A Defense Of The Two Party System

[Matt Collins]

A Defense Of The Two Party System

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/in-defense-of-the-twoparty-system.html

and

http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2010/02/religious-freedom-and-its-critics.html


.

[TastyWheat]

That's a pretty crappy defense. If "getting things done" is more important than representing the people then why not make it a one-party system? Not even the framers intended government to run smoothly. Why else did they have the House grow along with the population (up until 1913)?

[noxagol]

Why stop at one party, why not just have a single dictator who's whims we must follow or die. Lots of things would get done.

[Peace&Freedom]

The problem with the two party system is exactly that it does "get things done." It gets the job done of providing false choices to the electorate, the job the establishment wants done. The job the people want done---protecting liberty rights of all individuals, avoiding entangling alliances and foreign influences, maintaining sound money based on gold or other honest weights and measures, defending national sovereignty---is precisely the job that WILL NOT GET DONE under the current duopoly.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

That's a pretty crappy defense. If "getting things done" is more important than representing the people then why not make it a one-party system? Not even the framers intended government to run smoothly. Why else did they have the House grow along with the population (up until 1913)?

As the Truth our nation was founded on is self evident and unalienable, with it being a natural law perceived not in the minds of the people but in their collective consciences, we are a one party system.
The two party system was devised to interpret the Constitution as the Supreme Court in its infancy did not do this as it did not know how to express its power choosing to write Writs of Mandimus instead.

[andrewh817]

The first articles defense boils down to "Less choice is better!"........