What do you think about the 2 party system?

Christa - posted on 05/22/2009

You are right about the voting process. I vote by absentee, in fact since I was in college when I could vote in my first election and needed one, but since I just do it because it's so much easier. You don't have to wait in line and you can sit down with materials on all the amendments etc and make educated choices. I also agree that both sides have I sure taken advantage of the uniformed, but that's why I think we should do something to make sure people are informed. But I guess that would discourage people, but again if you don't care that much then maybe you shouldn't vote in the first place. Who knows! :-)

JL - posted on 05/22/2009

I for one think that it is the process that often turns many people away. I mean in most of the states I have voted you have to wait in line for hours. I know US soldiers who did not vote because they could not stand in the lines because of work. Many working people have to go during lunch hours or breaks or take off so they can vote. I really think that election day should be a holiday so people can vote and if the system was fixed and we had reliable machines and more voting centers we could accomodate more people. Some people just don't vote because they don't have the time. As someone who teaches American history at the college level and someone who has tutored seconday students in history and government I must say that I agree that too many of our schools are dropping the ball when it comes to educating our children in history and govenrment. I have had so many students with really no basic understanding of politics or history. I myself have volunteered since I was 16 for different politicians during election time. I disagree with the sentiment about being educated to vote or having an age limit. I was very active in politics before I could even legally vote. This is America and we do not screen people in order to decide who can or cannot vote that would only turn more Americans away. We should encourge not discourage. Plus I blame the extremists on both sides who put out false information and use fear and hate tactics to convince the less educated and the easily manupilated on how to vote. There has been voter fraud going on for centuries by BOTH sides and I personally find it ridiculous that states do not count every single vote that is made it just leaves to many questions about the validity of any election. I also have to say that too many people get their information from the media and let me tell you we professional historians cannot stand the way the media especially movies distort history is the name of entertainment. I mean Disney movies have influenced more Americans understanding of Pochantas that any history books and the Disney version is completely false.

Gina - posted on 05/22/2009

After thinking about this subject I think the problem with people not caring about politics boils down to the way schools teach our children. I know that they don't learn enough about our constitution, and our history of America. I am still learning and trying to fill in pieces that I didn't learn in school. If we knew how easy it is to lose our freedom, and it is something that we have to continue to fight for, then more people would probably be interested. I heard someone say that the voting turnout during Pres. Lincolns election was 90% and you would think that back then people wouldn't be so involved. Over the years voting has just seemed to be a chore instead of a privelage, and hopefully more American will wake up and take it seriously!

Christa - posted on 05/22/2009

I agree Sara it would be very hard to determine who is allowed to vote. Maybe have to take some sort of govt test when you register? It's scary how little Americans know about our government/history. Have you looked at the test you have to take to become a citizen? I doubt many naturalized citizen's could pass the test. :-)



I'm not saying that what ACORN did is the only reason Obama won the election, I'm just saying it did happen and it's wrong. Had the election been a bit closer those votes may have been the difference. Plus it's wrong for anyone to be used that way, they weren't treated as equal citizens they were treated as pawns. I don't know what the answer is, but I think it definitely needs to be re-worked.

Sara - posted on 05/22/2009

You all make really good points. I read that in the 2004 election, Minnesota had one of the highest voter turnouts and they had eight different parties on their tickets for local/state elections. Giving people more choices and giving them candidates that they feel truly represent them will inspire people to hopefully get more involved in the political system. I think the two-party system needs to go.



However, I think requiring a certain level of education for voters is questionable and classist. Who would make that decision? I agree that stupid people vote, but it's their right as American citizens to do so. It wasn't that long ago that we weren't allowed to vote because we were women. What's the difference between not allowing someone to vote because of their intelligence/education level and not letting them vote because of their gender? And if you raise the voting age then you need to raise the age you can legally enlist in the military, because if you're putting your life on the line for your country, then you need to be able to vote in that country.



