True or False: The only thing worse than a two-party policial system is a one-party political system?

[OtterMan68]

True

Fales: a One-party system is preferable

False: a multi-party system would be worse than a two-party system

Updates

+1 y

False, not Fales in second option! Typo

Updates

+1 y

Please explain your reasoning

[DryGermanGuy]

Oh yeah. Which can be witnessed right now in US-Congress with only one party (Democrats) being fully functional and working for its constituents. In a multi-party system (European countries), there can be some unwilling or incompetent parties around without stopping the whole political process, but in a two-party system everyone has to be at a certain level of professionalism.

[OtterMan68]

So how did you vote?

[DryGermanGuy]

"True", of course. And not only in relation to the United States.

[exitseven]

If we only have one party there will be no freedom

[flautistnaturist]

not sure whigs, libertarians, the birthday party, or any other, really ever changed anything from everybody still just refusing the Savior's guidance of giving up all we have and sharing all things in common to obey Him as a group. however many perspectives we put versus each other on how to disobey Him, we're still just missing the point any way it goes.

[sawno]

In the US situation i'd say its false. The problem with a two party system is that these party's still collude with each other. Every time there is a universally terrible bill it gets passed anyway. So right now you have two party's causing division to then in the end do very similar or even the same things.

Obviously the solution isn't a one-party system, but a one-party system would make it more transparent. The right solution is a dutch style multi party system.

[loveslongnails]

A one-party system is not a political "system", it's some form of dictatorship or theocracy. Yes, that would be worse, unless it was somehow benevolent and worked for virtually the entire population.

[Rangers]

Not if that one party system is republican only, that's a perfect system

[OtterMan68]

history shows one-party systems are a disaster

[Rangers]

We haven't had one that's Republican only yet

[msc545]

In the US it's just a two-party system with both parties representing essentially the same things. So the two party system is just a propaganda device.

[jahaims]

Opinions aren't true or false. Facts and fallacies are.

[OtterMan68]

I bet when someone asks you: "What does that cloud look like?" you respond with "A bunch of suspended ice particles and water droplets."

[jahaims]

When you have to project a scenario just to justify your feelings.

[OtterMan68]

so according to you, only objective question can be true or false. "True or False: George Washington is the greatest US President" is not a valid T or F question?

[jahaims]

Look up the definition of true and false lol. How are you this old without knowing that facts and fallacies are different from opinions. It isn't according to me. It is according to the definition of the word. What you are looking to say is agree or disagree. Not true or false.

[OtterMan68]

so I guess no one will vote in this poll

[jahaims]

Nah, plenty of people are as dumb as you.

[WhiteBoyChill]

One party system is better, depending on who is in charge

[OtterMan68]

like Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa...
When has one-party rule been good?
Why are no checks and balances a good thing?

[WhiteBoyChill]

That’s why I said depending on who is in charge

[WhiteBoyChill]

N yeah checks and balances and affording people rights are a good thing but that doesn’t necessarily have to translate to it being a multi party system

[OtterMan68]

I suppose you could have a benign dictator, but the history of one party rule is very miserable: corruption and less democracy

[OtterMan68]

how would a multi-party system be worse than a two-party system?