Demonopolize US

Proposal: 2 Major US parties should be broken up

To effectively stop this two party monopolistic domination of American political scene 2 major american parties (Democratic Party and Republican Party) should be divided into at least several new parties (that no party should receive more then 25-30% support individually at any time)which would be of more or less even size.

This is the only way American people can havy truly free elections that would benefit them.

"Demonopolize US

Proposal: 2 Major US parties should be broken up

To effectively stop this two party monopolistic domination of American political scene 2 major american parties (Democratic Party and Republican Party) should be divided into at least several new parties (that no party should receive more then 25-30% support individually at any time)which would be of more or less even size.

This is the only way American people can havy truly free elections that would benefit them."

No this is not the only way the American people can have truly free elections. In fact, such a system would do more to hinder our freedom then to help it.

In case you didn't know, under the constitution if no one receives the majority of electoral votes than the decision goes to the House of Representatives. So if no party could have more than 30% of the support at any given time the American people would never choose the president. So in order for your plan to work you'd have to throw out the whole electoral college system.

Secondly, the same system you propose can account for Hitler. Hitler came to power with only 37.3% of the vote in a multiple party system (five major parties as well as smaller parties). Does this not tell you something?

Finally, in a system where no one can gain the majority support, how do you think government would get anything done? The fact is you'd have new officials coming and going too often to get any real work done. You might as well have anarchy. So let me ask you, how does this "truly free" election benefit us?

"two party monopolistic"

I'd like to add that mono means one. So exactly how can you have a TWO party MONOpoly?

"two party monopoly ower all other parties" sounds more accurate?
Splitting the two major parties would bring more variety to US politics and might prevent forming of "agendas" which have controlled US politics for a long time. What have the two major parties done in the last 50 years to improve the lives of the people of united states? At least weapon manufacturers are doing fine.

Think about all the money which goes to development of new weapons and to military in general. It is a huge sum. What if it was spend in improving your lives?

""two party monopoly ower all other parties" sounds more accurate?"

No it does not sound better! You simply spit out the same bull you ignorantly stated before. What part of "mono means one" do you not understand? If two parties dominate then it is not a monopoly it is a duopoly (go look it up if you are too stupid to figure out what that means... actually just go here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=duopoly
...so you don't waste your time arguing that point any further...and if that doesn't work figure it out on your own).

"Splitting the two major parties would bring more variety to US politics and might prevent forming of "agendas" which have controlled US politics for a long time. What have the two major parties done in the last 50 years to improve the lives of the people of united states? At least weapon manufacturers are doing fine.

Think about all the money which goes to development of new weapons and to military in general. It is a huge sum. What if it was spend in improving your lives?"

Maybe I'll begin to debate with you when you have something to say about the points I made.