by CacophonousFlatulence » Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:39 am
FDR's presidency was a "disaster?" Huh.
And personally, I'm not a fan of multiple parties. For all the criticisms/cliches of DC political gridlock, you have no idea of the meaning of the word until you deal with parliamentary systems that have to wrangle multiple parties. The U.S. system has, for the most part, always been a two party system, though those parties (or at least the significant platforms of the parties) have changed drastically over time. What we end up having is what is often known as an "umbrella system," wherein the two major parties are actually the end result of a huge array of opinions and ideas. On the surface one would think that having many parties would be better for fostering this, but think about the epic battles for compromise that would be nigh impossible because you're simply trying to appease too many different people. Regardless of people thinking that's what they want, that's simply not a system to have an efficient government, especially for a country of this size. The umbrella system forces the major parties to change or die when "third parties" start gaining traction nationally. Is it perfect? Heck no, but given we're talking about a country as huge as the U.S. I sure as hell don't want a parliamentary-style Legislative branch.
