November 2014 Electin

Manach

Given the vibrant religious communities that are present in the US that contributed to the political DNA of both major parties, the alternative system (taking China as a template) of active persecution of dissenters, then for them not getting involved in the political process would seem foolhardy.

Brian?

20Cent wrote: »

Often wonder though could the US handle more than two parties?

Say there were even three parties. Two get 30%, the 40% party wins. 60% of population voted against them. Well over half the population who don't feel represented by gov and voted against them. This would put huge pressure on the political capital and authority of the government.

You only have to look to The UK for your answer. The first Blair government won an electoral landslide with 47% of the vote.

eire4

20Cent wrote: »

Often wonder though could the US handle more than two parties?

Say there were even three parties. Two get 30%, the 40% party wins. 60% of population voted against them. Well over half the population who don't feel represented by gov and voted against them. This would put huge pressure on the political capital and authority of the government.

Given how low turnout is in US elections right now it means that whoever wins the latest election (The Republicans this year) won by only getting the votes of a minority. This year only 36% voted voted. That means given not all of that 36% voted Republican so a significant majority will not have voted for the Party that will be in power in congress and the senate the next 2 years.


My contention is that the current system is broken and does not function in a way that actually serves the majority of Americans. More choice is needed not less which is the current situation. But the Republicans and the Democrats are both strangling the emergence of a viable national alternative which in of itself is anti democratic.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

What is this "Independent Party" that you are discussing? It's not a "party" is it; rather US voters that do not register as either Democrat or Republican? If you are discussing independent voters, which I think you are, this can be very misleading for our Irish readers, who may think there is a well organised, recognised, and largest 3rd "party" in the US, which in fact does not exist.

You are correct. When you register to vote or change affiliation, you can check NO AFFILIATION and are considered an Independent Voter (which I guess would be a more representative term), but it is not an actual recognized party. I call them that because I consider them a pseudo-party and a large force (larger than D's or R's) that both Dems and Reps play to. And when a candidate runs as a "Independent," he/she does not represent the "Independent Voters."

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

According to the Business Insider (not a "left" source) both George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan issued Executive Orders that extended amnesty to millions of immigrants that were illegally in the country.

This recent EO issue has little to do with being left or right politically, rather just continuing evidence of the dysfunctional 2-party system of politics (Democrats vs Republicans) that John Adams warned US Americans about.

Could you give us a little background to those two EO's regarding illegal immigrants? Also give us the information on the give and take, and what was to happen as part of that amnesty bill Reagan signed... which will give the readers an insight as to why Republicans will not sign onto another immigration bill again unless the border is secured first (the old fool me once... thing). And would you really think what Reagan and Bush 41 did EO'wise equates to what Obama is threatening to do regarding amnesty?

ChicagoJoe

One of the main issues been ignored in the US is the minimum wage which in truth has been declining, and not growing. As the economy grew, as productivity grew, minimum wage stagnated. But neo liberalism still rules and even more so under Obama whatever spin they try to put on it.

eire4

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

One of the main issues been ignored in the US is the minimum wage which in truth has been declining, and not growing. As the economy grew, as productivity grew, minimum wage stagnated. But neo liberalism still rules and even more so under Obama whatever spin they try to put on it.

It was on the ballot in 5 states this past election and passed in all 5 mostly by very large margins. Now typically Republicans are against any increase in the minimum wage in fact some would like the current minimum wage done away with altogether so the fact that 4 of those states where this measure passed are states that have usually been good states for Republicans is very interesting. It suggests there is a majority who believe that the minimum wage should be increased regardless of what party they may lean toward.


For me I am surprised Reoublicans are not in favour of increasing the minium wage. They are very much against welfare programmes yet the poverty level wages that many service employees earn means that a substantial number of them are forced to go on welfare for things like food stamps. Thus costing the tax payers millions. Raising the mimimum wage would lower the numbers on welfare and thus the costs to the tax payer. Plus the percentage of the extra money lower income earners are likely to spend on goods and services in the local communities is very high I would think which then provides its own local economic stimulus.