Decentralized, localized government does better for democracy. People feel more represented. The disillusionment with Washington has to do with 200 years of concentration of power at the top. More individualized needs could be met if we had a more diversified power structure. People could vote with their feet and their wallet. The country is, indeed, to large to be governed.
+gideondavid30 the problem is that even local government is very undemocratic. i mean even home owners associations have dictatorial power over other people. the local municipalities are monopolies which write their own laws.etc
+reachforacreech Agreed. That is why people can vote with their feet. I would rather have 50 governments to choose from that compete with one another over tax paying citizens then one government.
Two party-systems are always broken, because they prevent change due to the spoiler effect. If you vote for change, you take votes away from the party nearest to your viewpoint and therefore aid the party which you dislike most in seizing power.
A no party system is the answer. let those who want to represent us not be under obligation to any other party then the overall good of the American people.
The problem with third parties in the United States, as opposed to Israel or the UK where third parties are actually viable, is that too often they are enforced by charismatic leadership from one titular voice that dissipates when that figure is marginalized. Thats not new either, it dates back to William Jennings Bryant, Teddy Roosevelt under the Bull Moose Party, Henry Wallace, George Wallace, even John Anderson and Pat Buchanan... I'm not even sure why Ralph Nader's name comes up so much when politically he's less statistically important than Ron Paul who ran within the framework in terms of shaping American thinking. In the US this issue typically self corrects itself in the framework of the two dominant parties. After a prolonged flirtation with New Deal politics once they were long out of vogue in 1992 the Democratic primaries revealed a three way contest between diehards (like Tom Harkin or Bob Kerrey), more business oriented liberals like Wilder and Tsongas, and obviously the winning Third Way candidate Clinton. The Republicans went through a prolonged party reinvention following the New Deal between Goldwater's Randian Objectivist minarchist state to a moderated Nixonian broad executive before settling on Reagan's fundamentalist Christian + K street model. Bush's group kind of smuggled neoconservatism following the vacuum of a post Cold War world but now right wingers embodied by Tea Party complaints about a more domestic cultural approach are leading to a slower reinvention trying to purge itself of the interventionist model. The problem isn't so much the two party system but rather the lack of term limits for dinosaurs who can't move on from dead ideologies. It took thirty years for Democrats to realize it was not that Americans hated Civil Rights but rather Keynesian economics had no place in a globalist economy, although you still see pundits like Krugman live in denial. But Nader would have won more than 1% if people wanted a more statist government. Republicans are facing a more serious hurdle because religious oriented traditional views are mostly dead outside of an older cohort and not only is the Cold War model in reference to a two decade dead world system model (we live in a globalist currency society, not a two bloc contest no matter how much they try to substitute Islamic terrorism for international socialism) and they aren't creating enough new voters... and that has a lot to do with current gridlock and the perception the GOP is an "obstructionist" party because fewer and fewer people, despite their dissatisfaction with the Democrat's being the everything for everyman party which obviously has no direction, don't want that message of a return to a different party. Right now the civil liberties issues and economic security are clearly what most people want but Democrats at least acknowledge the dissatisfaction even if their idea of liberty is for select groups and they just believe endless spending equates aggregate growth. Its so patently obvious that anyone except people who think George Bush was a representative president could coopt that message... term limit these people out and the country moves forward again much faster.
The Right side is NOT speaking about the two party system and since when do Americans believe that we don't need to change? Or that it's "good enough". IT'S NOT! Just bc NO country has figured it out doesn't mean you stop trying. To quote Angela Merckle "since when does failure mean you quit trying? Are we NOT Germans? We don't quit just bc something doesn't work we try, try, and try again until we FIGURE IT OUT"
It's kind of a difficult to defend (but extreme sounding) proposition to begin with. But really we don't have a two party system, just the appearence of one to make us think we have a choice.
It was a good debate. I feel that a mechanism should be developed wherein a healthy competition and competitive spirit should be developed wherein if a movement is launched based on a problem it should reach its goal of solving the problem and not just a tool to win the elections. I feel competitive spirit would energize one to solve the problem. I think for the movements to fructify and solve the problems if neither of the two parties take up the movement their must be a provision where a third party would highlight the movement which would build a competitive spirit for the other two parties also and a movement cannot be just sidelined so their is a higher chance of addressing the problems and solving them.
I agree with the first part. The motion was too narrowly formulated, allowing the against side to point out that our problems are not limited to one single factor. I mostly agree with your second point, but would have to point out that in the last 30 or so years, one party has, on the whole, only been concerned with the welfare of a tiny portion of the population while the other has been concerned with the big-picture problems of the country and the world. They aren't exactly the same.
The against side seems to be unaware of politics in any other countries except for US. If they ever visited Europe they'd see it's them who are the exception, not otherwise.
10 years later and the two party systems are definitely broken. Both parties have been suscepted by extremist on the left and the right. While Germany and Europe have some extremists on both political aisles, they're not in the major party. They are mostly concentrated in smaller parties, which would mean difficult for them to take the mantle of government. If US does have multi party system, it wouldn't be hijacked by extremist and it would be healthier for the American democracy as a whole. Democrats and Republican needs to realize this. If they want to save their party and the American, they need to end their dominance on the system and open road for smaller parties.
Let's think about "problem of two parties" from different angle: we have 3 options here 1) to follow "instructions" of founding fathers and have government by their vision 2) modified version of 1) with government having more power to regulate and control 3) to promote freedom of individual with private property rights and stop to promote transfer of private property by force To debate only type of 2) is like choosing which type of stick to use in schools to discipline kids.
To fix the system you need: 1. party discipline (all members of party must vote the same way). Now crooks can buy votes one at a time as needed. 2. get rid of filibusters 3. throw out mechanisms by which bills are blocked from being voted on. 4. no votes without time to study what is in them. The Patriot act was voted on even before it was printed. 5. Mathematical rules to figure out electoral boundaries. No more tweaking bounds to favour the party in power. 6. election by popular vote not electoral college. Your vote should have the same power no matter where you live.
@brucepig Yeah, that annoyed me how it seemed to be conventional wisdom in the debate that both parties are controlled by the fringe and neither is willing to compromise. How can anyone objectively say that is the case. The Republicans are controlled by the extreme fringe and the Democrats make endless compromises.
The basic problem with having only two parties is this: You have more ideologies than just two. In fact no amount of parties could cover it. But it doesn't meant we shouldn't try. We can easily makes a long list of topics a political party has to take position on. Abortion, taxation of riches, taxation of poor, environment, private or public schools, public or private health care, public or private roads, euthanasia, religion classes in schools, ISIS, war,... The list is enormous, the sheer amount of things I, a lay person can come up with is a very long one. Voters has to makes his mind on every subject, an then he should choose a party that best fits his personal convictions. And here is the problem. Two parties is not enough. It can't be enough. You don't have only two sets of beliefs. It wouldn't be a real problem though if people were more conscious about this. In system with 10 parties, ranging from libertarian party to communist party it's not a big deal when supporters of aforementioned parties fight each other. It's a healthy polarization. It's not a surprise or a problem when libertarian makes fun of communists and vice versa. Then in the middle you have parties that aren't so much different. In case of many party system it's not so bad when supporters of specific parties take packets of ideas designed by those parties. It still gives you a spectrum But in case of two party system it doesn't work. Democtrats tend to be all for their party, so as republicans are going to defend all republican ideas. But statistically speaking it's impossible for two parties to cover most of the population.. It's absolutely impossible that half of the population supports democrats and another half support republicans. THat's unhealthy, you are being convinced that these are set of beleifs, that you have to take as a whole, it's the only way to go. Maybe actual politicnas are aware of this, and they can talk to each other. I don't know. However in case of voters It indeed creates a sick conflict. You're either republican and you hate democrats. Or you're a republican and you hate democrats.
