Does a democracy require more than two parties to choose from?
87809
To be clear, a Republic is a system whereby people elect representatives, and then those representitives are free govern as they see fit, without regard to the opinions of those they represent if need be.\n\nA Democracy is a system whereby representitives are elected, but must govern exactly as the people wish.\n\nThe United States is a Republic,  and no, our laws do not make more than two parties a requirement.
92256
In the United States, most people believe in the "marketplace of ideas". That is, that the more arguments and opinions we talk about the more likely we are to find the right answer.\n\nThe problem with only having one party is that you are less likely to get a diversity of opinions. Consequently, you're less likely to find the best solution to a given problem.\n\nOf course, it's possible to have a marketplace of ideas within one party...but the whole point of a "party" is to organize a bunch of people who beleive the whole thing.
371129
Yes. It is a shame, though.\n\nIf we did not have political parties then we would not necessarily have a dictatorship. You vote for candidates, not just for parties. The candidate represents you as well as the party.\n\nThe ideal system would be having a ballot paper of entirely independent candidates who follow no party, but you can clearly see what they stand for. This way the local man gets a complete say over his representative. He does not have to support a 'party' whom he might disagree with about 80 per cent of its policy (for example, he might vote for a Labour candidate because of its policy on education (!) even though he is against the policy of introducing I.D. cards).\n\nThe problems start when you enter parliament. Parliamentary parties create order through the chaos of a milliona nd one conflicting ideas. They allow people to broadly allign themselves into groups, which allows legislation to be passed or not. If there was no party structure here, there would be chaos, a political free-for-all where it would be impossible to decide what to vote about, let alone \n\nPolitical parties as a concept are therefore a necessary evil for the British political system. However, the parties themselves need an overhaul as they have become very centre-based, appealing to a narrow band of electors. As such, it could be argued that there is too much of a consensus and there indeed is only 'one party', since there is not much of a choice anymore. The parties need to change to cater for the changing needs of the electorate; the vast majority of whom are disenfranchised by their own apathy. While there is apathy, parties can get away with whatever they please and there is no accountability.\n\nIf used sensibly, internet technology could revolutionise the whole process and create a level of accountability that has never been seen in a democracy. In fact, it could create a true democracy! Strange how the politicians have not put this into practice - I wonder why...
394698
The 2 party system was not the idea of our founding fathers. George Washington was actually VERY opposed to it. There have been some contenders recently who has challenged it, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader most recently. I, for one, am sick of being forced to vote for either idiot #1 or idiot #2 when there is not really all that much difference between them. I don't think we need to strengthen the 2-party system. I think we need to abolish it and start over.
440853
you have to be a democrat.who else would think that it's possible to balance a defecit?whatever that is.
801585
Actually, just about every Western democracy uses a party system... of course, many other countries have more than two parties (for example, Canada has ~4-5 major parties; the UK has ~3 major parties) but the political party system is actually stronger in those countries. My understanding is that in Israel, you don't even vote for a candidate for their parliament, you vote for a party, and a person is chosen based on party votes.\n\nPolitical parties are important because they provide a method of political organization.  They provide services to candidates, politicians, and voters about issues-- for example, the party helps to collect information about particular issues to inform politicians on decisions.  They provide a collective consciousness for action (imagine if each politician had to sort through EVERY ISSUE in minute detail... there simply isn't time) and they provide family, a sense of place, camraderie, a "team spirit" if you will.  Finally they provide "shortcuts" for voters, too.  Of course, in this country every candidate is different, in general, a voter understands most of the basic premises that that candidate stands for if he is a democrat, republican, green, libertarian, etc.\n\nSome argue that it is the decline of poltical parties inthis country that has led to the decline of American interest in politics and voting.\n\nTo your second question, sure, a person should evaluate each candidate based on personal views, but sometimes that's just not always possible -- sometimes there are just too many races to be completely informed about (especially smaller races such as state legislature). Further, there's something to be said for collective action for the reasons I articulated above, and a person who will help move forward a group agenda can be just as helpful as the particular views of a particular politician. (People vote for representatives for a lot of reasons, including their personality, their experience, the fact that they helped them with a difficult governmental agency problem, etc...)
