I do not think that the term "monopoly" makes sense in the political sphere. If there is one person or party in power, we call it autocracy or dictatorship.

If I had to come up with a description of the current situation of the political system of the USA I'd say it is still a liberal democracy, but veering towards a plutocracy, because money more and more undermines the checks and balances that are vital to a true democracy

Even if the term "duopoly" would fit the two-party system well, it has to be argued that the two ruling parties do have a stranglehold over the political arena in the US. The biggest chokehold they have is of in the thinking of the American voter: if you vote "third party", that is argued to be a vote for the worst candidate hate, because the voter isn't voting against him or her. People cannot fathom a third party to succeed.

Also Americans really believe in the idea of "primaries". That they can "influence" the less bad party by voting in the party's own "primary elections". This makes them believe that parties themselves are intrinsically democratic.

So basically I would say the fault of having a corrupt political system is solely on the shoulders of the American voter. But then again, Americans want to pay the most in the World for a mediocre health care system, so I guess they want to have the two-party system too.

it has to be argued that the two ruling parties do have a stranglehold over the political arena in the US. — ssu

Stranglehold, yes. Could have used that word instead of monopoly in the poll. Cue the Ted Nugent song.

The biggest chokehold they have is of in the thinking of the American voter: if you vote "third party", that is argued to be a vote for the worst candidate hate, because the voter isn't voting against him or her. People cannot fathom a third party to succeed. — ssu

Definitely. “You’ll split the vote! You’ll split the vote!!!” So sick of that refrain. The 2020 presidential election could be the first since 1992 (and Ross Perot’s 19% of the popular vote) to have some serious “third party” challengers. I wager if Bernie Sanders doesn’t get the nomination, he’ll run as the Independent he really is. On the other side of the political spectrum, the Libertarian party and Independents (possibly including the likes of John Kasich and more) could make it an interesting race with a larger field. Getting a spot in the debates seems to be both problematical and key.

The public isn't really given a choice outside the two parties. Sure, Libertarianism, Green Party, what have you, are some options on the periphery, but that takes time, research and thought to understand the principals of each political philosophy and their positions on issues. And that is not to imply the public is not capable, they just don't have the time or possible desire. To the free thinker, the traveler, the liberal (and I mean that in the truest sense of the word), you have choices. But stop and ask 8 out of 10 people walking down the street what they political philosophy is or their opinion on a current issue, and they're just going to recite what they heard on TV.

I don't think it's a monopoly, but I do think it's a mess, and a big problem is that there are only two viable parties for major offices, with candidates having to kowtow to the norms of those parties.

I'd actually rather a system with no parties.

I'd actually rather a system with no parties. — Terrapin Station

Interesting! Any thoughts on how that could be implemented or how it would function?

I don't think it's a monopoly, but I do think it's a mess, and a big problem is that there are only two viable parties for major offices, with candidates having to kowtow to the norms of those parties. — Terrapin Station

I fail to see the messy problem of two enormous beasts that live under a well-traveled bridge and won’t let anyone pass without playing a game of “good troll, bad troll”, and coughing up a cash tribute. Just politics as usual, right? :blush:

It's a monopoly in the sense that corporate elites have most, if not all, politicians in their pockets; politicians are no more than puppets fulfilling their masters' orders.

In America there is ONE political party, the Redemocans. It's a big tent, housing a a large number of slightly differing opinions. The "American system" requires compliant politicians who might criticise some corporate, collegiate, religious, or municipal policies, but are not going to attempt anything remotely revolutionary--like nationalise Exxon, or commit to a carbon neutral economy by some not-too-distant date in the future.

The party is centrally controlled from the top all the down to the bottom. Politics in America is a rigged farce.

:up: Yes, those are my general thoughts and feelings as well on the matter. It seems like part of the presidential duties is to be a rubber stamp for the big players, corporations, banks, etc. Especially those that bribed supported their election campaign. “It never hurts to grease the wheels”... never hurts THEM, that is. How many hundreds of millions of dollars does it actually take to run an election campaign anyway? Racism and sexism definitely exist and are most serious concerns. But one could propose that MONEYISM is just as wide-reaching and (slowly and quietly) devastating. Like a rotting tree, political corruption can only go on so long before the whole thing collapses.