P.J. O'Rourke addressed your idea that two political parties aren't enough to cover the (theoretically) large permutation of political stances one could take. His argument essentially boils down to this: 1.) Voters (in general) are stupid ("Given that we're the problem...") 2.) Political parties, if they're to have any longevity, must cater to such voters by having broad appeal; this is why third parties that are too non-inclusive in their ideologies are typically weird and ultimately have little political relevance 3.) Because a bulk of voters want more or less the same thing in practice (even if not in theory), major parties tend to have remarkable overlap in their actual principles. This includes (ultimately) giving governments an expansion of power and resources 4.) Expansion of government power and resources ultimately leads to fiscal irresponsibility. And given that all of the modern democratic-style governments today are broke (or so O'Rourke claims, at least), it therefore doesn't really matter much whether you have only 2 major parties or many more. They all seem to ineluctably lead to the same place. You might object that his argument only addresses economic and not social issues. However, most ostensibly social issues are, in fact, just camouflaged economic issues when you examine them more closely (environment, war and terrorism, schooling, health care, roads). Of the list you made, I'd opine that only abortion, religion in schools, and euthanasia (which doesn't seem to be a particularly big issue these days anyway) could accurately be labeled as social issues.
I'm not sure how any of this is of any problem to my objections (lack of spectrum and representation, tribalism) 1. I agree, but the same argument can be made to abolish democracy altogether. 2. That's actual nonsense. Third parties are irrelevant because of US election system in which the winner take everything, it naturally leads to two party system because people vote only for candidates that has a chance of winning. Two party system is designed and forced upon people. That's what many people in US seem to not understand and one girl's question reflects it. They think you'd have to add some restrictions or something of that sort in order to impose more party system. That's nonsense and complete opposite is true. CGP Grey has amazing videos showing how other election system allow for greater diversity and improve a degree of representation. 3. Again, let's abolish democracy. 4. But how is it a rebuttal to my objections? Maybe we should switch to one party then? My arguments remains, two parties is not enough, it can't be enough. So people have two options: either it's lesser evil every time when they go to vote. Or the other option is they become mindless supporters and fans of their party and support it whenever it goes. Obviously too many parties may be a problem as well, but election threshold resolves it very easily.
"I'm not sure how any of this is of any problem to my objections..." Then I suggest you re-read what I typed, as I frankly addressed this quite directly. To recapitulate the main idea, however: voters, as a group, end up actually wanting fairly similar things. This, combined with the need for parties to have broad appeal (in order to win elections and hence, have any political relevance), means that few parties or many, they all tend to lead to the same end result: fiscally insolvent government.
Since when is innovation NOT allowed, haven't you heard the old adage, "change or die". This applies across the board as the rest of the world will keep changing and WILL overtake you. Hence the US being focused on keeping at the forfront of ALL innovations. Our ability to rapidly change thus using innovation to our advantage is exactly why the US is the world's largest economy.
It´s not about parties, or a seperation of ideas, really. It´s about solutions. We cannot place solutions in some box. Solutions are created in a continuum, depending on the problem. The perfect government, according to democratic beliefs at least, would be a government of the `people`. Yet the People are choosing representatives that are conforming to 1 of 2 parties. Having 2 sides always polarizes, no matter the scale. I´m not saying having more political parties is better, but at least there is a greater range of ideas. Let the People govern as they should and not politicians depending on cash from those that are wealthy enough to buy votes and agendas. Politicians seem to be so scared these days of saying what they believe is true, no matter the consequences. Well, that´s my opinion anyway
For me our system of governing is TOO old, too resistant to change, and is based on a VERY different world and is wholy incapable of keeping up with the speed of progress which is ONLY increasing. That's the issue with command structures, they're UNABLE to react quickly to anything as few ppl are given the ability to make decisions and by the time it's law and then enforced they've moved on. Thus law enforcement is ALWAYS at a disadvantage, no matter the improvements, and all laws do is consolidate power both in legal and illegal realms. Thus making it even harder to fight, as they've gotten BETTER and more then that they've gotten better exponentially due to cross pollination, multiple new methods, thus spreading the disease, NOT halting it.
It was Bertrand Russell who said this system would see the rise of power of the innovative and imaginative entrepreneurs who would eventually use that power to prevent anyone else from using that system to compete with them. It's no surprise only 42% of the electorate voted. More people voted in the American Idol finals than the presidential election. Maybe this is because people feel they have more of a say in television shows than their own representative government.
The two party system prevents voters from having any real options, and from having any real influence, because it is a false dichotomy. Under the two-party paradigm, as used in the USA, you either have to choose: a) lenient social policy & stronger economic policy, or b) stronger social policy & lenient economic policy. Where is the option of stronger social policy and stronger economic policy? Where is the option of lenient social policy and lenient economic policy?
The Jewish guy's closing statement persuaded me. As for improving our government system, I question if our two-party system will ever "take money out of politics". 94% of public officers are, after all, won by the candidate who raised the most money. Those crappy TV ads evidently work. The idea of your vote going to your 2nd choice if your first choice loses intrigues me. However, I do worry that such a system would give rise to charismatic extremists sans a party to keep them in check.
When our founding fathers wrote our constitution they in NO way intended for there to be ANY parties let alone merely two. They intended for each state to be FREE and fully capable to do what's in THEIR state's best interests in ALL matters. In fact that very issue of freedom is the root cause of of the split. BTW the ONLY reason we have a constitution and central gov is bc under the articles of confederation nothing got done whatsoever as it required 100% agreement and the ONLY thing they agreed upon was their right to self govern and George Washington. Hence our first presidential election he got 100% of the vote, in fact they didn't debate it, is was just RIGHT. Hence after he won the war he immediately resigned and left politics and it was solely the fact his gov needed him again due to their infighting that he came back. This was bc BOTH sides could agree on his FAIRNESS and the fact he DIDN'T side on EITHER side, instead he was a mediator and would often CHANGE his mind and go with someone far beneath him and MUCH younger approach all through the war for independence. But by having a two party system you assure the same result the world experienced during the cold war. Each side continually increases the threat level, and spends obscene amounts of money, disregarding their own citizens needs to do so all bc they. MUST win. This type of competition is NO competition as sides gerrymander districts to create as few competitive states as possible. You ask ppl why they don't vote, it's bc they don't believe it matters. THAT is the number one issue and gave us Trump as Americans were willing to risk it as at least he's NOT a "politician" but a businessman thus we see as being very pragmatic but also bc his own party didn't want him. It's also why we got Bernie Sanders which is by far the closest we've gotten to a socialist on a NATIONAL level. However bc of the system Bernie who's independent didn't run as independent but as a democrat. Why? Bc without the backing of a party to fundraise, for infrastructure, and bc we the voters id ourselves as one or the other without need for ANY actual words to even be said. This is completely like making ppl choose between the Catholic church running the world OR communists. You don't like either but ones WORSE. Therefore our system nowadays for voters is between bad and worse NOT a discussion about policy something Trump knows absolutely NOTHING about as he has no belief system nor moral compass. Now will we made wrong decisions hell yah, but we wouldn't have EVER gotten Trump for president if not for the two party system, as Trump his entire life until the "birther" movement been more on the democratic side. Or really NEITHER, but bc he'd driven that movement about Obama's birth, which is ironic as now the left are challenging HIS election credibility. Lol Likewise Trump's daughter making the exact same mistake Clinton did with using a unsecure email to deal with classified data, though of course BOTH sides ignore this as BOTH sides have NO good way to deal with it as the left kept down playing