Read the article about our two party system. Then comment on whether you agree with Brooks or Not. First post due by Thursday, the two follow ups by Monday.
39 Comments
Sarah Cornaby
10/23/2019 02:30:21 pm
I believe that David Brooks makes a good point in stating that creating more than just two political parties would produce a more stable system. This system would allow those who support third parties or find themselves stuck between Democrats and Republicans to have better, more accurate representation, rather than settling for one side or the other when they don't truly agree. In addition to more representation for minorities, a multi-party system would help prevent tyranny of the majority and reduce head-to-head rivalry between Democrats and Republicans. I also appreciate how Brooks used historical evidence of the conservative and liberal counterparts of both the Democratic and Republican parties early on in American history, which allowed for a stable system back then. However, as the separate parties have solidified into more extreme versions of themselves, those who are more moderate find themselves stuck.
Reply
Veronique Pomerleau
10/23/2019 03:55:37 pm
Perhaps greater representation for third parties would not be a bad thing. But if representation for them increases would there not be an increase in representation for the Democrats and Republicans as well? If one group recieves more representation than the other the playing field becomes uneven. I wonder if this concept being placed into action would truly cause any change at all. Often Americans are placed in the tough situation of choosing between what they view as the lesser of two evils, and if there is a way to give third parties more representation, if it can actually produce some type of positive change, then the effort would be worthwhile.
Reply
Tristan Mercier
10/28/2019 10:18:24 pm
I completely agree that Americans typically look for the lesser of the two evils instead of picking a candidate that they feel actually represents their values. The comment regarding disproportionate representation is a bit confusing, as I think that having different levels of representation is how a majority is formed and decisions are made, but of course, I may just be misinterpreting your meaning. Overall, I agree that if implemented correctly, a third party being present could serve to better the country.
Reply
Keely Brandt
10/23/2019 09:02:03 pm
David Brooks idea is not bad considering that they’re are many people who have to choose between two people they don’t fully agree with. By creating the system Brooks suggests it does allow for more voices to be heard it might also lead to undesired consequences. This method could lead to the same people being elected , A democratic or a Republican because there is still a majority of people who are democratic and republican and who would vote for them. So while it may seem like a good idea and it might work it could have no effect at all.
Reply
Sarah Cornaby
10/27/2019 08:33:35 pm
I think you make a great point that many ideas work better on paper than in practice. If Brooks' system actually worked, minorities would have more representation and people would not have to choose between two extremist ideals, but it is definitely possible that such a system would not change anything and people would still support the two main parties, undermining the whole basis of the system.
Reply
Grace Dineen
10/28/2019 10:23:39 pm
Majority people in the U.S. are already affiliated with a major party which means it would be harder for a third party candidate to get a platform. There are hundreds of small political party candidates on ballots but their beliefs aren’t mainstream and aren’t broadcasted across the U.S. Isn't it more organized and stable for people to register with a major party then everyone wanted their own? Major parties also allow people associated with third parties to find common ground with them.
Reply
Kambria Cash
10/29/2019 01:57:13 pm
We share a very similar opinion. I agree that there is potential benefits of this system. However, we have been using the same system since the beginning, and have become accustomed to this method. Changing it now would most likely have no effect. Our system works, though there could be room for much improvement.
Reply
Calista Radovich
10/30/2019 05:52:22 am
I agree with you. And the problem is, that not only are just Democrats and Republicans being elected, they are becoming more and more "extreme" and that is why less and less people are now willing to vote for one side or the other. The two canidates are on completely separate spectrums of one another that those in the middle feel like they have no real choice.
Reply
Barter
10/31/2019 01:40:18 pm
Primaries reward extremism, general elections then push candidates to the middle.
Barter
10/31/2019 01:38:18 pm
We are about 30% Dem and 30% Rep. 40% unafilliated
Reply
Grace Dixon
10/23/2019 09:25:55 pm
I agree with Brooks that there are definitely some serious problems with our two-party, winner-takes-all election system. There is fierce animosity between the Democratic and Republican parties and neither is willing to compromise because both assume they can win a majority in the next election and thus over rule the other parties opinion. The two party election system also alienates those whose political views fall on different sides of the spectrum depending on the issue, such as someone who is pro-life but anti-gun control. Third parties and proportional representation reduce these issues because they require compromise in order to gain a majority and voters can find parties with platforms more similar to their beliefs instead of being forced to chose between the current two.
Reply
Sarah Cornaby
10/27/2019 08:39:59 pm
I definitely agree that Brooks' system would allow people to find parties that represent their beliefs on an issue by issue basis, rather than relenting to be a member of a party that they don't really agree with. It would also allow for more compromise and less animosity between two parties placed head to head. However, I do think that there is a place for "rivalry"--for lack of a better word--between the parties, as it keeps both sides on their toes, watching the other to ensure they don't attempt anything corrupt without being called out.
Reply
Grace Dixon
10/28/2019 06:34:20 pm
I agree that rivalry between parties would continue, even in a multi party system, however I believe that with multiple parties and a constant need for compromises and coalitions to be form between different groups based on a variety of issues, the rivalry between parties would transform into health ideological debates instead of the toxic mudslinging which occurs in our modern politics. Candidates would actually have to advocate for themselves and their platform instead of simply insulting their opponent and explaining why they are wrong. There would hopefully be less hate and animosity between members of opposite parties and instead a greater openness to new ideas and compromise.
Emma Vaterlaus
10/28/2019 07:43:29 pm
You absolutely have some valid points about the "rivalry" in a two-party system keeping opponents on their toes, but it also begs the question: If both parties were to become corrupt, who would keep them in check then? Now, I don't believe that our political system is corrupt, at least, not completely. But both parties are so bitter and biased against each other that they quickly over-react over issues that could have been discussed and handled like adults. I believe that a multi-party system would lessen the corruption in government, though not entirely demolish it.
Kambria Cash
10/29/2019 02:01:18 pm
I would definitely agree. There are certainly flaws in our two party system. The two largest parties are in constant competition of one another, often forgetting the opinions of the third parties, who agree and disagree with issues on both side. A change in our system could definitely improve flaws we have, however it would be hard to achieve as we have been using the same system since the beginning. It is interesting to think of how different America would be had we gone about elections in a different manner.
Reply
Tristan Mercier
10/23/2019 09:39:16 pm
I find the system proposed by David Brooks rather interesting and well thought out, though I do have a few issues with it. Initially, I don’t quite see where a third party or even fourth party would enter, because if given multiple choices, the current two parties would just be more fractured, and create sets of liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, whose names really don’t change. Of course, that does cause a technical party change, but in name, there would still be two dominant parties. Additionally, if the public, i.e. voters, had such a problem with the two party system and increased polarization, then why not vote for moderate candidates and use the power we all have as citizens, voting, to fix the problems we see in our country?
Reply
Tristan Lewis
10/27/2019 12:22:17 pm
I agree with your idea of increased faction in the United States. Additionally, the domination of the two major parties despite the use of many sub categories is a good prediction as a result of the tenancy for voters to change their party affiliation when there is little chance of winning an election. Although you do mention that it would only be a sub-party, the core values would not vary much and just result in the same system that is currently used.
Reply
Zachary Shastay
10/28/2019 08:35:00 pm
I very much so agree with your statement that other parties will just be branches of the parties that are present currently. But, I do not think it is us voters who can fix all of the problems within the United States. I think this because in D.C. nothing gets done unless information is withheld from one part or there other, for example the killing of the ISIS leader, Trump did not inform well known democrats about the raid. Is there anyway to solve this?
Reply
Tristan Lewis
10/23/2019 10:19:30 pm
Although David Brooks proposal provides some benefits to the political scene in the United States, there is one critical issue. The current two party system exists for a reason. This method is one of compromise from many factions so that there will be a greater chance for representation. As a result, the idea of new parties coming into the political landscape and gaining popularity that would complete on the same level as the current Republican and Democratic parties, is highly unlikely. In addition, in the event of a smaller party becoming less likely to win an election, voters will simply change their vote to support the larger party that represents the fundamentals of their beliefs and thus restart the cycle of the two party system.
Reply
Zachary Shastay
10/28/2019 08:29:49 pm
I agree with the statements that there is no way another party will come to be. I just have one question, how can we stop these political representatives from arguing non-stop to actually getting stuff done within our country? This is the big issue within our country because we fight over every single thing and can never seem to get anything done.
Reply
Tristan Mercier
10/28/2019 10:28:37 pm
I definitely agree that with our current sociopolitical state, there will never be a third party that draws enough support to truly challenge the 2 big parties. However, do you think there is a way for the parties to move closer to the center so as to keep from alienating more moderate voters?
Reply
Calista Radovich
10/24/2019 08:55:04 am
I believe David Brooks is kind of onto something. Yes, most Americans either associate as Republican or Democratic, but what about the people in between? These two political parties have gotten more and more extreme as years go on and it is getting harder for people to associate with them, leaving a large population suck in the middle, votimg for green parties that have no chance against the powerful beings that belong to the two parties. If there was a way, like the one David Brooks proposes, that there was a higher chance a green party canidate would win, maybe more people would vote because there would be someone they could vote for as well as compromise. Compromise between the two sides would be formed as there would now be canidates that agree with different issues from both sides of the spectrum. Of course there are problems with this proposition. It would take many elections for these green parties to appear as most people would most likely still vote for one side or the other. However, i believe what Brooks proposes is rather interesting and could possibly be taken into account later on.
Reply
Tristan Lewis
10/27/2019 12:26:47 pm
I like your idea about the option of a moderate party. The thought of having a middle ground between the two parties sounds like something that the United States could use as a method to mitigate the disagreements in policy. However, there would be the issue of support in passing laws and legislation. If the party is new there is a slim chance that the house and senate will be dominated by the new 3rd party. As a result the presidency would become almost obsolete in comparison to the influence held by any party in the house of senate. However, through time, this issue could be corrected.
Reply
Barter
10/31/2019 01:47:36 pm
A third and fourth parties would only need enough votes deny a clear majority to be relevant.
Reply
Kambria Cash
10/24/2019 10:47:06 am
I believe that David Brooks plan has a lot of potential to be beneficial for America. Though there may be issues that come up, it is important to remember that no system will be perfect. Having a multi-party system might help those who fall in between on multiple issues. As of right now, voting for a party other then the two dominate ones, Democratic or Republican, is like not voting at all as a third party has such a slim chance of winning. It was also interesting how he brought up the point that the parties are often concerned with beating the other, rather then finding a compromise that might help on both ends. However, our system does work for the most part, and it would be rather difficult to alter it as we have been using it since the start.
Reply
Grace Dineen
10/28/2019 10:35:34 pm
I agree that it would be difficult to change the system that has been used for a very long time. Since Americans who fall in between the two major parties eventually register as one of them it would be almost impossible for a third party candidate to win. The two major parties are also very divided and having more parties may not help. The extra parties might conflict with both Democrats and Republicans or take sides and divide America even more.
Reply
Maddie Peters
10/28/2019 11:07:51 pm
I do agree that no system will be perfect and that Brooks has potential, especially if we can work out it’s flaws. But I also agree that our system currently does work and has proven successful.
Reply
Maddie Peters
10/24/2019 10:54:27 am
Brooks proposed system could be beneficial as according to him it would be able to represent more people. I do agree now that the current two parties just argue back and forth, where as brining in a third or fourth party would give a common ground. Although, our current system is and has been very successful since the beginning of our elections. If people feel the need to make corrections to our already strong system, there can be voting to address those problems.
Reply
Keely Brandt
10/28/2019 07:09:52 pm
I agree with what you’re saying about more parties giving a common ground. But I also think that while there may be common ground it might not work out as well as it looks on paper and it could lead to more difficult elections and I think that you’re right that are elections and parties seem to go smoothly there is always room for corrections
Reply
Grace Dineen
10/24/2019 11:18:09 am
Although David Brooks feels that this would would be fairer for people, I disagree. Majority people would still vote Democratic or Republican and the smaller, less followed cm parties would still be the minority. The candidates for parties like conservative Democrat and liberal Republican also wouldn’t have the platforms that a Republican and Democratic candidate would. The citizens would still eventually vote for those they know actually have a chance to win. Then it would be like nothing changed due to the fact that the major parties are still winning the presidency.
Reply
Grace Dixon
10/28/2019 06:19:57 pm
I agree that because the two party system has existed for so long it would be difficult for a third party to gain prominence, however I would argue that if the country had proportional representation instead of winner-takes-all, many discontent Democratic and Republican voters would switch to a third party which alines closer to their beliefs. In our current system it is only logical to vote ether Democratic or Republican because only the one with majority receives representation, but if our system gave representation by the percentage of people who voted for that party, then third parties with varying stances of different issues would rise to prominence and thus giving voters more options to choose from allowing them to choose a party which closer fits their political beliefs instead of forcing them to vote for what they may see as the lesser of two evils.
Reply
Keely Brandt
10/28/2019 07:13:09 pm
I also agree that in the beginning of switching there would be still a majority in the democratic and the republican votes but as someone who doesn’t totally agree with democratic or republican candidates it would be nice to find a third party that fit my views. I understand that for now it makes sense but eventually the smarter option might be to creat these other parties instead or picking somebody who they don’t fully support
Reply
10/24/2019 12:12:00 pm
I don’t agree with brooks that multi party systems work better because I think that people would choose to vote two party anyway and the other parties would end up being third party systems just like it is now. He does present a good idea but there are faults that would lead to a two party system. He even says that the United States never had anything based on it but it just happened that way unintentionally. In the end with a changed form of parties it would end with a major party winning anyway so it would just have the same outcome of one powerful party based off the elected president
Reply
Maddie Elias
10/24/2019 05:48:11 pm
I believe the system David Brooks talks about has some potential but overall would not be as successful as the existing two party system. Over the years the Democrat party and Republican Party have been becoming more hostile towards each other, so maybe bringing in new parties could bring out new opportunities/ ideas. In hindsight this system seems like it could work but the reality is that it would just end up like the third parties we have now. Of course there would be some people who would vote for some of the new parties but the majority of the public would just end up voting for the main two parties.
Reply
Emma Vaterlaus
10/28/2019 07:37:07 pm
I agree that, in the beginning, people will drift or lean towards the parties that they grew up with; typically Democrat and Republican. However, the system that Brooks is suggesting would almost force more parties to become available, maybe even the third parties we have now would step up. I believe that because of the growing hatred and bias against the opposite party, even adding one party, having three consistent parties to vote for, to have a seat at the table, would eliminate a lot of our issues, because suddenly, it can't be black and white anymore, those in-between individuals would have a say.
Reply
Gaven Jauch
10/24/2019 11:10:30 pm
I believe that American politics is becoming more and extreme as the two parties fight for supremacy often forgetting the moderate voters and that switching to a multi party would be greatly beneficial giving more of voice to moderates and encouraging much more compromise within legislation. While the multi party system has its flaws ultimately it reduce the chance of party supremacy and allow for a more diverse pool of political ideals and stances which would open up for a more unified voice in politcs as all parties would need to find a way to work together
Reply
Zachary Shastay
10/25/2019 04:38:15 pm
I believe that the governmental idea that Brooks passed is one that needs to be looked at a lot more heavily within the media and within our society. I believe this because as Brooks stated this country never finds an equal and understanding debate within each of the two parties, all everyone wants to do is find someway to disprove the other party without stepping back and looking at the facts thoroughly. This is a hard task that needs to looked at by every American. I believe if there was some way we can develop something else than a two party system then there would be less hate all over the new and social media, and it will ultimately bring people together to understand each others sides better on opposing arguments.
Reply
Calista Radovich
10/30/2019 05:54:43 am
Exactly, the two sides to the spectrum are very different and rufuse to look at or even consider the other sides beliefs. I agree with you in saying Brooks' idea could somehow change that, and have people consider one anothers ideas, ultimately bringing about more agreeance than we have now.
Reply
Emma Vaterlaus
10/28/2019 07:32:27 pm
I agree with Brooks.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2020
Categories |