With that in mind, it seems hard to fathom the Democratic party “giving” the nomination to someone who would really and truly have free healthcare for all. I’m still learning the particulars, but wouldn’t this put the insurance companies (eventually) out of business? Or what? I’m currently in favor of total healthcare, as long as it doesn’t double taxes for the working class or something. But it is a HUGE step. I can’t see the current Democratic party giving the go ahead on that. One wonders if anyone (like Sanders, Harris, or Warren, et al) who sincerely intends to follow through on it might conceivably need to run outside the party to avoid answering to recalcitrant party honchos or whatever. But what do I know? My cat is more of a political insider than me. :blush:

total healthcare, as long as it doesn’t double taxes for the working class — 0 thru 9

A national health care program should not increase the individual outlay for health care, because most Americans are already paying premiums for health care either themselves or as part of their compensation at work. Medicare and Medicaid are already being covered by premiums or tax payments. I would expect that wages would remain about the same, but corporate expenditures on employee health care would be shifted to employee wages.

Government funded health care would cut the ground out from under the health insurance industry. Cutting out their overhead (15-20% of your health care expense) would be an immediate savings. Yes, there would be a bulge in unemployment, since these workers would be redundant.

Medicare and Medicaid have very low overhead percentages.

I don't understand the purpose of this thread. Why does it matter how people classify any political system? You need to justify and frame your request for public opinion, else its scope is reduced to that of pointless curiosity.

You need to justify and frame your request for public opinion — Noblosh

:grin: ... :grin: :grin: :grin: ... :grin:
:grin: ... :grin: .... :grin: ... :grin:
:grin: ... :grin: :grin: :grin: ... :grin: !!!

When talk comes around to Monopoly, I primarily think of the Parkers Borthers game.

To shake up the oligarchical system of the USA, be it politics or other influential institution, I think we should start a good ole' fashioned Marxist-Leninist Bolshevik revolution. People already got their guns... all you need is a genius organizational and theoretical leader like Marx, and a superb tactical and strategizing generalized military general like Lenin. And a populist politician like Hitler who can turn the masses to his cause and get the people to pledge blind devotion to him through thick and thin.

There, your recipe to end the Monopoly / oligarchy / democracy in one swell woop.

Oh, I forgot the scape goats. Every revolution needs a scape goat. Jews were that of the Nazis; the Czar, his family and the aristocrtacy / clergy were that of the Bolsheviks. Why don't we decide, by nation-wide, general elections, whether to make left-turning drainage in our toilet bowls our scape goat, or else the integral of the probability distribution of the Standard or Bell curve.

Just curious if anyone has any further input on this topic, based on recent events such as the Democratic primaries, etc. Personally, I’m even more convinced that the game is rigged... to put it bluntly. Thoughts?

It's a de facto ologarchy, but one can't just blame the "oligarchs". The populace has the power, but to exercise it they'd have to take the time and make the effort to learn more. In another thread, I complained that voters are stupid. Someone wisely corrected me - it's not stupidity, it's that people don't have the time and resources to learn and get involved. Nevertheless, the latent power is there, so responsibility is shared.

Personally, I’m even more convinced that the game is rigged... to put it bluntly. Thoughts? — 0 thru 9

I don't think anyone, or any group, has rigged it. Nature is taking its course, and voter complacency (regardless of reason for it) helps define the course.

It's an oligarchy. This does not mean it is tightly organized or that all the oligarches like each other. They have rivalries and disagreements, but in general the protect the oligarchy, influence foreign and domestic policies via non democratic means, have influenced the courts to consider them above the law much more as a rule. The control the media enough - not neatly and perfectly - to educate people out of their own interests and away from reality that their power is currently quite safe. And they are savvier than the old autocrates. If they can distraction and manipulation and education are their means of tearing people away from their own interests. Which is not to say they won't use violence and certainly are working towards a police state correction state surveillance state society or have already arrived there. But their means are apparantly soft. And so them will have AIs, robots, gm humans, nanotech and even better surveillance in the Internet of Things and Smart Cities.

I tend to think that the propaganda is, but beyond that I'm not interested enough In commenting on it any further.

It is easy to be cynical. I tend to be more cynical about people's capabilities. I don't think people are clever enough to be part of a conscious oligarchy.

I voted other. It's a duopoly politically speaking and economically it's an oligarchy. The latter' s stranglehold on the political system isn't perfect but pretty close.