In class last week we harped on the fact that America's two party system has some noticeable flaws. When I say two party system, I don't mean there are ONLY two parties, I mean there are mainly two parties in control of the decisions made for the government. Sure there are parties like the Tea Party, but how much control do they have in the government? They don't have much control. This means that a candidate running for president will most likely choose either Democrat or Republican even though their views may not fully align with that side. We see this in todays election with Bernie Sanders. Sanders is really an independent, but he knows running as an independent will hurt is campaign for presidency. Running as an independent would mean not only losing out on debates but potentially helping Republicans win by taking votes away from the Democratic Party. Sanders seems uncommitted to being committed to the party. His Senate website and press materials continue to label him as an "independent" while his campaign website lists him as a "Democratic candidate." In his home state of Vermont, there is no party registration. So can Sanders accurately claim to be unaffiliated with a political party while still running for the Democratic nomination and sometimes calling himself a Democrat? It may seem oxymoronic, but yes, he can. The reason this is bad is that some people vote for the party, not the person. That one person is not guaranteed to work for all the party's goals. And what about all the people in the middle, the "independent" voters who agree on some issues but not others? I believe you should vote for the person who best supports your views, not the party.
Check out Duverger's Law, which theorizes that first past the post systems such as the one used in the US will ultimately lead to two parties being feasible. It's a very interesting contrast to the problems with other parliamentary systems, such as minority parties having unproportional influence.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are some problems with the two party system, but I don't know what an alternative would be. The Democratic and Republican parties each have their own gradients. You can have a radical Democrat or a radical Republican. Each party also has more moderate views. I think the issue would be in decided how to separate them. You're right, Sanders has been Independent before this presidential election, but he's running through the Democratic party to increase his chances of attaining office, and I think that was a good choice for him. Independent candidates do not get attention in elections of this caliber, and I would definitely say that his views are more aligned with the Democratic party rather than the Republican party. I don't think it would be feasible to get rid of the two party system, seeing as most people can be more aligned with one or the other party.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem that I feel that the two party system poses is tendency for stark opposition between the two parties. Collaboration, and actually getting legislation passed can be difficult when neither side is willing to listen to the other. However, I also cannot come up with a better alternative. Each party has a range of beliefs within it, and so long as we maintain those as being all under the umbrella of Democrat or Republican I don't foresee any change in the two party system.
ReplyDelete