As far as Obama winning...I live in Indiana, which is a very, very, very red state. It has not gone blue since 1964. It went blue for Obama. I don't think that's because stupid people were manipulated, I think it's because people were inspired to vote who may not have come out and voted in the past. I also think that people voted as a reaction to Bush and his administration, they were sick of it. That's my opinion, anyway.



And, I have often thought that getting rid of the EC is a good idea. We have the technology now to go for popular vote. And I'm not really sure that the EC gives smaller states a voice. I'm not a republican, but I live in a republican state that helped to elect presidents that I don't agree with at all. I often feel discouraged voting in Presidential elections for that reason, but I vote because I feel it is my duty as an American to do so.



Good discussion!

Christa - posted on 05/22/2009

I think you should have to have some sort of education level, but I don't know how you regulate that. Even if someone has a college degree that doesn't mean they have a clue about what's going on in our country. Joy I have to disagree with you about everyone deserving a voice, not because they don't deserve representation but because when they are uneducated they are easily manipulated. That is what I 100% believe helped Obama win this election. There is proof that ACORN was ushering the homeless and other lower class to vote for Obama by giving them a meal and other gifts. That's not right.

Gina - posted on 05/21/2009

I think someone brought up the idea of making voters take a class before they vote, I agree to a point. I just think that if they raised the voting age that might make a difference. I was one of those for a long time that just voted along party lines, because when I was younger I didn't care about politics. It's hard to know, I'm sure there are young people who care about politics too.

JL - posted on 05/21/2009

I have to say that the point of abolishing the EC is to establish that we are Americans first and foremost and we want to vote that way not as regions or states. I have an issue with the arguements that continue the same notion about providing smaller states the same voice, because we should not look at it as states voting but as Americans voting because the president reprensents the nation not certain states. We have become such a mobile society that the EC does not make since anymore. For people like me who move every three to five years which has become common for most American the EC is an arachic system. When asked where I am from I say American I may say currently I life in such in such state but I am an American not a Georgian or Washingtonian or ect... I have actually felt more often that not because of the EC that my vote does not count, because when your are voting for a Democrat and you live in a state that has gone red the last 10 years even at the local level it is like your are voting just to go through the motions because you know that state will go Republican anyways so you start to wonder what is the point. I am sure Republicans living in state that are historically blue feel the same way. Plus in areas like Missisippi minorities often do not have a voice because of the majority voting patterns in their state. So if we erase the lines and vote as a nation rather than as states we can perhaps all feel like our vote counts. And yes the founding fathers did not trust the people in making the right decision. They were the educated elite and educated people were in the minoritiy plus they were divided between the southern ideals and the northern ideals and did not want any section to have more control plus they understood the logistics of campaigining. People would only recognize the names of those from their regions. THings have changed deeply since then we have mass communication and the capability of knowing all the candidates and we are thinking less on regional lines and the number of educated has risen. Everyone should have a voice including the poor and uneducated because they too deserve represenatives. And if someone is wiling to stand in lines for hours to vote even if they are voting based on ignorant information they should have a vote that counts because that is want freedom is about. I am also for term limits and maybe we should also do performance check ups once or twice a year like they do in other jobs where we get to rate our representative on their job performance and tell them where they need to shape up or they will be shipped out during next election cycle to keep them on their toes.

Brenda - posted on 05/21/2009

Quoting Christa:

I think terms limits for senators should ABSOLUTELY be added. Some of these senators get in and then they are so hard to beat that it doesn't matter what they do. The house has to be re-elcted every two years, so they are held a bit more accountable. But these senators are almost elected for life. We don't allow the pres or governors to stay that long why can senators?

I completely agree with term limits for senators as well.  It's only logical - why should they be exempt?  It just like having an employer eval at work from time to time...if you don't make the par, you are gone.

