Is the two-party system an effective means of governing?

Set as news: False

Set as news: True

Ahh yes, teamwork!  Cool..

i like the revision and i think it's ready for approval.  anyone else?

issue revision:

issue revision:

Is the two-party system an effective means of government? 

We've got something here...

To me, "most effective" raises the stakes a little too high. I could probably live with "an effective means," but I'm still in favor of the current wording. I think Jacki's "working at what?" comment is a valid point, but I feel like that's a nuance and a question one could work out in a blog without crippling the issue.

i prefer brian's revision.  i still feel like i'm left hanging with it as is.  i still keep asking "working at what?"

I'm game as is, or with "Is the two party system the most effective means of governing?"

Personally, I don't see anything ambiguous about the current wording. I don't think it's too much of a leap to base the issue on the assumption that the point of government is to provide fair and honest representation, steward the public trust, or whatever government is supposed to do.

I think it's fair..."is it working as it's supposed to?" as Adam said.  I think Jacki's suggestion limits it to elections.  This issue should be about elections and governing. 

-Is the two party system the most effective means of governing? 

Yuck!  Maybe overthinking this one....

clark raises a valid point.  working at what?  what about:

is the two-party system an effective method of electing government officials?

or something more tailored?

Its possible to make an issue too complex and bury it in nuance and I want to avoid that here. The way I view the question of "is something working?" is as a point of "is something working as its supposed to?" in providing honest government or fair government in some way. Through in a $3 word like Egalitarianism which is likely to cause some angst of some people who believe there's a problem with the two party system muddies the waters.

what does "working" mean? It's working for some people, clearly. Is this question getting at the less-than-egalitarian nature of the current two-party system? If it is, the question should be more along those lines, like, "Are there more egalitarian methods of election than our two-party system?"

Let's get this one out there.

I say we give it a go...

i think if we moved this issue to the third parties topic we might be adding a bias to the question.  i'm fine with it here.  i might add:

Is the two-party system working in the U.S.

Though it might go better under Third Parties.

like it.

okay, i like the general idea.