Is a two party system set up for arguments with only two outcomes?

[Bob]

I'm U.S. here.  I've heard the way we're set up, it's for a two party system.  That's what will survive.  Yes, there are others, but they're not going to be able to do much.  Only two parties survive.  But that's not the point of this thread.

Does a system set up like this for two parties imply that there is a left/right, right/wrong, ying/yang -- opposites for everything?  Some kind of deeper meaning there -- that everything has an opposite?  Only two directions? 

Or it's just set up so that someone will argue with whatever anyone wants to do.  I've heard that too -- That way things move slower and are examined more carefully.  Whatever one side wants, the other side will oppose. 

But I don't think issues are always 'only two directions for a solution' issues.

[term]

if you want to get into philosophy, you can make that case: dialectics and left/right spectrum. In this particular case, the two party system comes to the same overall conclusions on the things that matter and to different conclusions on minor issues for the plebs. Is that not so? I admit, that's kind of a chomsky argument. But anyway, it is the minimum differentiation necessary in order for someone to have another side, but still be within the political system, if he or she is disappointed by one party or disagrees with the policy.

[quasimodo]

Most western European countries have much more than two political parties that have a significant presence.
US Bipartism  IMO is not resulting from a long term political/ideological process (*) but from the concept of US political finances. Money has too much influence in US politics and the amount of money involved in politics is indecently HUGE. Having more parties would lead to increasing that already gigantic financial volume and would hurt, economically.
If campaign expenses were capped at a lower (and decent) level, other parties would be able to emerge.

(*) actually, both parties DEM and GOP are covering a large spectrum of ideological positioning and are plagued by internal dissensions.

[oxy60]

Of course you should have more than two parties but eventually the leadership should be elected by the majority with the majority voting. (50%+1 of 50%+1) Otherwise you will have your leaders be people you didn't directly elect; coalitions of strange bed fellows and falling cabinets tend to be indications of multiparty systems. A simple runoff of the top two parties would solve that.

One European country, in an effort to form a cabinet, ended up with a minister of transport who wanted to put cameras all around the country to record license numbers to determine road usage for adjusting road tax! That minister's party got a very low percentage of the vote but those few seats were needed for a majority coalition.

[Bob]

The U.S. system is set up to let two parties grow and survive.

I was wondering if that reflects only two directions for each issue.  Kind of a right/wrong approach to everything.

[quasimodo]

The U.S. system is set up to let two parties grow and survive.

I was wondering if that reflects only two directions for each issue.  Kind of a right/wrong approach to everything.

I don't think so. It has little to do with policy (issues) and everything to do with politics (electoral).

[oxy60]

Don't we wish that two parties would at least give us two different kinds of government.

No matter how we vote or who is in power we get the same result; more government, higher taxes and more stupid regulations.

Don't think the GOP is pro business. It was they during Regan in the 80's who killed off silent partners and forced us all to go either to the banks or the stock market for investors putting in place the ground work for the present crisis.

Actually the Dems were more pro business during Carter allowing banks/lenders to charge different interest rates for different borrowing risks.

Actually in the US we really have only one party, the big government party, the BGP!

[mephisto]

I admit, that's kind of a chomsky argument.

As if that should make the argument any weaker!

[richard black]

We have three parties (plus various fringe odds and ends) here in the UK, but one of them, although it regularly gets a significant share of the vote at national elections, will never make a substantial impact while our voting system remains the way it is.

That leaves two parties. They used to be, effectively, the party of the rich and the party of the proletariat, but now you can't tell them apart.

Though it doesn't stop them arguing about everything, of course.

[term]

As if that should make the argument any weaker!

Well, true, bad phrasing. I just wanted to say i'm not making an original argument.