12-16-2005, 03:20 PM
Ghostiger,Dec 16 2005, 08:35 AM Wrote:This isnt something I made by the way. Game theory shows it over and over that a 2 party system moves both parties to the center of the whole populace. The icecream vendors positioning themselves on a beach is the classic example.While a two party system does ensure a reasonably robust opposition, which is a check/balance feature required for open government, the tendency to grow together may not be a best case solution, it may be "a best that can be managed" solution.
We have a 2 party sysem because its the nature of our election process not because the 2 current paties are trying hold a 3rd one down(they are trying to do that of course though.)
[right][snapback]97265[/snapback][/right]
It is in the interests of those who are partisans, backers of parties, but not inside the political box, to limit their choices: the more parties that exist, the more influence pedaling and expense they go through.
What happens, policy wise, is a frequent use of false dillema to define policy choices "there are only two choices, ours and theirs."
What about that third thing? Even a dead lock breaking compromise does not create a viable third course of action, merely a modification to one of the two previous courses of action.
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete