This country is extremely segmented but in a limited way. Impactful arguments in the highest halls of power are decided between democrats and republicans only. I look at other countries' governments and see a multitude of parties making up their legislatures and executive branches.

How did it come to be that we are so segmented? Is it a necessity of the american society? Would it be better if we had 5 major political parties or is the current two party system the best way to go about it?

I think having the power consolidated into two parties is more likely to create roadblocks and will stop any true coalition from being formed.

it's not a marketplace if some people have guns and some don't.

I finally realized who Kafkapoe reminds me of.

I don't know bdk, this is actually an interesting question.

Lol...nice link.

OP: Part of what took us here is the inability of people to separate from a party. I'm a liberal on most things, but I am conservative in some areas. I've changed my mind on some things just from reading a post on this board. Many people think if you are a conservative you can't have liberal views..."I must think like a Republican because I lean Republican."

Part of the problem comes from divisive language. This comes from labeling people (are politically active liberals against free speech). It comes from people like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Keith Olbermann. People who know nothing but hate, and refuse to allow ideas from someone simply because they think differently. It comes from language that I have been guilty of. Hear an idea you don't like "typical liberal" "typical conservative." Right wing radical. Democrats are socialists.

Part of it is too personal. Many of us on here (guilty at times) feel as if we must defend the party we lean towards. Many people in real life are like this as well. We are too closely tied to the party that is most aligned with our thinking. True moderates or independents aren't found enough. Not enough people think about things and make up their minds.

The internet and 24 hour biased news is a huge step back for America. Instead of focusing on the fact that we are in a war, we see repeated loops of a mans church. Instead of looking for ways to fix the economy we are transfixed on if a woman says she wants her opponent shot simply because she mentions another assassination. The personal things that shouldn't even get close to mattering now matter the most. When's the last time Americans really agreed on anything?

Kind of a rant...but that's kind of how I feel and I know I'm just as guilty as some people for the strict divide.

[QUOTE=kafkapoe;4436865] Impactful arguments in the highest halls of power are decided between the wealthy only.

How did it come to be that we are so segmented? Is it a necessity of the american society?

The most significant divide that exists in the U.S political system is not between the 2 parties it is between the majority and the wealthy.

Two party system is terrible and stupid. We need to implement better election methods to make it so that doesn't happen (IRV, proportional representation, etc.) If, for example, we changed the House so that all seats were elected via proportional representation at a national level, we might well have dozens of parties with representation in Congress. Most other democracies have already done this and when we create a democracy in another country (Iraq), we do this. Here, we're back in the Dark Ages though.

No, it's between the people who support those two parties (the minority) and everyone else.

No, there are plenty of them. The problem is that the system is so skewed against them that they've mostly stopped bothering to vote.

It is obscene to think that Americans could, or should, agree on anything. Try finding 20 people you know who agree very closely on most issues, there are 300 million people in the US, there is no way that there will ever be a real consensus on any issue. But that is a positive in a free society as anyone can try almost anything, no matter how crazy it sounds, and if it works it can spread slowly or like wildfire. The whole point of a marketplace is to exchange things, take what you like ignore what you don't. It doesn't work in a centralized system because one group of preferences has to win out over all others. Thats why people clamor for a consensus, because it affirms their position, makes them feel it will be implemented indefinitely.

[QUOTE=ShttsWeak;4440711] interesting point. but why do you think we only have 2 major political parties?

thanks jah. first post of yours that i found enlightening rather than just amusing.

[QUOTE=kafkapoe;4444468] The system itself is designed in a way that 2 major parties naturally emerge.

AlexM pretty much said why. Since US elections are winner take all (rather than proportional representation), you need the support of a majority or it's meaningless. So the strategy becomes to position yourself towards the center. Someone who appeals to only a group who isn't large enough to win outright will just waste his time and money. The Democratic Party might, for example, have slightly more favorable rhetoric regarding drug use. But they can't actually stand for the legalization of marijuana if it would turn more people off than it would bring in. The system naturally selects for two choices that are slightly different variations of mainstream thinking.

Republicans plugging their ears and screaming "I'm not listening! I'm not listening!" for the past 20 years might have something to do with the stifling of the discourse. They are still living in a Reagan era wet dream of trickle down economics and massive defense expenditures. Anything that deviates from that standard dogma is immediately deemed "liberal aka open minded... f*** that Age of Enlightenment sh**.".

[QUOTE=kafkapoe;4444468] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_Law

Good post.

Bad post.

There was an article on National Review just a few days ago about the GOP running out of ideas and relying too much on the Reagan era "Victory Culture".

Yea, I'm really coming out of left field here.

Its true that the average person who identifies with a certain group is going to become biased to some extant but politicians and corporations present issues to the public that take advantage of that human tendency.

There is nothing conservative or republican about engaging in war. If I am against the war it obviously does not mean I am liberal or democrat.

I sometimes wonder what kind of differences would be present in todays political environment had Gore won the election.

Would that democratic administration have reacted much differently to 9/11?

I don't think they would have reacted much differently and if thats the case than it is logical to assume that Republicans would have a critical view of whatever military response the Gore administration chose to take. That argument would need to characterize the Gore GOP as being excessive.

If I do make that assumption than I have come to the conclusion that there is not a genuine divide on policy's between the 2 parties.

Liberals can be for war just as conservatives can be against it.

Your previous post is a clear example of why this problem exists. Both sides pointing the finger at the other side like the other party is all to blame. Both parties are to blame.

I wasn't trying to say that all liberals were against war or anything, so sorry if I presented that. I was truly trying to be in the middle on the whole situation.

I'm not sure how much a divide on policys really exists, but the divide is in Americans probably more so than in politicians at times. If I'm a Republican a great idea can't come from a liberal. I must look to slam it...look at its source...a liberal! And vice versa. We are caught up in looking at the letter by the persons name who is speaking and not in what they are saying. We can't come to a consensus because one non big deal on Fox News is a huge deal on MSNBC and vice versa. We listen to angry people like Olbermann, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh. We let them tell us how to think. We don't think about understanding what the other person says as much as HATING what they say.

We've been told we are a red state and a blue state and nothing in the middle matters. Our politicians have to pander to the extremes of each side. No one discusses things anymore really. It turns into a shouting match (guilty again ) and attacks on the other person. This is much easier than trying to point out why something is wrong. This is much easier than being civil. It makes us think our point is so much stronger when we can exclaim how ignorant the other person is.

I agree you didnt make that assumption.

There purpose in alot of ways is setting parameters for whats discussed. You have an event or idea and the respective parties form there stance or conclusion which in affect sets boundaries on whats discussed by the media.