and the right wanted her to go to jail. Obviously both parties will change sides thus showing them for who they truly are, THAT is the price of the parties though luckily the right is right now being a victim of their own success, likewise Britain's "leave" campaign which NEVER expected to win and now is totally unprepared for the logistics of it. For me the basic reason I'm against the right is bc they don't follow their own ideals except for the tax part though of course this doesn't apply to the wealthy and US corps will NEVER grow on the basis of a tax break bc you can't beat zero. Which is exactly why EVERY country who's tried to enrich itself and drive the economy by giving wealthy more cash has ended up just being out the cash as money has NEVER been what stops them from investing considering they already have plenty. It's bc the US economy is a deficit economy NOT a surplus one. Thus the majority of our jobs come from the service industry, and making things FOR Americans NOT for the rest of the world. Thus empoverishing the middle class ends with a ever increasing about a debt which in turn further decreases their ability to rise out of their financial situation and only helps banks. See the problem! The issue is NOT a choice between small gov and welfare, as the right LOVES corporate welfare. It's just who gets the welfare, corporations OR citizens and guess what BOTH parties give it mostly to corporations as citizens are too poor and completely forgotten in this equation. The SOLE difference is WHICH corps support them as the tech/medical like Dems and DOD like Republicans. Thus they focus their entire time debating a handful of issues as most americans are single issue voters and it works. Thus many Christians vote for Republicans purely bc of the pro life, marriage movement. Or dems bc of the legalization of weed, cheap goods side. Thus it's either a case of religion delusion as EVERY women is free to choose NOT to abort and thus it impacts THEM not at all thus flying in the face of conservative beliefs as they treasure freedom over control, just not in the marriage, abortion realm and drives ppl to donate and back them like the Catholic church even while the left is more similar to their belief system namely that HUMANS matter more then cash. While the right thinks cash is king and that everything will sort itself out just you just leave it alone. NOT!!! As the governments job is to deal with the issues of corporations violating OTHER ppl's rights as they don't pay nor own roads, railways, airports, sea ports, hospitals, air, land, water. Thus ppl MUST be protected against corporations as we are FAR too weak to fight them alone, and it's NOT okay for corporations to dump waste into our rivers, lakes, (public/private) land, just bc it's cheaper. That's the problem with corps, they will ALWAYS choose the cheapest, simplest, easiest solution. This means republican belief that they are "good" smacks totally in the face of reality as those who have LESS actually tend to give MORE, not vs. Plus this system assumes that the church/religious organizations will insure ppl get taken care thus not requiring government interference. Look at the south for that answer! They are FAR more likely to spend their money abroad then locally, as the GOP has another fundamental belief which is opposed that IF you work hard in the US you'll succeed. Thus if your poor it's bc you're lazy, and want a handout. NOT the actual amount of ppl who abuse gov programs is stable and is the same in EVERY country, just like the rate of homosexuals. That's bc there is NOTHING more stressful then having to rely upon gov, especially OUR gov. Thus if you can avoid it, you will PERIOD. Also bc ppl LIKE to work, hence the town in Canada which was give a basic income found that not only did ppl work, they went on to start businesses, and chase their dreams, instead are focused on making sure they have food, a roof over their heads. This is why once ppl have money they can rapidly increase it, as banks play largely into this dynamic as they produce the majority of the world's currency and for NOTHING, based on NOTHING. They also ONLY lend money to the wealthy, thus once you have some wealth it's easy to increase it. Luckily the internet which is totally democratic makes this less of a issue hence more ppl are self employed and is forever rising. However the internet itself is ONLY that way bc the guy who invented it gave it away for FREE!!! He did so bc he knew that IF implemented by corporations it'd NEVER become what he envisioned and thus it could ONLY work if no company could control it. The internet also has a baked in equality, freedom in it, as you are anonymous, thus hackers take extreme exception is ANY one trying to control it, as it's purpose was the free exchange of information. Similar to wikipedia which is based SOLELY on ppl contributing it. This happens at a global scale thus no extremely biased viewpoint finds it way into wikipedia.
The debate is an interesting but pointless one. The 2 party system is what it is ... for better or worse. The tradition of America has been federalism. That died though. What we have now is a 2 party tyranny. Concentrating power on the top simply puts 2 or 10 tyrannical parties in charge. It is a myth that states are given flexibility when the Supreme Court is legislating from the Courts and the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and federal government have made state power meaningless and trivial.
the two party system is only part of the problem , they need to talk about the systems that are creating our problems , 1 we have the federal reserve banks, we have to pay these private banks interest on our own money. 2 you have corporations who are into making money no matter who or what they destroy and don't pay taxes. 3. we have a educational system producing none thinkers. 4 we have a military complex corporations who would love a war every year just to make money. so you see the two party systems made up of people who except money from all of these systems and forget that they are public servants and that is all.
if people would watch this video today. they would truly understand what's at the fundamental root of this election cycle. it would on its own decode the whole mystery behind the trump jump.
Two choices of tyranny is barely not a choice. We need to recognize that no one has the right to govern anyone else. We need to live freely and dependent on each other, not those in power with guns pointed at our heads.
Corporations aren't a control of gov't, but rather a mutual partner. Remember that corporations were invented by the state and don't arise from private companies in an actual free market. The control lies in the who prints this fiat, monopoly money we use. The Federal Reserve and international banking cartels hold all the power.
The problem is not whether a government has 1 party, 2 parties or more. The party question is a red herring. The dysfunction is caused when politicians are funded (bought and paid for) by private interests.
We the people have to fight for our freedom, for our voting rights, our democracy, and Constitutional Rights not to be take away from us. All presidents, candidates to presidency, cenators, governors, all parties; who take money from the 1%, will fight for the interest of the 1%. and all parties who ONLY accept money from the people, will fight for the interest of the PEOPLE. It is crystal clear and common sence. Each of us fighting in our own individual capacity. Together contributing for our common interest, the interest of the PEOPLE, we Will succed and the elite does not wants all of us to know. By us.. the 99%, being our own veridic media, using youtube, facebook, tweeter, word of mouth ect. Some of us donating our $ 27.00 Some of us getting out protesting. Some of us signing pettitions. Some of us working or volunteering. Some of us suing and demanding justice. Some of us attending meetings, devates, rallies ect. ALL of us VOTING! The 1%, throughout their CORRUPT puppets in power, are, and still trying to devide us.. the 99% to weaken us. But WE, the People.. are going to stay TOGETHER.. ..
I'm agreeing more with the side that I'm not on in this debate. I think that in itself shows the variety of opinions that should be represented in political systems everywhere. Look at this debate, I only see two sides. One side says hey the two party system is bad because it stops the people in the center from fixing everything (there own opinions) and the other just says it isn't so bad. I'd be able to represent another side of the argument that says the two party system is bad because it keeps people with an opinion other than the main party view out of the political process which means that some people don't feel represented - I also argue that it is an intentional effect to keep competition of opinions out and that in itself is immoral. There was another time in history when Americans didn't feel like we were represented and that made us rather ungovernable - I don't think we are near any tipping point that would bring us to violence, but I do think it is a better state of things if more people have their point of view represented. There is an alternative, practical, and real idea that I think many people would see as a rather good idea and that is proportional representation (PR). PR is used by democratic nations today, so as I said it is very real.
What is particularly troubling about that is the relative population sizes. Liberia's population is just 4 million - a little over 1% of the US population - even if Liberia is only barely watching this more than the US, that makes it at least 100 times more popular per capita. Similarly Canada has 12th the population of the US (30 million), so Canada views this twelves times more per capita than US viewers.