Brenda - posted on 05/21/2009

Quoting Christa:

I think terms limits for senators should ABSOLUTELY be added. Some of these senators get in and then they are so hard to beat that it doesn't matter what they do. The house has to be re-elcted every two years, so they are held a bit more accountable. But these senators are almost elected for life. We don't allow the pres or governors to stay that long why can senators?

I completely agree with term limits for senators as well.  It's only logical - why should they be exempt?  It just like having an employer eval at work from time to time...if you don't make the par, you are gone.

Christa - posted on 05/21/2009

My understanding of the EC is to give the less populated states and equal weight in the process. Even though CA and NY have way more people, they could win the popular vote over many of the middle states no problem. But what is best for NY and CA may not be best for KS or NE or WY etc. So they made the EC so the big cities couldn't control what happens in the whole country.

Brenda - posted on 05/21/2009

Quoting Christa:

I think terms limits for senators should ABSOLUTELY be added. Some of these senators get in and then they are so hard to beat that it doesn't matter what they do. The house has to be re-elcted every two years, so they are held a bit more accountable. But these senators are almost elected for life. We don't allow the pres or governors to stay that long why can senators?

I completely agree with term limits for senators as well.  It's only logical - why should they be exempt?  It just like having an employer eval at work from time to time...if you don't make the par, you are gone.

Brenda - posted on 05/21/2009

Quoting Gina:

Oh I also forgot to add that that would be great about the voting system. It has always confused me how the electoral college worked. I think it should be more important for the popular vote to win, since that is the voice of the people.

I can see you point, but here is a thought.  There is one thing wrong with the popular vote - anyone, educated or not, homeless or not, etc of the legal age can vote!  I agree, as American citizens we all need to 'do our homework' and make sure we are electing an official that will hold to our more centralized values. But as we know, people are busy busy and kind of focused on their own lives and distractions, so they will just take the easy road and vote their party lines down a ballot.  

There have been times where there is not a candidate on the ballot that would fit that ideal, then we ought to have the option of 'none of the above'.  I've even written in "Mickey Mouse" instead of voting on a particular pair of candidates because he could do a better job than both the monkeys on the ticket.

In the beginning, the forefathers were against letting the 'common man' vote because they were uneducated etc.  But as we know it, they put the electoral college in place to help states make a more educated decision.  I probably explained that badly, but I'm trying to think of words on how to explain it all.  It doesnt hurt to look up what info you can on the electoral college to better your understanding. =)

Lindsay - posted on 05/21/2009

I would like to see someone get elected that didn't have to spend a lot of money. My history teacher from high school is running for congress now. It doesn't seem like she has a lot of funding but she has used facebook to round up her supporters. With the different resources available now maybe money won't be the main issue anymore. I don't want people elected just because they had the most money, I want them elected because they are the best person for the job.

Gina - posted on 05/21/2009

I agree, we need shorter term limits too. I think it is also hard for your average normal everyday person to run for office because of all the money it takes. I just think it is all so corrupt now, and once they're in office they would sell their souls to the devil to keep their jobs.

Christa - posted on 05/21/2009

Also what about Biden getting his son to replace him in the senate, what is this a dynasty? Also this is the first year in like 30 years that there hasn't been a Dole or a Bush in the govt. It's almost as if a few family's are controlling all of our government.

Christa - posted on 05/21/2009

I think terms limits for senators should ABSOLUTELY be added. Some of these senators get in and then they are so hard to beat that it doesn't matter what they do. The house has to be re-elcted every two years, so they are held a bit more accountable. But these senators are almost elected for life. We don't allow the pres or governors to stay that long why can senators?

Lindsay - posted on 05/21/2009

Quoting Christa:

My problem with not voting strictly on party lines, is for the most part the reps vote on party lines. So if you vote a dem in you might be tipping the balance the wrong way. Until our reps start voting their own way, I will in most cases vote with the Repubs. I just hate that in most cases you are choosing the best of two evils. We need to get normal, good people back in office.

