RE: Questions for American Atheists
July 2, 2012 at 7:45 pm
(This post was last modified: July 2, 2012 at 7:46 pm by cratehorus.)
(July 2, 2012 at 11:58 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Why only two or if your lucky three? Why such limited choice? When the solution to a nation having to pick between the lesser of two evils is as simple as increasing the number of candidates why isn't it implemented?
I don't have the answer, if you don't either would you kindly just say so?
If there were no political parties and there were 6, as you said, candidates for president then the two guys with the most money behind them, would end up being the only "real" candidates, so instead of Obama and Romney, it would be Santorum and Romney. Right now 11 out of the top 15 politcal donors (soon to be 14 out of 15 thanks to superpacs) are coporations who donate to republicans.
So if there were 15 candidates, 11 of them would be republicans and they would control the debate and the basis of the election.
Some historians have suggested that two-party systems promote centrism and encourages political parties to find common positions which appeal to wide swaths of the electorate. It can lead to political stability which leads, in turn, to economic growth. Historian Patrick Allitt of the Teaching Company suggested that it is difficult to overestimate the long term economic benefits of political stability. Sometimes two-party systems have been seen as preferable to multi-party systems because they are simpler to govern, with less fractiousness and harmony, while multi-party systems can sometimes lead to hung parliaments. Italy, with a multi-party system, has had years of divisive politics since 2000, although analyst Silvia Aloisi suggested in 2008 that the nation may be moving closer to a two-party arrangement.
What's your problem with Obama anyway?
