Whether they are a politican or voter this them versus us mentality is poison nearly any and all discussion. Budgets are not being passed before deadlines. Honest discussions( where a person's mind is not made before the actuall talk itself) are taking place and in fact nearly all pretense of this appears to be fading too. Discussions between voters often breakdown into mindless vitriol where they believe adamantly that because an idea is not shared that anything the other says cannot possibly have any merit.
Doing whats is needed should come above personal desires and beliefs, and the two party system is nothing more we are right you are wrong because you have different beliefs. The Founding Fathers would be appaulled
The United States government was designed with three branches so that they could each keep the others in check. Similarly, a three party system would keep the party system in check. Having only a two party systems is very divisive by facilitating a "good" and "bad" environment. A third party would neutralize many of the extremes that currently divide the two primary parties.
In monarcy if the person or group of person are good and responsible only then the country's citizen will be happy otherwise they will be supressed by the power of the government , whereas in democracy if the government is wrong it will try to correct itself and if it will not do so then it will be thrown by the citizen of the country through election.
There should be one president who simply does what the majority of American's want so provided it does not violate the constitution as this is a Republic first, Democracy second. THe only time something should be taken out of the constitution is never even if the majority vote to take away a freedom or so.
Me being a Canadian, I have a hard time telling the two parties apart aside from how they look in the media.
Me being a Leftist, I see no real differences whatsoever. Both support the same version of the same market system with essentially the same methods of dealing with war and social strife. You have a red dog and a blue dog, but some of us are cat people. I'd personally like a panda, but hey... I can settle.
Does anybody really agree 100% with either the Democrats or the Republicans? No, and because of the mentality of "A vote for (insert 3rd party candidate here) is really a vote for (insert main party candidate here)" those behind the two parties are still making money and not having to care for the actual interests of the citizens of America. If you can't vote for the policies that you actually want is it really a democratic-republic? Are we really free to vote for whoever we want?
The solution is to stand up and vote for the 3rd party you agree with most. Is it going to change that election? Probably not, but if our voice is heard in the numbers then the big wigs of DC will have to do something. If we cause an election to have no winner consistently then they will have to change the voting system, and that's the real problem. With our winner take all system we will never accurately be represented.
The 2 party system is slowly destroying this country from within. They are doing what no foreign enemy has been able to do in 236 years! All either party cares about is being the Majority and all the perks that come with that domination. Party Power now is the all important motivator in Washington DC - nothing else matters. Neither party is serving the people or the nations best interests - only their own and those that contribute the most to their campaign coffers. They have both driven this country beyond insolvency or bankruptcy. If we were not the reserve currency of the world, and able to sell our debt each year to foreign countries, our whole fiscal house of cards would have come tumbling down years ago. Our Republic should be represented by 545 individuals not beholding to any party or special interest group, only their constituents, fiscal sanity, balanced budgets and the founding principles of this country - nothing else.
Yes, it is a limited choice, but you have to consider the alternative. Everyone has unique political views, and if everyone voted for the candidate that represented their views exactly, the national election would be chaos with hundreds of candidates, and the victor only winning by a tiny plurality of votes. Thus, we'd likely end up with a president-elect that only has, say, 10 percent of the popular vote. Additionally, our political parties change over time in accordance with the voters and their popular beliefs. Many years ago, the democratic south split from the union to practice slavery in accordance with states' rights while the republican president favored big government that would abolish slavery nationwide, almost entirely the opposite of what you would expect from our modern parties. As far as the limited capabilities of third parties, these small parties have a place in politics even if they rarely, if ever, win elections. If their platform becomes popular enough, it will often be assimilated by one of the two dominant parties. For example, it was labor unions that fought for the 40-hour work week, and as that idea gained popularity, progressive politicians adopted that view and implemented it as policy.
No, I think having two parties is a good thing. There is always options for more candidates and in history it has proven that a third party candidate can be elected. Maybe we can expand in the future, but I don't believe that it harms us in any way, anything is still possible.