America's two party system - is that democracy?

actualy we have something to the order of 70 parties here. I am a member of the constitution party myself and that's how I voted in the elections. We also have ballots that allow for a person to write in a name if they don't like any of the choices on the ballot. Being a republic, much is left up to each state. The rules for a candidate to get on a ballot in a state vary from state to state. the problem is, we apear to be a 2 party system but it is only by apathy that this happened. People got so apathetic that they found it easier to side with either democrats or republicans. The media is a large acomplice in this as are the 2 big parties, they have great vested interest in each other both monetarily and politicly. In order to break this, it will take a vast number of the public to continualy hound the main stream media to give the other parties more time and exposure. I find it funny, in a sad sort of way, that people in this country were screaming change then voted for one of the 2 same parties we have been electing for over a century. How is THAT change?

I personally feel that in a democratic country people should have more choices to choose between different political parties.This will end the monopaly of the existing parties and force them to perform inorder to win the elections.As such there is a general belief that a healthy competion always improves one's performance.!!

the US is open to other political parties other than the main parties, democrat and republican. there are other existing parties that participated in the last US presidential election such as the libertarian, green, and the party of nader. but the two main parties are simply too dominant that any chances from the other parties to win are obliterated. so the US does not have a two-party system. however, i will say that election is democratic if voters are given free choice among candidates. and it is the votes of the people that matter most to the determination of the next leader.

Well first we are really not a Democracy system we are a Republic. Second our current system is not what we started with only what we ended up with. You are correct in your assessment that it is prohibitive.

I think it is less democratic. In the least election, there were more than just the two tickets running for the presidential position, though only the two main ones were covered, though a few states had more than the two on the ballots. In my state, you only have the two options, and no write-in even. I remember when I was younger and people were talking of Nader, of Perot, and so on. People in my community were fond of those people, but they could not vote for either when the day came. To say there are only two sides when there are many interests to protect is silly... or cold hearted. As both of those parties take simular stances on many issues, there is no way to ensure true democracy. Even with multiple parties, some are still left out, so with only two, it is even more unbalanced. Some friends from the UK laugh and joke during out elections. Our cute little democracy, and how we love to spread it though we ourselves are unsure of how it is. Even many Americans are confused on how it is supposed to work out. Then again, the people never elect; it is the electorial college.

I think we have multi parties system too except it is the two major and well established political parties like republican party and democratic party always got the most electorate college votes that got them the right to govern, so it seem like USA is a two party democratic system rather than like India. It will be nice to have a few more choices of dominant political party and individual during election as far as i am concerned, but it is going to be tough for other political party to gain supports in USA since voters are so used to the two dominant parties system now and it is hard to change.

I would have to think the two party system is less democratic than multiple parties (unless all the multiple parties are too much alike, I would suppose!) but it is more democratic than a one party system!

Technically, we aren't a two-party system. There are various other parties that have presidential and congressional candidates every year and we're free to vote for them if we choose. The problem is, the media doesn't spend enough time talking about those candidates so nobody knows who they are.

Meh, seems like you got the concept pretty well. I don't like the fact that we have ANY sort of party system, myself. It seems better to skip the parties entirely and just have all the politicians representing themselves and whatever ideas they tout. I mean they do that anyway and adding parties into the mix just restricts things and causes trouble. It doesn't allow for as much variety and therefore as much choice as I think we should have. So I'll say it's a FLAWED democratic system. Perhaps in some ways, dehabilitatively so.

There has been a lot shared here so far and I can not add anything to what has been said on those issues. But I do want to share some history. Over the last 232 years we have had several dominant parties that had come into popularity and power only to fade away as other parties have become more popular. Briefly, some of the parties of past presidents were: Republican = 18 Democrat = 14 Federalist = 2 Democratic-Republican = 4 Whig = 4 Union = 1 So we have had 6 parties of presidential power in our history. Whether the Democratic and Republican parties will be here for the long haul is yet to be seen.

I don't hold with a "Party System" of any kind. The two party system was a big mistake that should have been corrected a long time ago. We are all Americans and all members of government should be working together for the benefit of the people instead of arguing and griping between themselves.

