Sunday, October 21, 2007
Two party system
We have to remember that the most important thing to a candidate is to get elected, and continually be re-elected to a position. Through the two party system candidates, political elites, and interest groups have found a way to centralize that power, and use it to reach there ultimate goal. I feel that the two-party dominated system is actually a good thing for politics. Albeit this factious system is not what the founders intended, it actually has morphed into something workable that reflects American society very well. The idea that there are different factions in each party compliments the idea of checks and balances because these different factions all have a different median voter, and they end up balancing each other out. The same happens on a larger scale between the two major parties. Today, the two party system works well because I feel that many of the issues have just two different possible solutions and that is why we have two different parties. The Iraq war, for instance, we can either get out or stay. And the two party system allows for the two different views to join together and fight for what they believe in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I disagree with this assessment. I think that having two parties is fine. Mainly because at this point attempting the legitimacy of a third is very difficult. The checks and balances have little to do with inter congressional tempatures and more with branches. I think we can all agree that the whole of congress will unite under their branch flag to lambast the executive and/or the judicial for whatever failures they see fit to recognize.
I would also say that many factions within a party is not advantageous to the life of the party. The more factions, the more the candidates will have to pander to every splinter group of each party. And the worst part, is the pander will have to be to the middle of every group. Think of how many different kinds of Republicans and Democrats there are. I think if there is cohesion and unity under a platform, like suggested in the reading, the ability to unite, win, and lead is easier. I understand that nobody is going to adhere 100% to every aspect of the party, but I think that more unity is better than more diversity in party politics. It leads to infighting and exclusion.
I have to disagree with your assessment too. Although a two-party system allows for different views and opinions on issues, it also creates a lot of controversy. As I discussed in my blog for this week, in the last election nearly half of America voted Democratic. Yet, the result was Bush back for another term. This leaves half of the nation in disagreement. Its not ok to have such a divided country.
Hey nothing to do with your post but study group at Vitucci's Tonight at 7pm call me for details 608-215-4768
The idea of the two-party system being a form of checks and balances with one another and within themselves is quite interesting. It is most certainly not something I would have necessarily thought of.
Parties definitely have seperate factions within themselves and this could act as a check and balance. I do not necassarily know if this is such a positive thing though. The differing factions will inevitably lead to some set backs for the party itself and for the people they represent. So long as both parties have a similar amount of this tug-o-war within themselves I suppose things could balance out, but if one party actually got on the ball and started acting as a cohesive unit (or at least a little more than the other party) this could be problematic for American society. The checks and balances between parties would definitely be thrown off in this senario.
I do suppose, like almost everything in politics, you can find some sort of situation to screw up a good situation/arguement.
Post a Comment