1160215
No. Third Parties have never been able to cut to the chase in this country. And I think that may be a good thing. \n\nDespite the tendency for there to be more independents in this country than Democrats or Republicans, the fact is that the power to make changes rests in the structure of a two party system. \n\nA lot of people have tried and a lot of people have failed, but the two party system is here to stay, no matter how hard everyone tries to build a third party. \n\nIf you would all get out there and organize to try to build a third party, I would support you and join you. But until then, it's just two parties.
194991
Under a Parliamentary system, ostensibly there would be more options than only two major parties.  Each special interest group that are now lobbyists would be able to form their own political party and have actual direct input and potential voter support.  \n\nCould you imagine a party full of NRA members?  Or full of Right Wing Christians? Or full of blue collar laborers?  Or full of inner city social workers?  That is kind of what it would be like, with each party clamouring for support on election day.  It would be wonderful to vote for one of these, and one of those, and really be able to vote your concience through choosing a few parties that truly represent your personal beliefs, not a "lesser of two evils" as our current system has become.  \n\nThe president would be the leader of the party that ultimately had won the most seats, the true leader by majority vote, instead of some figurehead elected by college as we now have.  This Prime Minister would be in power only as long as his party was in the majority, so it would make sense for them to adress the issues of the other parties, more so than happens today.
72147
If one ever does, one of the big parties will die off. The system is simply rigged to allow only two parties to survive reliably.
1037471
It sux we only get two choices.....Why cant we have more?  People just vote the lesser of two evils....No one is really ever happy with the choices.  We vote holding our noses.....
462026
Democracy is the best of bad choices for government we have.For me, a benevolent dictatorship would be my choice. Democracy is too messy, takes too long to get going, or for people to understand, look at Iraq. Just too many disparate opinions have to be weighed for it to be effective. Sometimes, countries need a strong man{or woman} with a single vision. FDR and Lincoln come to mind in our history.
89260
too many people want to be in charge, old saying "too many cheifs not enough indians" democracy is a system for the people and by the people. if the common person does not stand up for it it will falter.
591719
I am sure there are, but why would you want to do that?  Do you really think that you will get honesty in these websites?  If you do, I got a nice shiny new bridge to sell ya, foe cheap!  There are only 2 main parties in America, Dem's and Repubs.  Dems are socialists, Repubs are supposed to be conservatives, but many of them aren't.  Both are corrupt.  Both are full of liars.  Both are full of politicians (not leaders).  What most informed citizens end up doing is choosing the lesser of 2 evils, unfortunately.  May I suggest you start by studying the political history.  Then learn as much as you can independently about the parties and their politicians.  Be sure and note how often they contradict themselves, thinking nobody will notice.  There is no easy way or simple website adequate enough when it comes to choosing such a thing.  Don't try to oversimplify the process.  Do your homework, as tedious (and boring) as it may be.
698921
I can't be very specific but I know a democracy is a system where the people vote for their representatives and all the laws/bi-laws that govern the country.
570830
A limited democracy is one where you may only vote for those things which are acceptable within the framework of a constitution. The USA was intended to run along those lines but their constitution is largely in tatters and their democracy (like ours) has largely become an unlimited democracy. Without limitations regarding what may be voted for the door is open to having majority rule in the truest sense. Anything the majority wants goes, even if that includes racism and war. Naturally, I support a democracy limited by the principle of individual liberty and criticize unlimited democracies. \n( http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/street/pl38/demo.htm )
719943
We are not a Democracy. We are a representative republic. It would lead to chaos if everything that was decided went up to vote. This way you vote the representative in and if the decisions are bad ones you vote them back out. The system has a lot of checks and balances so things that are controversial can't be done quickly.
344585
I believe this will not happen in my life time. People in the USA believe we already live in a democracy, but we don't. We live in a land of freedoms, but not democracy. If we did, we would have many more choices to vote for in elections instead of being offered only what the two parties offer for the most part. If we were a democracy the people would have more say regarding taxes, how our money is spent and have a press that is factual and not what the prevailing government wants whether it is democratics or republicans. A true democractic society is run by the people for the people. I am 63 and we haven't had that yet since i have been around.