The Terrible Two Party System, part 1

The situation:

Today, US politics functions as a single-party  two-party system. Anyone who has read their US history books KNOWS that this was not the case in the first 100 years of this Republic’s existence. Don’t believe me? Check here. There was the smallest glimmer of  hope in the mid-1990s with the rise of Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, and Pat Buchanan as third-party candidates. But, the situation remains almost hopeless; even today, Mr. “Change” and “Hope” himself in New Hampshire said that we have two parties in this country. Correction, Mr. President, there are two-parties that maintain a duopoly on the country’s national politics.

Here is a series, circa 2004, which I wrote on  as an Undergrad.

Majoritarianism, the ends:

The term ‘majoritarian’ contains the root word “majority.”  This type of democracy is founded of the political principle of majority rule. Majority rule “[provides] that a majority usually constituted by fifty percent plus one of an organized group [which] will have the power to make decisions binding on the whole”(Webster Dictionary). Democracy is governance by the people.  It is very difficult to determine the people’s will because not everyone agrees with each other.  Majoritarianism takes the easy road in a sense in that it tries to avoid as much conflict as possible by making the decision- making process simpler by allowing a bare majority to dominate policy.  This is why in majoritarian governments more often than not, two clear ideological choices are usually given and the winner is allowed to take all.  Majoritarian democracy in being consistent with its simplification of the decision making process must also allow the majority- ruled governing body to set its agenda forth by having a flexible legislation process with the assurance that there will be an absence of competition for governance.   The most decisive conclusion is not always the best one.
Another way a society could determine how to make decisions would be to make a system of governance, which tried to allow as many citizens as possible into the decision-making process.  Since the people’s will is never easily determined, the more people that are involved in the decision-making process, the better.  A consensus democracy must create as many decision-making bodies as possible so that citizens can have as many options as possible in pushing their preferred policies.  There are many ideological choices given in a consensual democracy.  Since there is not one clear choice, there should not be a clear winner; therefore, a consensus democracy should be one in which a maximum number of winners is determined.  The policy making process should be somewhat inflexible with as much political competition as possible.  Remember, the goal of a consensus democracy is to exclude the fewest people as it possibly can.

Another way a society could determine how to make decisions would be to make a system of governance, which tried to allow as many citizens as possible into the decision-making process.  Since the people’s will is never easily determined, the more people that are involved in the decision-making process, the better.  A consensus democracy must create as many decision-making bodies as possible so that citizens can have as many options as possible in pushing their preferred policies.  There are many ideological choices given in a consensual democracy.  Since there is not one clear choice, there should not be a clear winner; therefore, a consensus democracy should be one in which a maximum number of winners is determined.  The policy making process should be somewhat inflexible with as much political competition as possible.  Remember, the goal of a consensus democracy is to exclude the fewest people as it possibly can.

Truth and Peace,

Rod