End the American Two political party monopoly

Should America end the two party monopoly that is control ou goverment?

I don't know if I'd call it a monopoly, but yeah, I'd say it would be in the interest of the people to get some other parties involved there... some greens, some libertarians, etc.

the laws should be changes to allow third parties a better chance at competing with the Dems and Reps.

it feels like a monopoly

Outcome based voting?  No way. If you boys want in the party convince someone to vote for you. Otherwise all of you fringe fanatics on the right and left can just piss off.

>>5

yeah, currently the two parties completely reflect the views of the majority, and we're not constantly faced with choosing between 2 evils, amirite?

try to either get the Greens,Constitution, or Libertarians
All Dem and Rep do is fight over current issues without big change, we need some radical ideas(for the lulz)

If you like all the good things in life like:
true freedom of speech
true privacy
guns
porn
sex
drugs

Then vote libertarian as they actually care your rights to those things.

that depends.  THeir views on bussiness are not allways the best.

>>8
Exactly.  The democrats have turned their backs on civil liberties advocates in supporting all manner of infringements upon the freedoms you describe.  Libertarian is the way to go.

>>9
Yes they are.

>>9
Their views on business are irrelevant because they don't force their vews on others. That's what libetarianism is all about.

Leftists views on business is "they're evil and should pay taxes out the ass". Leftists then advocate stealing from businesses and giving to everyone else.

Rightists' views on business are "it's awesome and should be subsidized". Rightists then advocate stealing from everyone else and giving to businesses.

Libertarian views on business are usually "It's awesome and shouldn't be subsidized or regulated or taxed" but can range from "Employees and stuff shouldn't really exist" to "An oligopoly of massive companies competing all over would give us the best deal for the money", but that's all irrelevant because first and foremost libertarians believe in not forcing their views on other people.

You fail for saying two party monopoly.

>>12

"You fail, the Army and Navy are different, they're not two parts of the same thing."

"You fail, the Republicans and Democrats are different, they're not two parts of the same thing."

By that logic, every political party is part of the 'same thing'.

Unless by 'same thing' you mean some sort of indistinguishable intangiable undectable and indefinable social niche or political elite.

logic  undetectable

>>14 does not see that no matter how much the republicrats bicker amongst each other, they are basically the same party.

>>16

In actual political activity where people are making laws and enforcing them, the difference between the parties is small enough that the difference within the parties is far greater. The difference between a Republican and a Democrat politician is which issues the politician wants to focus on. They all end up advocating the same stuff in the end, they just emphasize different stuff. The only real difference is a couple key issues like gun control and welfare. And even then, there are pro-gun democrats and pro-welfare republicans.

In philosophical politics, they're completely opposed. But this never manifests in the ruling body.

Its quite funny, in Europe there is one country ruled by only two parties: England (and the rest of GB)

The rest, there are at least 5 parties, making the polical spectrum broader, and therefor more interesting.

I think you guys have gotten cause and effect mixed up again. You see the republican and democrat elite both want to do whatever it takes to get those prestigious positions in the US government. As a result they both push their parties to be as populist as possible, occasionally dancing around each other on issues in order to grab one half or the other on each side.

In such a huge country with such a large an extensive free media, the only way to be corrupt is to develop fallacies instead of directly corrupting a system. The system isn't corrupt, it's the 1000s of political movements that don't serve any real purpose that are corrupt. This is unavoidable and the alternative is to have 1 corrupt system (tyranny).

Criticise this state of affairs all you want and claim there is a "2 party monopoly", but unless there is another alternative (which logically there isn't), nothing's going to change.