The issue is that ALL republics or democratic systems of governance move towards either becoming a failed state, being overtaken bc they're too busy/focused on infighting and who gets power rather then focusing on solving issues. This is also why republics are continually engaging in civil war while the east doesn't have that issue, with Japan coming in at a whooping 2600 YEARS and counting atm as the LONGEST gov. Hence the eastern civilizations are 1000 YEARS older then the west, thus while Europe were totally tribal, China was dealing with sanitation, irrigation, and public education. Thus we truly don't understand their stance as we cannot begin to imagine that history as to them this whole period of "democracy" and the west means little, thus their strategies to deal with issues are TOTALLY opposite, it's ALL about the long term, though to be fair for them a 30-50 yr plan IS short term to them. while the west does EVERYTHING in 2-4yr increments and tend to avoid dealing with issues until they're critical and they have no choice since acting carries risk, namely that it fails, makes things worse, and harms Americans economically OR physically. Thus politicians have given away most of their power to corps since if they do horrible things both sides can use it to pass regulations without complaint or corps trying to stop it. Hence the US has a LONG history of allowing horrible tragedies to occur THEN finally put some controls in place, whereas the east rarily if ever governs by reaction.
To the five people who Disliked this video; I would be interested in hearing you veiws on the subject - "The Two-Party System is Making America Ungovernable". Because I think the Debaters mand an compelling arguement and answered the audence questions to a satisfaction... So if have what you belive to be better ideas on the matter Please let me hear it, and anyone else who believe they have a solid view as well!
So, half of the audience agrees with the motion. The real question is, does that majority believe in having more parties or NONE? Also, does it annoy anybody at all when somebody equates intelligence to the number of degrees he/she has earned? Is it just me? Dinesh D'Souza said it best: "I've met a few who's education exceeded their intelligence." I may have paraphrased that!
the two party system is not broken, the two party mentality is. the problem is less the structure of the system and more the apathy and the laziness of political thought amongst american citizens. Opinions should not be regurgitated from bias media outlets that tell you what to think but from political activism that derives from a well informed public. if we inform ourselves our parties will reflect that.
The first part of Mr. Chafets remarks work well... if you are to young to remember when JFK was president, when Johnson was, When Nixon was, When Ford, Carter and Even Reagan were. For those of us who do we are not buying the oatmeal he is claiming is steak.
33:44 his statistics are totally neglecting to proving the foundation for our belief about why republics are best as NO country except Greece has EVER been a democracy as EVERYONE (allowed to take part) directly took part for a period of time in EVERY branch of government and was done by random drawing, thus no person EVER held power OR could game the system. In the past this issue was that ppl WANTED control, elites thought citizens uncapable of making a "educated" decision, but mainly bc it would be impossible to do at such a large scale as Greece was a city, state. However nowadays we could easily be one as there is NO need for a representative, as we all could be involved in the comfort of our own homes, thanks to the internet. This would be WAY better then republics as the masses do make GOOD decisions, so much so that when a Swedish scientist created a app to deal with quantum computing, the public was able to instinctively make the right decisions and solve problems the computer and ALL their math couldn't and we ALWAYS came up with the MOST effective, quickest method. Crazy huh. Thus is the power of the collective we. The issue ONLY is that we need enough ppl involved. If the pool is too small you'll get poor ideas, but once sufficiently large the BEST solution is ALWAYS found, on ALL topics even a topic like the app where ppl playing it had almost ZERO clue what they were even doing. This btw he did bc humans have a quantum computers for brains and quatum theory means ALL solutions are tried at once thus crazy things like electrons figuring out if their pathway is blocked and NONE going that direction, or the fact that if you look for a photon to be a particle you'll find a particle, and if you look for a wave you'll see a wave. Thus it's reacting to the test BEFORE reaching the test, which definitely might explain why if you threaten a plant only verbally there is NO change but if you get scissors and PLAN to act without words the plants reacts. Thus is the power of making a decision.
The hardest I've laughed in months was when Arianna said that she just wants something to shake up Washington. As a liberal, I really dislike Arianna, and part of it is this kind of irresponsible short-sightedness that is detectible in a lot of what she says.
The guy at 1:16:45 misidentified instant runoff voting as approval voting. The core problem though is the first-past-the-post voting system which makes us choose between the lesser of two evils. The lack of competition ensures that the two parties can get away with murder. What we need is open non-partisan primaries with approval voting. The two candidates with the highest approval rating would go on to the general election.
This debate should have been about the need for government, not about the two party system. It seemed like at times that is what they were kinda, sorta arguing about. This debate was not one of iq2 best debates.
Are Old White Guys disproportionately represented on the wrong, deceptive & oppressive side of the argument in the Intellegence² Debates or are they just wrong with that much frequency?
Both parties are predominantly State centric, bc people believe Gov is solution to bring about their control freaking vision of the world. It's social democrats vs christian democrats. Both essentially fascistic in collectivist sense. One is more socialistic and second more religious.
A typical annoying announcer. First of all these are online debates, they aren't broadcast with commercials. Also what's with the awkward pre speech question? They all gave a flip, funny answer but it seemed he was serious and then pompously has to bellow, "Ladie and Gentleman......". Really bad and whoever produced this should have shut that down. .
The U.K?... by Two Party system it means there are only ever two possible Partys in power. Which is the same in alot/most Western Democracy's (The UK for one).
More can be better because are strict and has percentage of each party, their system tho falls apart easily like in Europe although it can be less stable it requires to hold electtions every year if a prime they cant agree with prime minister, and have to hold electons all over again...lets say our gov is just more stable..the politicians are obssessed with UNLOGICAL MINDS ONLY GIVING A SHIT ABOUT THEIR FUCKING FROFITS while turning everyone elses against each other while they hide in their little fucking building with ppl with GUNS
I would beg to differ, the only more effective governments than 2 party ones, are one party ones. You need only look at rankings of countries by G.D.P and how many partys there country has. Multiple party systms dont work, and never will and thats just the sad truth.
Connor stevens It's ridiculous to only have 2 partys. It's like saying the world is black and white when in reality its full of grey areas. Specially when the President or minister re-runs for a second term its like the Deal or No Deal show you keep it or you take the other even if you dont want any of them. It gives only an illusion of choice.
Here are direct quotes from George Washington in his farewell address. Source: The Independent Chronicle, September 26, 1796 19 Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations, which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. 20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination's. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. 21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. 22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. 23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. 24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. 25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
IQ2-worst panel, worst debate I have watched to date...this whole debate should get a do over with a new panel. I feel less intelligent for having watched it.
Why dont government and political parties stay away from early education and let parents take their responsabiliy in the education of them childrem as they should. Pay to parents to be at home and solve 2 problema with one stone.
Perhaps because some parents write like this: "Why dont government and political parties stay away from early education and let parents take their responsabiliy in the education of them childrem as they should. Pay to parents to be at home and solve 2 problema with one stone." ?
Decentralized, localized government does better for democracy. People feel more represented. The disillusionment with Washington has to do with 200 years of concentration of power at the top. More individualized needs could be met if we had a more diversified power structure. People could vote with their feet and their wallet.
The country is, indeed, to large to be governed.
+gideondavid30 the problem is that even local government is very undemocratic. i mean even home owners associations have dictatorial power over other people. the local municipalities are monopolies which write their own laws.etc
+reachforacreech
Agreed. That is why people can vote with their feet. I would rather have 50 governments to choose from that compete with one another over tax paying citizens then one government.
One of the best debates I've ever seen.
Two party-systems are always broken, because they prevent change due to the spoiler effect. If you vote for change, you take votes away from the party nearest to your viewpoint and therefore aid the party which you dislike most in seizing power.
A no party system is the answer. let those who want to represent us not be under obligation to any other party then the overall good of the American people.
I didn't know idiots could write
The problem with third parties in the United States, as opposed to Israel or the UK where third parties are actually viable, is that too often they are enforced by charismatic leadership from one titular voice that dissipates when that figure is marginalized. Thats not new either, it dates back to William Jennings Bryant, Teddy Roosevelt under the Bull Moose Party, Henry Wallace, George Wallace, even John Anderson and Pat Buchanan... I'm not even sure why Ralph Nader's name comes up so much when politically he's less statistically important than Ron Paul who ran within the framework in terms of shaping American thinking.
