Two Party Government Really Better?

Why are most governments limiting themselves to 2 main parties? You have the Democrats and the Republicans, yet you will have Democrats who act like Republicans with their ideals, and Republicans that will act as Democrats.

This eventually limits everything, as you are labeled and then considered to have the ideals of that label. In California, most Republicans in the legislative signed a "No New Taxes" pledge, and a group of them broke it and voted to raise taxes on us here, noted as one of the largest tax increases ever.

Raising taxes is something Democrats love to do, as it increases the governments power, while Republicans on the other hand are in favor of a more limited government.

So why do we stick with a two party system? Does it really have that much more of a benefit over a pooled system, in which you run on you own ideals and not those of the party that you align yourself with?

So why do we stick with a two party system? Does it really have that much more of a benefit over a pooled system, in which you run on you own ideals and not those of the party that you align yourself with?

Because its easier to get recognized/get votes/get money which is pretty much what politicians care about rather than trying to make useful laws for their state....

Actually in my country there are lots of Parties. I think it's better that way.

There are dozens of parties- no one likes them though.
If we had three, or four, or 10 main parties (and thus candidates), then they could win elections with only 11% of the total vote. That could be remedied by making each election a tournament-style system of elimination, but that would make our government even slower then it already is.
Don't get me wrong, slow can be good, but it can be bad too. There are times when you just don't have 12 months to do a full election. :|
More funders also... so criticism about how corporations play too big a role in American Policy Making would have more ground/be more popular.

Personally, I'd prefer a system where people aren't labeled. A lot of people will vote for someone because of their party, with no or little regard to their policies. I suppose you could fix that by making Voting a privilege (not that it isn't one now) granted to those who take a competence test about policies, economics, and other important grounds- I really don't like a country where you can vote via flipping a coin.
Concerns with a "competence test" center around questions like "who would make it?". References to pre-Civil War Southern US would be rampant. :|

There are dozens of parties- no one likes them though.
If we had three, or four, or 10 main parties (and thus candidates), then they could win elections with only 11% of the total vote. That could be remedied by making each election a tournament-style system of elimination, but that would make our government even slower then it already is.
Don't get me wrong, slow can be good, but it can be bad too. There are times when you just don't have 12 months to do a full election. :|
More funders also... so criticism about how corporations play too big a role in American Policy Making would have more ground/be more popular.

Actually in the countries with more than 2 or 3 popular parties, things are defined by Ballotage or direct election. If a party gets more than the 45% percent of the voting base, they get elected. If not, the 2 more popular parties go on a one-on-one definition (Ballotage).

Actually in the countries with more than 2 or 3 popular parties, things are defined by Ballotage or direct election. If a party gets more than the 45% percent of the voting base, they get elected. If not, the 2 more popular parties go on a one-on-one definition (Ballotage).

What if everyone who voted for 5th and 7th place would have voted for 3rd, where it not for 5th and 7th? The candidate who ranked 3rd in the overall election would have gotten the most votes, where the lowest 1-3 (or some ratio like 20%) candidates where dropped.
I faintly remember an activity about this in Stats class, every different way of doing it turned out a different winner. ;-;

There are dozens of parties- no one likes them though.
If we had three, or four, or 10 main parties (and thus candidates), then they could win elections with only 11% of the total vote. That could be remedied by making each election a tournament-style system of elimination, but that would make our government even slower then it already is.
Don't get me wrong, slow can be good, but it can be bad too. There are times when you just don't have 12 months to do a full election. :|
More funders also... so criticism about how corporations play too big a role in American Policy Making would have more ground/be more popular.

Personally, I'd prefer a system where people aren't labeled. A lot of people will vote for someone because of their party, with no or little regard to their policies. I suppose you could fix that by making Voting a privilege (not that it isn't one now) granted to those who take a competence test about policies, economics, and other important grounds- I really don't like a country where you can vote via flipping a coin.
Concerns with a "competence test" center around questions like "who would make it?". References to pre-Civil War Southern US would be rampant. :|

Actually its against the constitution to administer a competence test in order to vote....

a two party system is functional so long as the people themselves appoint those that know how to lead and can lead effectively, instead of caring if a candidate is youthful and energetic and has lofty ideals. Plato himself said that all democracy was doomed to fail, and countless times over this can be seen in other nations, and slowly with our own. ever since 9/11, the nation has been turned on its head, and people sacrificed their own liberties for the sake of "protection" and safety, something benjamin franklin himself said would also destroy democracy in the US.

it can work, but it is like communism, in that it is perfect on paper, but applying it to a real world scenario, and adding in the human element to the equation, oft times it can lead to anarchy if it (power) falls into the wrong hands.

