Breaking The Two Party Monopoly

Heron Ortega
November 24, 2008
Block: 7
Y103
Position Paper #4

Breaking the Two-Party System (1993)
Douglas J. Amy

1. The Author is upset with the fact that America has a two partysystem. The two party system doesn’t allow for everyone to have enough choices when there are issues that have an assortment of different options. This means that the right to vote for whatever we want tois pointless because there are not enough choices to accurately represent the public’s actual stance on the issues. The lack of an ability to have a other parties to carry different views on theissues is an insult that could be fixed with the adoption of a plurality rules. PR would allow for the need of more parties if there was a need to have more than the two that we have now. According tothe author it would essentially put the power of choice back in the hand of the American voter.
2. The problem with the two party system is that our choices are limited with the two party system. Thedifferent combinations of how we can side on different issues is much greater that our actual choices. Amy thinks that the idea that the two party system simplifies the decisions enough for people tounderstand is ignorant. Americans would never settle for just two choices in anything else so why do it in politics. Amy also notes that in some states it is more like a one party system. In statesin which there is a strong following for one party or the other there really is not much of a competition when it comes to elections because the following is so strong that other parties choose toignore that state or area more than they do other areas.
3. Proportional representation is a system in which votes allow for an equal representation in election because they regard all votes. In ourcurrent system elections are winner take all so even if an election finishes and on candidate gets 49.9 percent of the votes and the other receives the other 50.1 percent he loses and is completely...