The only democrat i have voted for was for a local election and he wasn't running against anyone lol.  If you have certain core beliefs it would be hard to vote for the other party.  I just look at the third parties now and think they are kind of crazy.  The green party ran that crazy lady that attacked a Capital guard because he didn't know who she was and she forgot her ID.  How many times has Ralph Nadar ran now?  I just see them kind of like a joke.

I don't know if term limits would fix the people in Washington, i just wish they remember who they actually work for.  I also wish more people would pay attention to whats going on around them so they stop electing these people back into office when they aren't doing their jobs

Christa - posted on 05/21/2009

My problem with not voting strictly on party lines, is for the most part the reps vote on party lines. So if you vote a dem in you might be tipping the balance the wrong way. Until our reps start voting their own way, I will in most cases vote with the Repubs. I just hate that in most cases you are choosing the best of two evils. We need to get normal, good people back in office.

Lindsay - posted on 05/21/2009

The electoral college gives smaller states a voice in Washington but i guess you could use the electoral college to elect congress and stuff and then use the popular vote for the president but i dont know.



I don't mind the two party system because i haven't seen any third party that ran a decent person yet. I don't vote based on party i vote based on beliefs and issues. A lot of people really just don't care so they do vote based on party. You can't make people care about what happens in their country.

I do think once someone has been in Washington for a long time they start to forget why they're there in the first place. They were elected to serve the people from their state. I love my congressman, he comes home a lot. His kids go to school here and he's always at the school and city functions. He travels all over Kansas so he actually knows what the people in our state want. I don't think a lot of them do that anymore.

Gina - posted on 05/20/2009

Oh I also forgot to add that that would be great about the voting system. It has always confused me how the electoral college worked. I think it should be more important for the popular vote to win, since that is the voice of the people.

Gina - posted on 05/20/2009

Quoting Joy:

I have always thought that we should do away with the two party system and expand the field, but I also think part of doing that means we need to abolish the electoral college and allow for the popular vote to dictate national elections, therefore allowing us to vote as Americans rather than regions, states, and party members. This would open the field to more voices, because even the two parties are divided from within. I am a registered Democrat a Liberal one most of the time, but I do not always agree with my party stances or with the candidate of choice and I do not always vote along Liberal Democrat lines because I realize that at the national level we need a president and representatives who operate from the middle so that they can fairly represent all of the nation not just those that voted for them or match their personal ideals. I agree with Christa that it has gotten too extreme in both parties. There is more divisions and arguing coming from our representatives and leaders than a push to come together to make things better. I for one am disappointed in all our elected officals and in the way both parties have acted in the last nine years.

I agree with you, I am a registered Republican, and I am considering changing it to independant. The Republican party has gone so far off the beaten path it's not even funny! I just want the govt. in my life as little as possible. I think it's something that can be really dangerous if you give it too much power. I really don't want someone telling me how to live my life.

JL - posted on 05/20/2009

I have always thought that we should do away with the two party system and expand the field, but I also think part of doing that means we need to abolish the electoral college and allow for the popular vote to dictate national elections, therefore allowing us to vote as Americans rather than regions, states, and party members. This would open the field to more voices, because even the two parties are divided from within. I am a registered Democrat a Liberal one most of the time, but I do not always agree with my party stances or with the candidate of choice and I do not always vote along Liberal Democrat lines because I realize that at the national level we need a president and representatives who operate from the middle so that they can fairly represent all of the nation not just those that voted for them or match their personal ideals. I agree with Christa that it has gotten too extreme in both parties. There is more divisions and arguing coming from our representatives and leaders than a push to come together to make things better. I for one am disappointed in all our elected officals and in the way both parties have acted in the last nine years.

Christa - posted on 05/20/2009

I think something needs to change that’s for sure. The two party's have become so extreme left and right, (at least those that are elected to represent them) most of America is more in the middle I think. Of course there will always be the hot button issues that we may always disagree on, but I think for the most part we all agree on much more then we realize.