In the US this issue typically self corrects itself in the framework of the two dominant parties. After a prolonged flirtation with New Deal politics once they were long out of vogue in 1992 the Democratic primaries revealed a three way contest between diehards (like Tom Harkin or Bob Kerrey), more business oriented liberals like Wilder and Tsongas, and obviously the winning Third Way candidate Clinton. The Republicans went through a prolonged party reinvention following the New Deal between Goldwater's Randian Objectivist minarchist state to a moderated Nixonian broad executive before settling on Reagan's fundamentalist Christian + K street model. Bush's group kind of smuggled neoconservatism following the vacuum of a post Cold War world but now right wingers embodied by Tea Party complaints about a more domestic cultural approach are leading to a slower reinvention trying to purge itself of the interventionist model.
The problem isn't so much the two party system but rather the lack of term limits for dinosaurs who can't move on from dead ideologies. It took thirty years for Democrats to realize it was not that Americans hated Civil Rights but rather Keynesian economics had no place in a globalist economy, although you still see pundits like Krugman live in denial. But Nader would have won more than 1% if people wanted a more statist government. Republicans are facing a more serious hurdle because religious oriented traditional views are mostly dead outside of an older cohort and not only is the Cold War model in reference to a two decade dead world system model (we live in a globalist currency society, not a two bloc contest no matter how much they try to substitute Islamic terrorism for international socialism) and they aren't creating enough new voters... and that has a lot to do with current gridlock and the perception the GOP is an "obstructionist" party because fewer and fewer people, despite their dissatisfaction with the Democrat's being the everything for everyman party which obviously has no direction, don't want that message of a return to a different party.
Right now the civil liberties issues and economic security are clearly what most people want but Democrats at least acknowledge the dissatisfaction even if their idea of liberty is for select groups and they just believe endless spending equates aggregate growth. Its so patently obvious that anyone except people who think George Bush was a representative president could coopt that message... term limit these people out and the country moves forward again much faster.
I find myself in the strange situation of agreeing with Ariana Huffington
The Right side is NOT speaking about the two party system and since when do Americans believe that we don't need to change? Or that it's "good enough". IT'S NOT! Just bc NO country has figured it out doesn't mean you stop trying. To quote Angela Merckle "since when does failure mean you quit trying? Are we NOT Germans? We don't quit just bc something doesn't work we try, try, and try again until we FIGURE IT OUT"
It's kind of a difficult to defend (but extreme sounding) proposition to begin with. But really we don't have a two party system, just the appearence of one to make us think we have a choice.
In Germany a Toyota 86 is $35000usd , this is why Usa doesn't have Free health and University . In Usa there is no taxes on mrsp price of cars
It was a good debate. I feel that a mechanism should be developed wherein a healthy competition and competitive spirit should be developed wherein if a movement is launched based on a problem it should reach its goal of solving the problem and not just a tool to win the elections. I feel competitive spirit would energize one to solve the problem. I think for the movements to fructify and solve the problems if neither of the two parties take up the movement their must be a provision where a third party would highlight the movement which would build a competitive spirit for the other two parties also and a movement cannot be just sidelined so their is a higher chance of addressing the problems and solving them.
I agree with the first part. The motion was too narrowly formulated, allowing the against side to point out that our problems are not limited to one single factor. I mostly agree with your second point, but would have to point out that in the last 30 or so years, one party has, on the whole, only been concerned with the welfare of a tiny portion of the population while the other has been concerned with the big-picture problems of the country and the world. They aren't exactly the same.
The against side seems to be unaware of politics in any other countries except for US. If they ever visited Europe they'd see it's them who are the exception, not otherwise.
As usual the audience failed us. Get rid of the two party system
I also just realized how long ago you said this...
10 years later and the two party systems
are definitely broken. Both parties have been suscepted by extremist on the left and the right.
While Germany and Europe have some extremists on both political aisles, they're not in the major party. They are mostly concentrated in smaller parties, which would mean difficult for them to take the mantle of government.
If US does have multi party system, it wouldn't be hijacked by extremist and it would be healthier for the American democracy as a whole.
Democrats and Republican needs to realize this. If they want to save their party and the American, they need to end their dominance on the system and open road for smaller parties.
Let's think about "problem of two parties" from different angle: we have 3 options here
1) to follow "instructions" of founding fathers and have government by their vision
2) modified version of 1) with government having more power to regulate and control
3) to promote freedom of individual with private property rights and stop to promote transfer of private property by force
To debate only type of 2) is like choosing which type of stick to use in schools to discipline kids.
Yes, the good cop bad cop, same team strategy is transparent. The tricks are more and more predictable.
Chafetz was very eloquent, completely swayed me
True. Viable 3rd parties always seem to have an indelible stamp of "weirdo bunch" and that's unfortunate.
To fix the system you need:
1. party discipline (all members of party must vote the same way). Now crooks can buy votes one at a time as needed.
2. get rid of filibusters
3. throw out mechanisms by which bills are blocked from being voted on.
4. no votes without time to study what is in them. The Patriot act was voted on even before it was printed.
5. Mathematical rules to figure out electoral boundaries. No more tweaking bounds to favour the party in power.
6. election by popular vote not electoral college. Your vote should have the same power no matter where you live.
Don't agree with 1.
7. Money out of politics
8. More parties
@brucepig Yeah, that annoyed me how it seemed to be conventional wisdom in the debate that both parties are controlled by the fringe and neither is willing to compromise. How can anyone objectively say that is the case. The Republicans are controlled by the extreme fringe and the Democrats make endless compromises.
The basic problem with having only two parties is this:
You have more ideologies than just two. In fact no amount of parties could cover it. But it doesn't meant we shouldn't try.
We can easily makes a long list of topics a political party has to take position on. Abortion, taxation of riches, taxation of poor, environment, private or public schools, public or private health care, public or private roads, euthanasia, religion classes in schools, ISIS, war,...
The list is enormous, the sheer amount of things I, a lay person can come up with is a very long one. Voters has to makes his mind on every subject, an then he should choose a party that best fits his personal convictions.
And here is the problem. Two parties is not enough. It can't be enough. You don't have only two sets of beliefs. It wouldn't be a real problem though if people were more conscious about this. In system with 10 parties, ranging from libertarian party to communist party it's not a big deal when supporters of aforementioned parties fight each other. It's a healthy polarization. It's not a surprise or a problem when libertarian makes fun of communists and vice versa. Then in the middle you have parties that aren't so much different. In case of many party system it's not so bad when supporters of specific parties take packets of ideas designed by those parties. It still gives you a spectrum
But in case of two party system it doesn't work. Democtrats tend to be all for their party, so as republicans are going to defend all republican ideas. But statistically speaking it's impossible for two parties to cover most of the population.. It's absolutely impossible that half of the population supports democrats and another half support republicans. THat's unhealthy, you are being convinced that these are set of beleifs, that you have to take as a whole, it's the only way to go.
Maybe actual politicnas are aware of this, and they can talk to each other. I don't know. However in case of voters It indeed creates a sick conflict. You're either republican and you hate democrats. Or you're a republican and you hate democrats.
P.J. O'Rourke addressed your idea that two political parties aren't enough to cover the (theoretically) large permutation of political stances one could take.
His argument essentially boils down to this:
1.) Voters (in general) are stupid ("Given that we're the problem...")
2.) Political parties, if they're to have any longevity, must cater to such voters by having broad appeal; this is why third parties that are too non-inclusive in their ideologies are typically weird and ultimately have little political relevance
3.) Because a bulk of voters want more or less the same thing in practice (even if not in theory), major parties tend to have remarkable overlap in their actual principles. This includes (ultimately) giving governments an expansion of power and resources
4.) Expansion of government power and resources ultimately leads to fiscal irresponsibility. And given that all of the modern democratic-style governments today are broke (or so O'Rourke claims, at least), it therefore doesn't really matter much whether you have only 2 major parties or many more. They all seem to ineluctably lead to the same place.
