Can Voters Change the Two-Party, Democrat-Republican System?

The system is set up so that if one candidate doesn't get a certain number of electoral votes then the Senate decides who the president is. Essentially, it was all rigged from the beginning to create a two-party system (getting the required number of votes with three parties is nearly impossible).

Having something more like what Germany has, where if a party can garner at least 5% of the popular vote they get representation in government, would be a great start. Then, different factions would to work together to achieve governmental results while still staying engaged with voters, a delicate balance that barely exists in the U.S. anymore; hint: pander to your base only during election years, then do whatever you want the rest of the time because by the time the election rolls around most have forgotten what candidates have or have not done since they entered office.

Also, making each election government-funded where each candidate gets a set amount to spend would level the playing field to allow more parties (given the system is changed to actually allow more parties). Doesn't it seem a bit interesting that the candidate who is elected is routinely the one who spends more money? It's basically like High School Student Council now!

There would have to be a lot of change to alter the two-party system, though as most can clearly see, the system (admitted by candidates: 18 months of work with 30 months of campaigning) is NOT sufficient in a world that is changing very rapidly. How can one divide 300 million people into camps A & B? Hint: You can't.

Abolishing the party structure completely would just create a democracy (we're a representative republic, btw) and this sets up the scenario of tyranny by the majority. Our republic is designed to defend even one person who holds an opinion that the ENTIRE NATION does not like. The diversity of the United States, of culture, of opinion, of ways and means is its greatest strength; we should work to defend that. What I'm trying to say is that abolishing the party system just sets up a different set of problems that the founding fathers already anticipated.

You could also consider limiting the terms of the politicos. This, combined with abolishing outside money in campaigns and stopping insiders from "retiring" into fat executive positions after leaving D.C., could certainly allow new faces and ideas to come to the fore. Also, simplifying the laws and governing instruments (prudently, a broad term with many meanings admittedly) to allow new faces to understand the system more easily and allow new ideas to actually work their way to the top and become law (or heaven forbid ABOLISH a law or two), might help the corrupted stagnation on The Hill.

As it stands, these are all uphill battles that I and others feel *need* fighting. It's either that or what appears to be a rather tenuous direction for the country in the next 10-20 years. An ounce of prevention...

Alan of IL 2:44PM April 24, 2012