Why do we insist on only recognizing the two party system?

Question

I was just curious why do you insist on voting the lesser of two evils when there is a great candidate in Bob Barr? He may not be out in front like the rest but he is out there and if you looked into it a little yourself you may decide to like him.

So why do you insist that only the Dems and Rebs are running?

Have you ever looked at/voted for a different party?

Is there any reason you would not vote for Bob Barr?

Answer 1

There is an effort called the National Popular Vote that will reform the election process and give third party candidates like Bob Barr a better chance of winning should it go into effect.

Meanwhile we have to be realistic, Bob Barr doesn't stand a chance. (Believe me I would probably vote for him if he actually had a reasonable chance of winning) But sadly we are stuck with the two-party system until something is reformed.

http://nationalpopularvote.com/

Answer 2

Because that's what we live in.  When you live in a democracy where you directly elect single representatives to single offices, there is a strong socioeconomic tendency for that to turn into a two-person competition.

If we lived in a Parliamentary democracy, where representatives were chosen for a body by parties based on the percentage of the vote that a party received, then voting for third parties wouldn't be throwing away your vote.  But it our system, it is.

It's kind of like why people don't stick forks in electrical outlets.  It's because if you do that, you'll get burned.  Even if you don't think you SHOULD get burned, you'll still get burned.  Now, it might make sense to rewire your house so that wouldn't happen anymore, but it doesn't make sense to keep sticking forks in the outlets "in protest."  Basically what I'm saying is, if you don't like the two-party system, then what you want to do is advocate an overhaul of the type of democracy we exhibit, or just move to one of the many places that have Parliamentary democracies.  But that won't be accomplished by quietly throwing away your vote every election cycle.

Answer 3

Bob barr has not made a big splash and not like apt to.

The only way that he would have a chance is to do away with the party system "not likely".

I would not vote for him because he is non electable.

Answer 4

i'm not sure, i must give some thought to this

Answer 5

I'm considering Bob Barr myself.  For once, Misanthrope, we agree on something.  Have a star.

Several people here act like you win a prize for predicting the winner of a presidential race.  It's an election, not a #@$@$! lottery.  Too many of us want what's popular, not what is right.

I answered a related question over at Elections.  Nicole J was kind enough to give me Best Answer for it.  You might find it of interest.

Answer 6

all politicans are full of red tape. that's what the problem is. it isn't about 2 parties. that's just a cover-up to conceal the facts.

Answer 7

The problem with having too many parties is the watering down of votes.  If they are spread between too many parties, we don't get a good representation of the people's choice.

Two parties, however, are just not enough.  Especially when they really are not that different.  Sure, they may talk two different sides, but in the end - its all the same.  They are politicians - and when they get in office, they know they have to 'play the game' to keep the lobbies happy!

Answer 8

How about the fact that no third-party candidate will have a shot in h**l of winning until, say, 2050?

It's the same in Canada. We have four major parties, but only two of them have ever been in power, and there's no sign that they'll be joined by either of the others.