Two-party system dominant in US

GAMBIER — Whenever the thought of political parties comes to mind, voters often think of a two-party system and the two dominating components: Democrats and Republicans. Although in the nation’s history there have been many third parties within the political arena, a two-party system continues to maintain a stronghold within the government.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 30th, 2010 at 10:27 amand is filed under story. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

  • a real american

    I never thought id say this but good job mao! I was gonna chip in but you have beat back the libs yourself. Keep up the good work educating these sheep is the only way to turn this mess around

  • Mao See Tongue

    GL, really. Your assumption I’m republican & agree with everything they did & didn’t do when in power is based upon what??? No one must defend republicans inorder to critise democrats & their use of Marx & Mao. The one characteristic most valuable in assessing the difference between capitalism,socialism,fascism & communism is the degree of govt power in each. Freedom is maximized in capitalism ,hopefully one operating in the WISE legal structure(regulation) seen as ESSENTIAL to capitalism’s operation by virtually ALL free market therorists & economists. The search for “equality” that defines socialism,communism & much of facism necessarily reduces freedom and historically results in impoverishment of most & aggrandizes the power of the few(rulers & their favorites). Why do you lefties so often resort to the canard of calling those you disagree with followers of “Glenn Beck & right wing nut jobs”,as you did. Any half-educated person reading your stuff would seriously wonder who the “nut job”really is. And explain please,all the self avowed marxists & maoists in Obama’s administration. Marxism has murdered FAR more than nazism,yet it’s acceptable in our presidency. Explain please. And don’t kid yourself—EVERY problem you claim George Bush created was accompanied by a GREAT DEAL of democrat participation. And FDR “saved capitaism”how? You sure?

  • bill

    Mao-

    i think it is you who is mis informed, uneducated and not really sure what capitalism, socialism or communism really is. your view on history sounds like it comes from glenn beck and right wing nut jobs.

    I dont mind if you disagree with the president and his politics. I certainly disagreed with bush and almost every policy that he in-acted. I mine when you compare him and his policies to that of Nazi Germany. Even taken at the most liberal view point it is very hard to say that what Obama wants is a socialistic society. The only president that one could say was a “socialist” was FDR. And he is praised for saving capitalism. pretty funny. FDR’s policies saved us from disaster. along with a little war called WWII.

    I can guarantee that there are many things in the Health Care Bill that many conservatives agree with. That will help them be able to care for their family in times of need and protect them from health care companies. Would conservatives liked it to be done differently? absolutely. But here is my question to all Republicans. How come if this is such a big issue that Health Care Reform was never on the table during the 2000-2006 tenure when Republicans had control of the House, Senate and the Presidency? and why are you not more upset at your own representatives for not getting this done your way? and why are you not mad at Bush for the Largest expansion of Government in our countries history (homeland security)? and by building up the dept far worse than any Democrat well. ever?

    i feel like republicans are taking cheap shots at democrats for trying to fix what republicans failed to do. While i am not naive enough to think that democrats havent been at fault at all. I feel like Bush and his presidency created the major problems that the democrats are trying to fix, one problem at a time.

    • John C. Davidson

      Your last phrase is comical, at best.

  • Mao See Tongue

    GL, you confused? Too badd. You’re definition of “communism” is really the far,far right & the obama left’s definition of CAPITALISM–both are,of course,superficial,shallow & dead wrong.Kinda stoopid,really.Or were you just making a joke? A pretty dumb one,excuse the truth.

  • GL

    Mao. If you can just go along and make up your own definitions of words to suit your beliefs go ahead. Here is my new definition. Communism: A political system where capital is owned by private interests and any one can do whatever they want without regard to the consequences to others, all in the name of freedom.

  • Mao See Tongue

    Hitler was a socialist.His party was called the “national socialists”. He said national socialism(nazis) & communism are “the same”. He murdered FAR less than obama’s administration’s “favorite philosopher”,Mao see Tongue,commie China’s leader who killed 60,000 USA troops in Korea & who the oabma administration recommended to USA SCHOOL KIDS. Govt ownership has very little to do with socialism. Is not at all necessary to it. Govt CONTROL is.The unread ,3000 page obamacare bill is an example.

  • GL

    Socialism is generally defined as a political theory advocating state ownership of industry and/or an economic system based on state ownership of capital. So far none of this is close to happening in the united States. The Obama Health Care Reform bill does not transfer ownership of hospitals or other health care providing organizations and institutions to the federal government. Nor will doctors work for and be paid by the federal government. It is highly regulative of the insurance companies, but even so they seem to embrace it because it will bring them a lot of new business. It does require most people to have some form of health insurance which will be to their benefit. Anyone who things otherwise has not had to pay for any kind of health care out of pocket.

  • excuse me

    for once if you are going to call people socialists, please understand what the word actually means.

    stupidity is the problem with american politics. not the system in which use to solve problems. and the stupidity comes from a majority of the people who listen to fox news.

    • John C. Davidson

      Hey, give us your definition of socialism, sir. Just don’t call people stupid who don’t agree with you. That’s quite stupid.

  • Thomas Jay

    I’m sorry, is this news?

  • Alumni

    Sorry folks, the dumbed down Americans have been duped again. Check out the CFR membership list on line and seriousy ask yourself if there really is a two party system.

  • Claudius Baker

    Who are we kidding. We are a one party system. We are the new United Socialist States of America led by our number one Socialist, B.O. We are all socialists now. We just hold elections to see which socialist we will pay to redistribute the wealth. The winner of most elections these days is the socialist who promises to take the most money from the “rich” and redistribute it to those who will vote for them.

  • bill

    If we want to change the way elections are held to make sure that more parties and more ideas are heard, then we need to change election laws. This would allow more fringe parties like the Green, Libertarian and Tea Baggers (oops tea party). to have more of a chance in national elections. The problem is that the two major parties will not allow this to happen, because they would loose power and money.

    3rd parties do well in local and some state elections, but the do not have the money or network to do well in a national campaign. Look at what the Tea Party did in the last election. they couldnt even knock off local leaders. most people are ignorant when it comes to voting. hence why they vote what they know. republican or democrat.

  • GL

    Third party doesn’t necessarily mean transient or ineffective. The Green Party has had some success but not on the level of the Reps. or Dems. So far anyway.

  • John C. Davidson

    Because the two major parties passed laws, they remain the only viable way we have to elect representatives. The only time movements can have any say in the way we are governed is to re-shape the party not in power.

    The one in power always ignore their constituents for they are too busy strengthening themselves while ensuring longevity. It is almost imposible for an independant voice to even gain a foothold. Ross Perot was the closest to do so, and he had a lot of money. But, even that didn’t overcome the barricade.

    Splinter groups have no other option but to integrate within one party or the other. The socialists figured that out much to the consternation of many good Democrats.

  • Green

    I’m surprised that among the third parties mentioned here the Green Party isn’t one, since it has had success in elected hundreds of people to local offices all over the country. One is mayor of a large city and many sit on the city councils of even larger cities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(United_States)#Office_holders