You might object that his argument only addresses economic and not social issues. However, most ostensibly social issues are, in fact, just camouflaged economic issues when you examine them more closely (environment, war and terrorism, schooling, health care, roads). Of the list you made, I'd opine that only abortion, religion in schools, and euthanasia (which doesn't seem to be a particularly big issue these days anyway) could accurately be labeled as social issues.
I'm not sure how any of this is of any problem to my objections (lack of spectrum and representation, tribalism)
1. I agree, but the same argument can be made to abolish democracy altogether.
2. That's actual nonsense. Third parties are irrelevant because of US election system in which the winner take everything, it naturally leads to two party system because people vote only for candidates that has a chance of winning. Two party system is designed and forced upon people.
That's what many people in US seem to not understand and one girl's question reflects it. They think you'd have to add some restrictions or something of that sort in order to impose more party system. That's nonsense and complete opposite is true.
CGP Grey has amazing videos showing how other election system allow for greater diversity and improve a degree of representation.
3. Again, let's abolish democracy.
4. But how is it a rebuttal to my objections? Maybe we should switch to one party then?
My arguments remains, two parties is not enough, it can't be enough. So people have two options: either it's lesser evil every time when they go to vote. Or the other option is they become mindless supporters and fans of their party and support it whenever it goes.
Obviously too many parties may be a problem as well, but election threshold resolves it very easily.
"I'm not sure how any of this is of any problem to my objections..."
Then I suggest you re-read what I typed, as I frankly addressed this quite directly.
To recapitulate the main idea, however: voters, as a group, end up actually wanting fairly similar things. This, combined with the need for parties to have broad appeal (in order to win elections and hence, have any political relevance), means that few parties or many, they all tend to lead to the same end result: fiscally insolvent government.
Chomsky would have killed it.
Since when is innovation NOT allowed, haven't you heard the old adage, "change or die". This applies across the board as the rest of the world will keep changing and WILL overtake you. Hence the US being focused on keeping at the forfront of ALL innovations. Our ability to rapidly change thus using innovation to our advantage is exactly why the US is the world's largest economy.
It´s not about parties, or a seperation of ideas, really. It´s about solutions. We cannot place solutions in some box. Solutions are created in a continuum, depending on the problem. The perfect government, according to democratic beliefs at least, would be a government of the `people`. Yet the People are choosing representatives that are conforming to 1 of 2 parties. Having 2 sides always polarizes, no matter the scale. I´m not saying having more political parties is better, but at least there is a greater range of ideas. Let the People govern as they should and not politicians depending on cash from those that are wealthy enough to buy votes and agendas. Politicians seem to be so scared these days of saying what they believe is true, no matter the consequences.
Well, that´s my opinion anyway
For me our system of governing is TOO old, too resistant to change, and is based on a VERY different world and is wholy incapable of keeping up with the speed of progress which is ONLY increasing. That's the issue with command structures, they're UNABLE to react quickly to anything as few ppl are given the ability to make decisions and by the time it's law and then enforced they've moved on. Thus law enforcement is ALWAYS at a disadvantage, no matter the improvements, and all laws do is consolidate power both in legal and illegal realms. Thus making it even harder to fight, as they've gotten BETTER and more then that they've gotten better exponentially due to cross pollination, multiple new methods, thus spreading the disease, NOT halting it.
Why have any political parties? Our representatives should be elected by us and for us, not for some national, corporate, or special interest.
It was Bertrand Russell who said this system would see the rise of power of the innovative and imaginative entrepreneurs who would eventually use that power to prevent anyone else from using that system to compete with them.
It's no surprise only 42% of the electorate voted. More people voted in the American Idol finals than the presidential election. Maybe this is because people feel they have more of a say in television shows than their own representative government.
The two party system prevents voters from having any real options, and from having any real influence, because it is a false dichotomy. Under the two-party paradigm, as used in the USA, you either have to choose:
a) lenient social policy & stronger economic policy, or
b) stronger social policy & lenient economic policy.
Where is the option of stronger social policy and stronger economic policy?
Where is the option of lenient social policy and lenient economic policy?
The Jewish guy's closing statement persuaded me.
As for improving our government system, I question if our two-party system will ever "take money out of politics". 94% of public officers are, after all, won by the candidate who raised the most money. Those crappy TV ads evidently work.
The idea of your vote going to your 2nd choice if your first choice loses intrigues me. However, I do worry that such a system would give rise to charismatic extremists sans a party to keep them in check.
I wonder how you feel about Trump in 2019. Did the party keep him in check?
When our founding fathers wrote our constitution they in NO way intended for there to be ANY parties let alone merely two. They intended for each state to be FREE and fully capable to do what's in THEIR state's best interests in ALL matters. In fact that very issue of freedom is the root cause of of the split. BTW the ONLY reason we have a constitution and central gov is bc under the articles of confederation nothing got done whatsoever as it required 100% agreement and the ONLY thing they agreed upon was their right to self govern and George Washington. Hence our first presidential election he got 100% of the vote, in fact they didn't debate it, is was just RIGHT. Hence after he won the war he immediately resigned and left politics and it was solely the fact his gov needed him again due to their infighting that he came back. This was bc BOTH sides could agree on his FAIRNESS and the fact he DIDN'T side on EITHER side, instead he was a mediator and would often CHANGE his mind and go with someone far beneath him and MUCH younger approach all through the war for independence. But by having a two party system you assure the same result the world experienced during the cold war. Each side continually increases the threat level, and spends obscene amounts of money, disregarding their own citizens needs to do so all bc they. MUST win. This type of competition is NO competition as sides gerrymander districts to create as few competitive states as possible. You ask ppl why they don't vote, it's bc they don't believe it matters. THAT is the number one issue and gave us Trump as Americans were willing to risk it as at least he's NOT a "politician" but a businessman thus we see as being very pragmatic but also bc his own party didn't want him. It's also why we got Bernie Sanders which is by far the closest we've gotten to a socialist on a NATIONAL level. However bc of the system Bernie who's independent didn't run as independent but as a democrat. Why? Bc without the backing of a party to fundraise, for infrastructure, and bc we the voters id ourselves as one or the other without need for ANY actual words to even be said. This is completely like making ppl choose between the Catholic church running the world OR communists. You don't like either but ones WORSE. Therefore our system nowadays for voters is between bad and worse NOT a discussion about policy something Trump knows absolutely NOTHING about as he has no belief system nor moral compass. Now will we made wrong decisions hell yah, but we wouldn't have EVER gotten Trump for president if not for the two party system, as Trump his entire life until the "birther" movement been more on the democratic side. Or really NEITHER, but bc he'd driven that movement about Obama's birth, which is ironic as now the left are challenging HIS election credibility. Lol Likewise Trump's daughter making the exact same mistake Clinton did with using a unsecure email to deal with classified data, though of course BOTH sides ignore this as BOTH sides have NO good way to deal with it as the left kept down playing and the right wanted her to go to jail. Obviously both parties will change sides thus showing them for who they truly are, THAT is the price of the parties though luckily the right is right now being a victim of their own success, likewise Britain's "leave" campaign which NEVER expected to win and now is totally unprepared for the logistics of it.
For me the basic reason I'm against the right is bc they don't follow their own ideals except for the tax part though of course this doesn't apply to the wealthy and US corps will NEVER grow on the basis of a tax break bc you can't beat zero. Which is exactly why EVERY country who's tried to enrich itself and drive the economy by giving wealthy more cash has ended up just being out the cash as money has NEVER been what stops them from investing considering they already have plenty. It's bc the US economy is a deficit economy NOT a surplus one. Thus the majority of our jobs come from the service industry, and making things FOR Americans NOT for the rest of the world. Thus empoverishing the middle class ends with a ever increasing about a debt which in turn further decreases their ability to rise out of their financial situation and only helps banks. See the problem! The issue is NOT a choice between small gov and welfare, as the right LOVES corporate welfare. It's just who gets the welfare, corporations OR citizens and guess what BOTH parties give it mostly to corporations as citizens are too poor and completely forgotten in this equation. The SOLE difference is WHICH corps support them as the tech/medical like Dems and DOD like Republicans. Thus they focus their entire time debating a handful of issues as most americans are single issue voters and it works. Thus many Christians vote for Republicans purely bc of the pro life, marriage movement. Or dems bc of the legalization of weed, cheap goods side. Thus it's either a case of religion delusion as EVERY women is free to choose NOT to abort and thus it impacts THEM not at all thus flying in the face of conservative beliefs as they treasure freedom over control, just not in the marriage, abortion realm and drives ppl to donate and back them like the Catholic church even while the left is more similar to their belief system namely that HUMANS matter more then cash. While the right thinks cash is king and that everything will sort itself out just you just leave it alone. NOT!!! As the governments job is to deal with the issues of corporations violating OTHER ppl's rights as they don't pay nor own roads, railways, airports, sea ports, hospitals, air, land, water. Thus ppl MUST be protected against corporations as we are FAR too weak to fight them alone, and it's NOT okay for corporations to dump waste into our rivers, lakes, (public/private) land, just bc it's cheaper. That's the problem with corps, they will ALWAYS choose the cheapest, simplest, easiest solution. This means republican belief that they are "good" smacks totally in the face of reality as those who have LESS actually tend to give MORE, not vs. Plus this system assumes that the church/religious organizations will insure ppl get taken care thus not requiring government interference. Look at the south for that answer! They are FAR more likely to spend their money abroad then locally, as the GOP has another fundamental belief which is opposed that IF you work hard in the US you'll succeed. Thus if your poor it's bc you're lazy, and want a handout. NOT the actual amount of ppl who abuse gov programs is stable and is the same in EVERY country, just like the rate of homosexuals. That's bc there is NOTHING more stressful then having to rely upon gov, especially OUR gov. Thus if you can avoid it, you will PERIOD. Also bc ppl LIKE to work, hence the town in Canada which was give a basic income found that not only did ppl work, they went on to start businesses, and chase their dreams, instead are focused on making sure they have food, a roof over their heads. This is why once ppl have money they can rapidly increase it, as banks play largely into this dynamic as they produce the majority of the world's currency and for NOTHING, based on NOTHING. They also ONLY lend money to the wealthy, thus once you have some wealth it's easy to increase it. Luckily the internet which is totally democratic makes this less of a issue hence more ppl are self employed and is forever rising. However the internet itself is ONLY that way bc the guy who invented it gave it away for FREE!!! He did so bc he knew that IF implemented by corporations it'd NEVER become what he envisioned and thus it could ONLY work if no company could control it. The internet also has a baked in equality, freedom in it, as you are anonymous, thus hackers take extreme exception is ANY one trying to control it, as it's purpose was the free exchange of information. Similar to wikipedia which is based SOLELY on ppl contributing it. This happens at a global scale thus no extremely biased viewpoint finds it way into wikipedia.
The debate is an interesting but pointless one.
The 2 party system is what it is ... for better or worse.
The tradition of America has been federalism. That died though. What we have now is a 2 party tyranny. Concentrating power on the top simply puts 2 or 10 tyrannical parties in charge.
It is a myth that states are given flexibility when the Supreme Court is legislating from the Courts and the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and federal government have made state power meaningless and trivial.
the two party system is only part of the problem , they need to talk about the systems that are creating our problems , 1 we have the federal reserve banks, we have to pay these private banks interest on our own money. 2 you have corporations who are into making money no matter who or what they destroy and don't pay taxes. 3. we have a educational system producing none thinkers. 4 we have a military complex corporations who would love a war every year just to make money. so you see the two party systems made up of people who except money from all of these systems and forget that they are public servants and that is all.
if people would watch this video today. they would truly understand what's at the fundamental root of this election cycle. it would on its own decode the whole mystery behind the trump jump.
I agree!
The corporate-political argument against the current system is so reductionist it's unreal.
Two choices of tyranny is barely not a choice. We need to recognize that no one has the right to govern anyone else. We need to live freely and dependent on each other, not those in power with guns pointed at our heads.
The first rule in any controlled society, is keep them entertained...
16:28
"We have the stupid party and we have the silly party"
-Truth
I just noticed the youtube description has 2 of the names wrong on who is for and against.
ask a homeless vet. case closed.
there have always been homeless veterans yet the two party system has not always been broken.
Corporations aren't a control of gov't, but rather a mutual partner. Remember that corporations were invented by the state and don't arise from private companies in an actual free market.
The control lies in the who prints this fiat, monopoly money we use. The Federal Reserve and international banking cartels hold all the power.
The problem is not whether a government has 1 party, 2 parties or more. The party question is a red herring. The dysfunction is caused when politicians are funded (bought and paid for) by private interests.
The fast growing Green and Libertarian parties shows a desire for change.
We the people have to fight for our freedom, for our voting rights, our democracy, and Constitutional Rights not to be take away from us.
All presidents, candidates to presidency, cenators, governors, all parties; who take money from the 1%, will fight for the interest of the 1%. and all parties who ONLY accept money from the people, will fight for the interest of the PEOPLE.
It is crystal clear and common sence.
Each of us fighting in our own individual capacity. Together contributing for our common interest, the interest of the PEOPLE, we Will succed and the elite does not wants all of us to know.
By us.. the 99%, being our own veridic media, using youtube, facebook, tweeter, word of mouth ect.
Some of us donating our $ 27.00
Some of us getting out protesting.
Some of us signing pettitions.
Some of us working or volunteering.
Some of us suing and demanding justice.
Some of us attending meetings, devates, rallies ect.
ALL of us VOTING!
The 1%, throughout their CORRUPT puppets in power, are, and still trying to devide us.. the 99% to weaken us.
But WE, the People.. are going to stay TOGETHER.. ..
I'm agreeing more with the side that I'm not on in this debate. I think that in itself shows the variety of opinions that should be represented in political systems everywhere. Look at this debate, I only see two sides. One side says hey the two party system is bad because it stops the people in the center from fixing everything (there own opinions) and the other just says it isn't so bad. I'd be able to represent another side of the argument that says the two party system is bad because it keeps people with an opinion other than the main party view out of the political process which means that some people don't feel represented - I also argue that it is an intentional effect to keep competition of opinions out and that in itself is immoral. There was another time in history when Americans didn't feel like we were represented and that made us rather ungovernable - I don't think we are near any tipping point that would bring us to violence, but I do think it is a better state of things if more people have their point of view represented. There is an alternative, practical, and real idea that I think many people would see as a rather good idea and that is proportional representation (PR). PR is used by democratic nations today, so as I said it is very real.
What is particularly troubling about that is the relative population sizes. Liberia's population is just 4 million - a little over 1% of the US population - even if Liberia is only barely watching this more than the US, that makes it at least 100 times more popular per capita. Similarly Canada has 12th the population of the US (30 million), so Canada views this twelves times more per capita than US viewers.
The issue is that ALL republics or democratic systems of governance move towards either becoming a failed state, being overtaken bc they're too busy/focused on infighting and who gets power rather then focusing on solving issues. This is also why republics are continually engaging in civil war while the east doesn't have that issue, with Japan coming in at a whooping 2600 YEARS and counting atm as the LONGEST gov. Hence the eastern civilizations are 1000 YEARS older then the west, thus while Europe were totally tribal, China was dealing with sanitation, irrigation, and public education. Thus we truly don't understand their stance as we cannot begin to imagine that history as to them this whole period of "democracy" and the west means little, thus their strategies to deal with issues are TOTALLY opposite, it's ALL about the long term, though to be fair for them a 30-50 yr plan IS short term to them. while the west does EVERYTHING in 2-4yr increments and tend to avoid dealing with issues until they're critical and they have no choice since acting carries risk, namely that it fails, makes things worse, and harms Americans economically OR physically. Thus politicians have given away most of their power to corps since if they do horrible things both sides can use it to pass regulations without complaint or corps trying to stop it.
Hence the US has a LONG history of allowing horrible tragedies to occur THEN finally put some controls in place, whereas the east rarily if ever governs by reaction.
Duh - of course that is true. Big money controls both parties.
Next question.
To the five people who Disliked this video; I would be interested in hearing you veiws on the subject - "The Two-Party System is Making America Ungovernable". Because I think the Debaters mand an compelling arguement and answered the audence questions to a satisfaction... So if have what you belive to be better ideas on the matter Please let me hear it, and anyone else who believe they have a solid view as well!
everybody is broke but the bank
So, half of the audience agrees with the motion. The real question is, does that majority believe in having more parties or NONE? Also, does it annoy anybody at all when somebody equates intelligence to the number of degrees he/she has earned? Is it just me? Dinesh D'Souza said it best: "I've met a few who's education exceeded their intelligence." I may have paraphrased that!
Why has Liberia viewed this video more than the US or Canada? Just wonderin'
the two party system is not broken, the two party mentality is. the problem is less the structure of the system and more the apathy and the laziness of political thought amongst american citizens. Opinions should not be regurgitated from bias media outlets that tell you what to think but from political activism that derives from a well informed public. if we inform ourselves our parties will reflect that.
Maybe it isn't that we are ungovernable, but that the government should let people govern themselves more.
its not government that is suppressing us from governing ourselves its our own apathy
Libertarians are influenced by corporations as well.
even this debate is a joke..
This debate could use more academics and scholars, and less journalists and media commentators. It lacks any depth or insight.
The first part of Mr. Chafets remarks work well... if you are to young to remember when JFK was president, when Johnson was, When Nixon was, When Ford, Carter and Even Reagan were. For those of us who do we are not buying the oatmeal he is claiming is steak.
All these guys should be in power I love them.
33:44 his statistics are totally neglecting to proving the foundation for our belief about why republics are best as NO country except Greece has EVER been a democracy as EVERYONE (allowed to take part) directly took part for a period of time in EVERY branch of government and was done by random drawing, thus no person EVER held power OR could game the system.
In the past this issue was that ppl WANTED control, elites thought citizens uncapable of making a "educated" decision, but mainly bc it would be impossible to do at such a large scale as Greece was a city, state. However nowadays we could easily be one as there is NO need for a representative, as we all could be involved in the comfort of our own homes, thanks to the internet.
This would be WAY better then republics as the masses do make GOOD decisions, so much so that when a Swedish scientist created a app to deal with quantum computing, the public was able to instinctively make the right decisions and solve problems the computer and ALL their math couldn't and we ALWAYS came up with the MOST effective, quickest method. Crazy huh. Thus is the power of the collective we. The issue ONLY is that we need enough ppl involved. If the pool is too small you'll get poor ideas, but once sufficiently large the BEST solution is ALWAYS found, on ALL topics even a topic like the app where ppl playing it had almost ZERO clue what they were even doing. This btw he did bc humans have a quantum computers for brains and quatum theory means ALL solutions are tried at once thus crazy things like electrons figuring out if their pathway is blocked and NONE going that direction, or the fact that if you look for a photon to be a particle you'll find a particle, and if you look for a wave you'll see a wave. Thus it's reacting to the test BEFORE reaching the test, which definitely might explain why if you threaten a plant only verbally there is NO change but if you get scissors and PLAN to act without words the plants reacts. Thus is the power of making a decision.
The hardest I've laughed in months was when Arianna said that she just wants something to shake up Washington. As a liberal, I really dislike Arianna, and part of it is this kind of irresponsible short-sightedness that is detectible in a lot of what she says.
The guy at 1:16:45 misidentified instant runoff voting as approval voting. The core problem though is the first-past-the-post voting system which makes us choose between the lesser of two evils. The lack of competition ensures that the two parties can get away with murder.
What we need is open non-partisan primaries with approval voting. The two candidates with the highest approval rating would go on to the general election.
This debate should have been about the need for government, not about the two party system. It seemed like at times that is what they were kinda, sorta arguing about. This debate was not one of iq2 best debates.
Are Old White Guys disproportionately represented on the wrong, deceptive & oppressive side of the argument in the Intellegence² Debates or are they just wrong with that much frequency?
You think it was broken back then?
(At 48 mins) Obama would be regarded as a radical now.
The word intelligence tends to scare most North Americans. If this was labeled silly cat videos, there could be millions of hits.
Communism means you don't have a say in what you can do. Do you believe you should be told what to do by bureaucrats?
Both parties are predominantly State centric, bc people believe Gov is solution to bring about their control freaking vision of the world.
It's social democrats vs christian democrats.
Both essentially fascistic in collectivist sense. One is more socialistic and second more religious.
I think you simply a system where the elected will have full reign to enact the ideas they ran on
A typical annoying announcer. First of all these are online debates, they aren't broadcast with commercials. Also what's with the awkward pre speech question? They all gave a flip, funny answer but it seemed he was serious and then pompously has to bellow, "Ladie and Gentleman......". Really bad and whoever produced this should have shut that down. .
cool, so, a republican (which Brooks is) Who consistently talks about cutting spending is somehow liberal..... yeaaa.... right.
Only in USA is there only 2 parties every other country in the worl has more than 5 - more is better trust me.
The U.K?... by Two Party system it means there are only ever two possible Partys in power. Which is the same in alot/most Western Democracy's (The UK for one).
More can be better because are strict and has percentage of each party, their system tho falls apart easily like in Europe although it can be less stable it requires to hold electtions every year if a prime they cant agree with prime minister, and have to hold electons all over again...lets say our gov is just more stable..the politicians are obssessed with UNLOGICAL MINDS ONLY GIVING A SHIT ABOUT THEIR FUCKING FROFITS while turning everyone elses against each other while they hide in their little fucking building with ppl with GUNS
I would beg to differ, the only more effective governments than 2 party ones, are one party ones. You need only look at rankings of countries by G.D.P and how many partys there country has. Multiple party systms dont work, and never will and thats just the sad truth.
Every other country in the world? So North Korea? Venezuela? China? Russia?
Connor stevens It's ridiculous to only have 2 partys. It's like saying the world is black and white when in reality its full of grey areas.
Specially when the President or minister re-runs for a second term its like the Deal or No Deal show you keep it or you take the other even if you dont want any of them.
It gives only an illusion of choice.
Here are direct quotes from George Washington in his farewell address. Source: The Independent Chronicle, September 26, 1796
19 Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations, which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.
20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination's. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
. was
.
IQ2-worst panel, worst debate I have watched to date...this whole debate should get a do over with a new panel. I feel less intelligent for having watched it.
Do you mean with regards to voting? Cause voting is stupid. But if you mean activism..then ok but you forgot Radfem. X)
Huffington post publishes a lot of misogynistic apologetics.
. was
democrats and republicans...same shit, different piles
Same shit different restroom
devide &
Why dont government and political parties stay away from early education and let parents take their responsabiliy in the education of them childrem as they should. Pay to parents to be at home and solve 2 problema with one stone.
Perhaps because some parents write like this:
"Why dont government and political parties stay away from early education and let parents take their responsabiliy in the education of them childrem as they should. Pay to parents to be at home and solve 2 problema with one stone."
?