will be more democratic, less conservative, less democratic as the enemy forces deliberately distort, because of the stability and development of the country, for the development of democracy.
Jump to: