The Two-Party System Doesn't Work

2. That's not true. My burden is to prove my resolution. I don't have to compare to exact solutions, especially when there are many different kinds of solutions. Most reviews you read review only the product itself - it does not compare. While it's certainly a viable method, it's not a requirement. Refutations ==== 1. You said America was the wealthiest, meaning it is the number one wealthiest nation. You can not revise your statement to only "wealthy". It certainly is wealthy, but so are nations such as Liechtenstein, which is a constitutional monarchy. In fact, let's look at the top ten countries in the GDP per capita (as based on the CIA Factbook). Liechtenstein is number one, and has a constitutional monarchy (one in which the head monarch retains a lot of power). Qatar is an absolute monarchy. Luxembourg is a parliamentary democracy with three major parties (and many moderately successful third parties). Norway also has a multi-party system. Political parties are illegal in Kuwait. Singapore is a single-party state. Brunei is another absolute monarchy. Andorra is a multi-party system. Ireland has many many political parties, and the biggest don't identify on the political spectrum like American parties do. The only country that comes close to a two-party system is Liechtenstein, but a great majority of power rests on an unelected figure. And it should serve as a lesson about third parties - once one or two get control, they have little chance. There's only one surviving third party in Liechtenstein. 2. But 100% of the judges in our Supreme Court are appointed by the President. Which is what I was referring to. The same is true for immediate cabinet members. And it's not based on political ideologies, it's based on political loyalties. The spoil's system was first coined after Andrew Jackson appointed I believe Henry Clay to his cabinet. It wasn't based on ideology, but rather on the fact that Clay had helped Jackson win by dropping his name out. Jackson always purged many lower ranks to make way for people that fit his ideology. Now what of this breeds cooperation? 3. The Executive Branch refers to the President and Vice President and their immediate Cabinet members and executive officers. They may run many agencies, but that's akin to saying every person who's a member of the military is a member of the Executive Branch as well. But let's concentrate on the President. Obviously that's the role that's most effected and the role most people are familiar with. Did you see the 2008 election? I've looked into how it was treated, how it was regarded, and it's the biggest evidence of what the two-party system does to separate this country and turn elections into a tug-of-war game with no actual substance. It's very easy to degenerate something when it's two teams working against each other. Both were eager to insult, demean, and lie about their opponent to get their way. It also showed how simple it was to ignore the multiple other candidates. 4. I must disagree. Would you also say that even though thousands died in the Civil War, the South finally gave in and compromised with the North so it's alright. Forced compromise is never good. It just builds animosity and makes absolutely no one happy. I'd also like to point out that you seem very center right yourself - I'll cover your ill-fated optimism that the American people were voting because they're happy with the Republicans in a moment. Your examples are countries with severe social animosity that I doubt those situations have anything to do with political parties. Look at a country that isn't in the middle of a religious battle: Britain. A very sprawling multi-party system and their parliament is downright boring. You can watch some of their meetings. They go at it sometimes, but it's always in a polite and almost comical matter and there is FAR more cooperation when compared to our Congress. 5. I'll cover your ill-fated beliefs about the American people now. Third parties don't win not because people don't want them too, but because they don't get the money, publicity, or attention the major parties do which is because, paradoxically, they aren't major parties. If I could identify one reason the American people decided these would be the two major parties, it would probably be age since they're certainly the oldest (their ideologies have changes drastically, even completely switching in the early 1900's, but the names are oldest). It has nothing to do with the parties themselves or their ideologies. Now to burst your bubble. The Republican party did not win because people prefer Republicans. Look at the pattern of Presidents and Congress in the last couple decades. It's following a distinct pattern. After Obama we'll get a Republican President. After him we'll get a Democrat. It's because we're a country of contrarians, and rather than finding an alternative solution, people just vote the opposite and hope that works. The two-party system fosters that by making it ten times easier. It's not that people are happy with Republicans. It's that they're unhappy with the country, and blame the people in government, so vote for the immediate opposite. 6. I again refer you to Britain, which also has an excellent political news segment. 7. The political parties are our nations demographic. A demographic is nothing more than a label to describe ones cultural and ideological beliefs. What do you think a political party is? That wasn't positive media either. Just because something is portrayed in a positive light doesn't make it positive. It's the attitude and tone of the portrayal. 8. For California, she was radical. And the only social issue she was "liberal" on was abortion. That by no means makes her moderate, especially since abortion isn't a huge issue in California. And while of course it will always happen (you can't fix human beings unfortunately) the more parties you have the more their views will differentiate and the more people will search based on views than labels. Also, nothing will be as popular. Right now everyone hops on with Democrats or Republicans. If you have, say, five major parties, then people may be more careful in choosing since nothing is a heavy majority. And you remove the contrarian factor I talked about earlier. And yes, it does. It was fairly obvious for two years he wasn't doing anything about it but briefly mentioning it every time someone handcuffs themself to the White House. 9. No, voters vote based on who is in their party and who their political pundits tell them to vote for (whom they watch based on their party). There's a startling number of people that can't even explain why they believe something because they pick either Democrats or Republicans based on one or two issues and then agree with that party on everything. So they aren't voting based on their beliefs. They're voting based on one or two opinions, and the rest of the beliefs are made for them. 10. A commentary is not a statistic.