The US-"Democracy" conspiracy theory

Pardalis said:
Sorry for having been uptight Oliver.



Really? Are at least more than two get usually elected?
Click to expand...

Of course more then 2 parties get elected. That´s why parties use to build coalitions after finding a shared direction to have more power within the government.

The good thing is that nearly every citizen has it´s representative within the government. The bad thing is that it needs more time for decisions because more parties are involved.
 
The current New Zealand government consists of something like 5 parties.

-Gumboot
 
Oliver said:
Does a two-party system also sounds very strange to you, Andrew?
Click to expand...


Not really. Before we switched to MMP we basically had a two party system. What I find more odd is the idea of electing a head of state, combined with the idea that the primary democratic process is electing a head of state, rather than electing representatives in government.

That's what I find really odd.

-Gumboot
 
Oliver said:
The bad thing is that it needs more time for decisions because more parties are involved.
Click to expand...

Maybe this has the advantage that bad laws might be more difficult to get passed this way (such as the Military Commission Act).
 
Pardalis said:
Maybe this has the advantage that bad laws are more difficult to get passed (such as the Military Commission Act).
Click to expand...

Such a law would never pass here because all the different opinions, i guess.

ETA: You need 3/4 majority to pass such a law...
 
The problem with the two party system is also that it polarizes the public's opinion. It encourages partisan bias even more, and people who don't want to affiliate themselves with either of those extremes can't really hope that their vote will count. That's a shame.

You're lucky to have a government which has more than two options.
 
Australia has more than two parties, although only really two major ones.
Labor and Liberal. The Liberal party are in a coallition with the National Party.
We have Democrats and Greens and an assortment of smaller single issue type parties. We also have a fair few Independent MPs and Senators.

But basically on election day most people vote either Liberal(right) or Labor(left).
 
Pardalis said:
The problem with the two party system is also that it polarizes the public's opinion. It encourages partisan bias even more, and people who don't want to affiliate themselves with either of those extremes can't really hope that their vote will count. That's a shame.

You're lucky to have a government which has more than two options.
Click to expand...

[ctmode]
I don´t know if it´s a shame or a conspiracy. I guess at the time this system was invented there should have been more opinions/parties than two. Very strange thing for the CT´ist in me. :D Maybe the freemasons were involved. :D
[/ctmode]
 
There's a logical problem with saying the two parties were created by the rich to fool us.

The money differential between Democrats and Republicans is huge. It's a real David and Goliath battle, as far as the money goes.

This argues against your conspiracy theory. At least you need to explain why the conspirators would give one party ten times as much money as the other.

The Democrats's paucity of cash might suggest they represent the common people a lot more than the Republicans do--and this hypothesis is borne out by examining the records of both parties. The Democrats fight for the environment; the Republicans fight against it. The Democrats fight for civil rights; the Republicans fight against them. The Democrats fight for food and workplace safety laws; the Republicans fight against them. The Democrats got you the Freedom of Information Act, while the Republicans fought against it. And on and on.

You see? There goes your theory.
 
Last edited:
PerryLogan said:
There's a logical problem with saying the two parties were created by the rich to fool us.

The money differential between Democrats and Republicans is huge. It's a real David and Goliath battle, as far as the money goes.

This argues against your conspiracy theory. At least you need to explain why the conspirators would give one party ten times as much money as the other.
Click to expand...

No no, my point is that only rich people who are able to get the money to run for the election are able to run at all. ;) In other democratic countries its the concept and smartness that let you climb the ladder, not the money.
 
PerryLogan said:
There's a logical problem with saying the two parties were created by the rich to fool us.

The money differential between Democrats and Republicans is huge. It's a real David and Goliath battle, as far as the money goes.

This argues against your conspiracy theory. At least you need to explain why the conspirators would give one party ten times as much money as the other.

The Democrats's paucity of cash might suggest they represent the common people a lot more than the Republicans do--and this hypothesis is borne out by examining the records of both parties. The Democrats fight for the environment; the Republicans fight against it. The Democrats fight for civil rights; the Republicans fight against them. The Democrats fight for food and workplace safety laws; the Republicans fight against them. The Democrats got you the Freedom of Information Act, while the Republicans fought against it. And on and on.

You see? There goes your theory.
Click to expand...


Do you work for the DNC or something? Do you have any proof that the Democrats have access to fewer resources than the Republicans?

Anyway, we do have a lot of Third Parties here. The problem is, most of them only focus on single issues(Righ to Life Party) or take far end stances on all the issues(Green Party).

I think the most succesful TP candidate we've ever have run for president was Teddy Roosevelt. This was after he served as a Republican. He retired from public life, didn't like what he saw, so he came back and really screwed up the Big 2. He didn't win, but he gave third parties a real hope.

Third Parties like the Poipulists in general tended to be a little successful on the local levels in late 1800s and early 1900s, but on the national level, the Big 2 simply absorbed their ideas in the official platforms. Of course, lately, the Big 2 just ridicule and ignore anything coming from the Third Parties. Its much easier and safer to stick to your voting base and vilify the other guy than to evolve and take a chance on an issue that you aren't sure will be accepted.


But, these are politicians we are talking about. Their job is to be elected, not to be leaders.
 
I don't think the OP is big news. I think most intelligent Americans believe that this is at least mostly true. At least the majority of the non-aligned Americans.

Actually, I am aligned. I'm a Republican (although I'm rethinking it with the current faith-based regime), and I believe in the CT, although I don't necessarily believe that it is full-blown.
 
Is this the first conspiracy theory that wasn´t debunked in here?
 
Donal said:
Anyway, we do have a lot of Third Parties here. The problem is, most of them only focus on single issues(Righ to Life Party) or take far end stances on all the issues(Green Party).
Click to expand...

So these thirt parties could have the chance to get into the parmalment - there is more room in the parlament for more then two parties? :confused:
 
Oliver said:
So these thirt parties could have the chance to get into the parmalment - there is more room in the parlament for more then two parties? :confused:
Click to expand...


Ya, probably the House of Representatives. We have a bicameral legislative branch. There is I think one independant there right now. Since representatives are elected by their local district, an TP has a better chance of grabbing a few seats with proper grass root campaigning.

Of course, who wants to go through the hard work and time consumption of an actual grass roots campaign when you can get on TV with a big national campaign?
 
Donal said:
Ya, probably the House of Representatives. We have a bicameral legislative branch. There is I think one independant there right now. Since representatives are elected by their local district, an TP has a better chance of grabbing a few seats with proper grass root campaigning.

Of course, who wants to go through the hard work and time consumption of an actual grass roots campaign when you can get on TV with a big national campaign?
Click to expand...

And what about the other three points of my conspiracy-theorie? :)
 
gumboot said:
I feel the big flaw in the US as a democracy is the notion of a democratically elected head of state. It becomes the focus of the democratic status.
Click to expand...

Actually, the biggest flaw in the US as a democracy is that it wasn't set up as one.

Marc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom