Suiseiseki IRL said:
Someone call in the EOD units. I think we have an IED waiting for us on the road ahead.
That's either one of the more clever ways of expressing concern about a coming flame war I've ever heard, or I really don't get it.
QuirkyTambourine said:
I'll say one thing, abolish the Two Party system since it divides the country and sends what could be an honest debate into glittery eyed fanboyism for whatever party you affiliate yourself with.
I've always loved this argument. What in the name of sweet, fancy, Moses would you suggest we "replace" it with? It's not like in the constitution it says "oh, btw guys, only have two parties. K, thx, bye". The two-party system is a natural result of any representative democracy (seriously, it happens basically everywhere), especially when there are benefits to having control of a chamber of the legislature or executive beyond mere majorities for passing bills. One group of people says "hey, we can get this cool stuff, like controlling committees, and the Speakership, and get better offices if we're one party, rather than fifty small parties", to which everyone else responds "well, we should band together, too, huh?" Throw in any ideological divide on any big principle, and you have a two-party system.
I implore you to name one stable democracy (so, Italy doesn't count, what with the "we're completely dismantling the government every three years or so" thing) which has a vibrant third-party. In America, third-parties have always subsumed and replaced existing parties. Japan just recently formed a second party for the reasons I listed.
Edit: Okay, since people seem to like to respond to this post
and only this post allow me to rephrase. I understand many other countries have smaller "parties" and even multiple "major" parties, but the need for a governing coalition doesn't change. The benefits from having a majority in the legislature exist in parliamentary governments just the same as in republics.
As in Japan, as I noted, what seems common is that there is the formation of pseudo-party "big tent" ideologies, and "lesser of two evils" support of somewhat-similarly-minded people. The smaller parties align with the larger parties in order to secure a place at the table, and ensure that those abjectly opposed to their ideology don't gain supremacy. The only difference, then, is the endurance of the coalitions. There's much less "churn" in America, and our parties change ideologies without changing names.
When the Democrats changed from being the party of states' rights and southern sensibilities (read: racism and segregation), all that happened was that a party within the "big tent" split off to join the Republicans. Actually, there's a lot more to it, but I'll not bore you with the details. Suffice it to say that the makeup of the party changed dramatically. So, yes, we've had the same two "parties" (though I would prefer to call them coalitions) in power for a long time. But those coalitions change in membership, in ideologies, and in stances, fairly frequently.
So, allow me to rephrase my challenge: it has to be a three-or-more-party system which does
not include any sort of coalition between non-majority parties. It has to be a true triumvirate of power, no alliances allowed.