After going through the discussion started by you,I would like to make the folowing few points. *America has many political parties on record but virtually it is a two-party system in practice.*People do have opportunity to choose any one of them, but they mostly choose one of the two:Democrat or Republican. Why? I think it is so because the two Parties represent/safeguard the vital interests of the ruling classes there, i.e.,the industrialists, the oil-sharks, the war-material producers &c who also control the media, both print and electronic.They fund these parties.Money is spent to influence the voter.There is apparently no limit on the expenditure.Therefore people/parties with not such monetay strength fail to fight the propaganda onslaught by either of the two parties.The moneybags prefer this system.For example, in India, they want to have this two party system as it is in the US or UK.There is a constant propaganda agaist having so many partis here. This is not to say that having so many political parties is the best. Certaily not.Unless you restrain the money power which controls the propaganda and publicty, no democracy can succeed.People who have worked honestly and sincerely for the welfare of the voters have failed (to get elected) in the face of money power.Money is used not only for publicity but also to buy votes and to induce the voter in many other ways. Lastly, what is the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans? Aren't they the two sides of the same coin?

The two-party system in America has shifted over time (Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was a third party candidate) and I expect it to shift again. I can't exactly blame the two-party system on the government, that blame lies on the mindset of voters. Because we have the US congress and senate and a state congress and senate, we have plenty of opportunities other than the presidential election to elect candidates of many parties, without fearing a "winner take all" situation, but we rarely do. People fear that a vote for a third party is a vote against the majority party that they would rather win. Thus, most Americans consider third party votes a wasted vote. Personally, I don't think it is a wasted vote at all. One should vote with the party that they agree with the most, even if they know that their candidate is not going to win. If one ever wants a third party to have a chance to win, it's not going to happen suddenly. It needs supporters to develop and become more known. The funniest thing about our two-party system is that both parties are moderate. Yes, they have their differences (moderate-left vs moderate-right), but many of those differences are either fairly insignificant or something that is not capable of being achieved in one term. I suppose it is better that way, because it keeps most Americans at least fairly content.

The Democrats and Republicans make it tough for any third party to get on all the ballots. I think it is less democratic having limited choices. There must be more done to make elections fairer for third parties. Many third party candidates drop out because they just can't compete. They don't have the money or the backing power. When third parties do have the money campaigning would be a waste because they can't get on all the ballots. That was one of the reasons Ron Paul dropped out. That and he felt he could do more being a Republican.

The problem we have is less with the system but more with the people who exercise their right to vote. There are numerous parties in this country, there were several candidates in fact, who ran for president. Just we didn't hear about them for the most part. What it comes down to is that most people believe there is only the two parties and the rest is essentially independent people who by themselves never will have power. Many don't want their vote to go to waste as they call it. Therefore, instead of voting for the candidate they see as the right person for the job, they vote for one of those two who represent the two major parties in this country, which they call voting for the lesser evil or something like that. Their thinking is that this way they at least have a chance that the candidate they most dislike won't be elected. If they would vote for one of the also ran candidates, in their opinion the chance would increase to have the worst person elected. Yet, their thinking is wrong. If they would vote for the person they believe in, say the candidate of the Green party, chances are that other people might vote for this person, too. Most people discuss politics before the election, and the favored candidate will be brought up with all the reasons as to why people should vote for him/her. Unfortunately, now most people only discuss the major two candidates for the most part. But if they would change their thinking other candidates and their political ideals would be discussed as well, which might entice others to vote for this person. Although in the election the candidate might not win and the perceived worst candidate might be voted into office, the voter who voted for the person they liked best would have made a proper statement as to what politics he/she prefers. Now they only show what they definitely not want, lol. In the long run, a third party would gain footing in House and Senate. That said, a multi-party system is not always easy to deal with either. You have coalition governments just so they can have a president/chancellor. There is a lot of arguing about what politics should be pursued. It's harder to find a majority vote even with a coalition government. Italy, for example, had coalition governments involving multiple parties. In the past they were often immobilized in their decision making because of their heated arguments and inability to find a consensus. Sometimes to the point that they had to dissolve and hold new elections. I guess, no system is perfect. Two party system is what we have in the US right now. It might change in the future. There are a few independents in congress, in the future there might be members of other parties in there, who knows;)