In New Jersey, there's a 3-way race for governor. A lot of people really don't like the Democratic candidate (Corzine, the incumbent) and the Republican candidate (Christie). However, I keep hearing over and over that "a vote for Daggett [the independent candidate] is a vote for Corzine", and people seem to hate Corzine more than Christie, so it's likely that even though there's a good chance Daggett would get enough votes to be elected if everyone voted for who they actually wanted, he'll be just like every other independent candidate ever.

If something like instant-runoff voting was used, non-major-party candidates would actually have a chance at being elected.

What if everyone who voted for 5th and 7th place would have voted for 3rd, where it not for 5th and 7th? The candidate who ranked 3rd in the overall election would have gotten the most votes, where the lowest 1-3 (or some ratio like 20%) candidates where dropped.
I faintly remember an activity about this in Stats class, every different way of doing it turned out a different winner. ;-;

Actually it doesn't matter. That's how politics work. You could apply the same logic in every choice or every election and you'd never have a winner. The 2 most voted have the most support. Then it's up to people whether they choose one of the remaining parties or they choose not to vote.

In New Jersey, there's a 3-way race for governor. A lot of people really don't like the Democratic candidate (Corzine, the incumbent) and the Republican candidate (Christie). However, I keep hearing over and over that "a vote for Daggett [the independent candidate] is a vote for Corzine", and people seem to hate Corzine more than Christie, so it's likely that even though there's a good chance Daggett would get enough votes to be elected if everyone voted for who they actually wanted, he'll be just like every other independent candidate ever.

If something like instant-runoff voting was used, non-major-party candidates would actually have a chance at being elected.

i assume youre also from the garden state with that, or just well informed. =s
dude, you cant change the channel without seeing another one of corzine's attack ads, which i cannot personally say i have seen from christie.

Politicians are all rotten. Pick your less rotten apple.

I say the two party is good, but has it's flaws

The multi-party system leads to worse ( thinks of the Weimer Republic in Germany Before WW1)

Politicians are all rotten. Pick your less rotten apple.

Well, even this wont help much. In California, a good amount of the Republicans that are in office now had signed "No New Taxes" pledges, saying they would not take part, vote yes for, or propose any new taxes for California. Well, come to them having issues with the budget, the Democrats had a set of taxes and such they wanted passed, but they would need some Republicans to do so. In the end, a few of the Republicans that had signed the "No New Taxes" pledge ended up being "talked into" voting yes on. One of those Republican, actually went about campaigning for his position in office on never in a million years raising taxes.

i assume youre also from the garden state with that, or just well informed. =s
dude, you cant change the channel without seeing another one of corzine's attack ads, which i cannot personally say i have seen from christie.

Making attack ads against Corzine is way too easy.

A two party system is not a purely American thing, but I think it works better than a multi-party system.

If you have a two party system, you have a basic competition between two entities, who form concrete opinions on the major issues, and actualize policy based on those opinions. If you have a multi-party system, you have a lot more complexity in politics, as various parties form coalitions between each other to grab the majority and thus power. If there is like five large mainstream parties, and you as a voter are voting for one of them, you have less voting power than if there are two large mainstream parties. In the two party scenario, you are voting solely for your party, who is the sole competitor of the other party. In the five party scenario, you vote for your party, but you don't really know or have any influence on what they'll do in the coalition; they may have to involve themselves with a party you absolutely detest, and that's happened a lot in history.

I think the clearest example of problems in multi-party politics is France. From what I understand of their system, they have too many parties, and they're always allying, falling out of alliances, and their government keeps collapsing and they have to reform. Again this is from what I've HEARD of it, and I am not exactly an expert on what goes on over there, but it follows the model of what I've heard.