TWO PARTY SYSTEM; The Best?

[BADecker]

The 3-party system is better. The 3rd party could be the tie-breaker.

[E6XN]

Bipartisanship is a modern creation, for an ancient problem, to make individuals believe that they have a choice. The goal is to hide the fact that it is not a democracy.

[BADecker]

^^^ But we don't want Democracy.

In Democracy, 49% are slaves to 51%. But in a big Democracy, everybody is slaves to 500 people who fake like they are carrying out the wishes of the 51%, while they really do anything they want.

[semobo]

       Many scholars of politics have proven that two party systems are the best, but in my opinion I don’t think it is the best because it doesn’t really give room for proper democracy  because it’s just two persons that stands the chance of contesting for elective offices, the aspirants just come from two parties only and it makes democracy unbalanced in the society.
      In a democratic state I think it’s perfect for multi party systems to  take effect and come to stay because looking at the society generally you will see so many are interested and loved by their people but they ain’t given a voice simply because they’re not well connected. Multi party systems allow the grassroots movement have a strong voice and high level profile. 

In most of the democratic it became unwritten rules, who got the power and money became the rulers and don't let any new people to contest for suce place, either they will buy the new party or will destroy them completely which proves Illuminati is real.

[Natsuu]

So if the electoral system is the problem, then what is the best approach

The best system for ensuring that the politicians in power reflect voter intentions is proportional representation, where if a party wins e.g. 28% of the vote, then they get 28% of the seats.

Isn't it gonna be an issue if a certain party wins more than 50%, cause probably the voters will vote to the parties that are already known.

But if we do reset, like disband all the parties and make new ones. Then at first it will be pretty like a fair system of fair percentage of votes. But in the long-run, it will still go back to majorities of party and will gonna narrow to 2 major parties clashing.

[Cnut237]

in the long-run, it will still go back to majorities of party and will gonna narrow to 2 major parties clashing.

I'm not sure it will. In a two-party system, Party A is always going to attack Party B, because they need to take votes off Party B to get seats off Party B. But in a PR election, lots of parties get seats, everyone has their own angle, and it's no longer a case of forcing everyone in your party to band together to attack the opposition.

And even if PR does result in two parties getting all the seats, then that will be because those two parties got all the votes... which is a lot fairer than it is now.

[Natsuu]

in the long-run, it will still go back to majorities of party and will gonna narrow to 2 major parties clashing.

I'm not sure it will. In a two-party system, Party A is always going to attack Party B, because they need to take votes off Party B to get seats off Party B. But in a PR election, lots of parties get seats, everyone has their own angle, and it's no longer a case of forcing everyone in your party to band together to attack the opposition.

And even if PR does result in two parties getting all the seats, then that will be because those two parties got all the votes... which is a lot fairer than it is now.

But two party system is just a concept of two major parties in the government. There are other minor parties but it just happens that these two holds too many peoples, thus having major power in politics.

[BADecker]

Government officials and others are holding way more than two parties in D.C.

[Cnut237]

it just happens that these two holds too many peoples, thus having major power in politics.

It doesn't just happen, though. It happens because elections aren't representative. In a first-past-the-post system, voters for smaller parties will never get representation. Which means that sometimes they vote tactically for the 'least bad' major party.

Red 50%
Yellow 40%
Green 10%

In FPTP, the outcome would be something like: Red gets 70% of seats, Yellow gets 30%, Green gets nothing.
In PR, the outcome would be: Red gets 50% of seats, Yellow 40%, Green 10%.

But also, under FPTP there are people who want to vote Green, but vote Yellow instead because Green will never win and Yellow are 'less bad' than Red... if we switch to PR, the votes may be more like:

Red 50%
Yellow 35%
Green 15%

... so moving from FPTP to PR not only makes representation more democratic, it also empowers individual voters to vote for their preferred party rather than for a tactical 'least bad' compromise.

[Natsuu]

it just happens that these two holds too many peoples, thus having major power in politics.

It doesn't just happen, though. It happens because elections aren't representative. In a first-past-the-post system, voters for smaller parties will never get representation. Which means that sometimes they vote tactically for the 'least bad' major party.

Red 50%
Yellow 40%
Green 10%

In FPTP, the outcome would be something like: Red gets 70% of seats, Yellow gets 30%, Green gets nothing.
In PR, the outcome would be: Red gets 50% of seats, Yellow 40%, Green 10%.

But also, under FPTP there are people who want to vote Green, but vote Yellow instead because Green will never win and Yellow are 'less bad' than Red... if we switch to PR, the votes may be more like:

Red 50%
Yellow 35%
Green 15%

... so moving from FPTP to PR not only makes representation more democratic, it also empowers individual voters to vote for their preferred party rather than for a tactical 'least bad' compromise.

Ohhhh, now I get your point.

That would be good. hmm interesting.

[Cnut237]

That would be good. hmm interesting.

Yes. It's clearly the fairest method. However, it's very rare to see such a system implemented. And the reason for this is quite straightforward - it's the party who is in charge who gets to write the laws. And it's the party in charge who stands to lose out under a switch to a fairer system... because the current system is unfair in their favour. They benefit from the current unfairness, and have no incentive to change it.

[Pablo james]

In a democratic country, Two party system is the best,it saves cost, there will be less fight against each other, compare to multi party, countries that practice multi party system, these  politicians uses non popular party to fight the other, politicians uses those non popular party to contest knowing that they can't win election, doing all these to receive compensation from there counterpart.
In a nutshell two party system is the best.

[Barinekapaul]

       Many scholars of politics have proven that two party systems are the best, but in my opinion I don’t think it is the best because it doesn’t really give room for proper democracy. 

Good democracy as said earlier by you is achieved through good challenges and prove of self and political worth
or benefits that can be derived if the opportunity is given.

Witness of two-person is asserted to be true, so democracy can be well achieved with the two-party system.

You even get to realize that, bringing multiple parties together, all others tend to support one of the two
thereby making democracy more interesting when played by two sides or political parties.

[BADecker]

TWO  PARTY SYSTEM; The Best?


The NO PARTY SYSTEM is the best.

[Tash]

TWO  PARTY SYSTEM; The Best?


The NO PARTY SYSTEM is the best.

A party is just a group of criminals who band together for mutual protection and profit like a pack of wild dogs.
Two, is a pack of Hyenas fight the pride of Lion over a sheep. Sometimes the hyenas win other times the lion.

Edit: Be your own king  http://governyourself.com/index.html