Get rid of 2 party system ???

[Annie]

But the minority parties have more say as parliamentary systems are created for power sharing. This isn't anything novel or unique to my perspective/opinion, it's basic political science 101. As in, this is something I learned my freshman year of college. If you think about it hard enough, it's easy to see why a "winner takes all" system (as opposed to proportioning seats based on voter percentages) creates two major parties.

As I said before, if the libertarians become powerful enough, they will simply replace one of the two major parties, as has been the history of political parties in this country (see: "The Whigs").

Under our system, minority parties logically have more sway when there are less voters involved (i.e. locally). However, as we have been a federalist country since 1865, they don't get much further than that.

and yet, local parties and independents often hold office. The opening for a replacement party is there. I'd like to see the national voice become less significant, not more.

I think I already addressed that.

At any rate, the outcome of the civil war changed our nation to a more federalist system.

What incentive is there for the GOP to cut the Libertarians in on anything? Now what if the libertarians had 10% of the seats in the house and voted as a block?

That is the difference.

Thinking tends to be from the bottom up, marching orders from the top down. I don't want the Republican party to listen, but to change or get out of the way. It's happening, faster than I thought possible.

 

[kaz]

You cannot legislate a three or five party system and still remain the land of the free

Agreed, but we could make it a lot easier for third parties to be on the ballot then it is now.

 

[geauxtohell]

You cannot legislate a three or five party system and still remain the land of the free

Agreed, but we could make it a lot easier for third parties to be on the ballot then it is now.

It wouldn't change anything.

If they have a hard time getting the ballot, they sure as hell are going to have hard time winning a majority.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We would have to switch to a parliamentary/power-sharing form of government.

Why would we "have" to do that?

And, of course, you know that would require massively amending, if not an outright repeal, of Article I and II of the constitution - right?

Further, if we did do that, how would it eliminate the 2-party and/or create a multi-party system?

Again, this notion isn't unique to me. It's basic political science. Think about it logically, "winner takes all" creates two dominant teams.

You didnt answer the question.
Why would we "have" to do that?
That is, why is your proposal the only way to germinate a 3+ party system; why is there no other way such a system could come about absent the implementation of your proposal?
If is so simple, you should then have no issue explaining these things.

I am not advocating for changing our system, and it would certainly require changing the constitution. I am simply pointing out that a two party system is an inherent (and probably unintended) byproduct of our electoral process.

Nothing in our electoral process precludes 3+ parties with representation in any given legislative body, nor does it necessitate that there will only ever be two dominant parties.

 

[kaz]

You cannot legislate a three or five party system and still remain the land of the free

Agreed, but we could make it a lot easier for third parties to be on the ballot then it is now.

It wouldn't change anything.

If they have a hard time getting the ballot, they sure as hell are going to have hard time winning a majority.

Short term yes, but your argument is pretty self fulfilling. Part of the problem is people thinking like you do and that becomes self fulfilling. By having them more easily on the ballot it makes it easier to vote for them and the more who slowly vote for them the more others will start to follow. Republicans are a major divide between fiscal and social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives are showing how much power they have. They only go to the Republicans party because as bad as the Republican party is the Democrats are virtual communist at this point and hopeless. Even social wing nuts are better to fight then that for party control.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which is why this country will continue to crumble into the sea of history, soon to be nothing more than the Atlantis of this century.

Your recourse?
Get busy organizing/supporting a party that creates a viable alternative to the R and D.

Have fun with that. At best, you'll eliminate one letter and stick another one in there.

That's your recourse. You don't havwe to like it - but there it is.
There no legal way to force a 3+ party system.

 

[American Horse]

Your recourse?
Get busy organizing/supporting a party that creates a viable alternative to the R and D.

Have fun with that. At best, you'll eliminate one letter and stick another one in there.

That's your recourse. You don't havwe to like it - but there it is.
There no legal way to force a 3+ party system.

Any third party, strongly supported enough which responds to the most critical/unresolved of our national issues will replace one or the other of the two existing parties.

A two party system works best in our federal system with its strong executive. Three and more parties work best in the parliamentary system where coalitions work most efficiently.

 

[geauxtohell]

Your recourse?
Get busy organizing/supporting a party that creates a viable alternative to the R and D.

Have fun with that. At best, you'll eliminate one letter and stick another one in there.

That's your recourse. You don't havwe to like it - but there it is.
There no legal way to force a 3+ party system.

Exactly, without fundamentally changing our system of government, there is no way to create a 3+ party system.

Deal with it.

 

[geauxtohell]

You didnt answer the question.
Why would we "have" to do that?
That is, why is your proposal the only way to germinate a 3+ party system; why is there no other way such a system could come about absent the implementation of your proposal?
If is so simple, you should then have no issue explaining these things.

Sorry, I thought it was that simple.

We would have to do that because our constitution creates a two party system due to the "winner takes all nature of politics". If you doubt this, please explain to me why we have been a two party system from virtually the beginning. I realize that there is nothing in the constitution about political parties and Washington abhored them, but it's irrelevant. Pragmatically, the way our system works creates two parties.

The only alternative is a parliamentary system of government. Which you have scoffed at. However, you don't realize that when there is no incentive to share power with minor parties, there is no use for them. At best, they exist to influence the debate and have a few of their ideas adopted before they are engulfed. If they are really lucky, they'll replace a dominant party. However, the outcome is still the same.

Nothing in our electoral process precludes 3+ parties with representation in any given legislative body,

It certainly does.

nor does it necessitate that there will only ever be two dominant parties.

It doesn't necessitate two parties, but it still creates them.

 

[geauxtohell]

Short term yes, but your argument is pretty self fulfilling. Part of the problem is people thinking like you do and that becomes self fulfilling. By having them more easily on the ballot it makes it easier to vote for them and the more who slowly vote for them the more others will start to follow. Republicans are a major divide between fiscal and social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives are showing how much power they have.

This isn't a rubic's cube. The problem is that the system gives no incentive to cut third parties into the process.

It's as simple as that. There is no need to go esoteric or start blaming the voting public for the evolution of a system that adapts to fit the rules it lives under.

Kind of like nature.

They only go to the Republicans party because as bad as the Republican party is the Democrats are virtual communist at this point and hopeless. Even social wing nuts are better to fight then that for party control.

Thanks for proving my point.

Why don't they go to the libertarians?

The libertarians have no power. Why would the GOP ever hand a rival power?

 

[geauxtohell]

Any third party, strongly supported enough which responds to the most critical/unresolved of our national issues will replace one or the other of the two existing parties.

A two party system works best in our federal system with its strong executive. Three and more parties work best in the parliamentary system where coalitions work most efficiently.

Thank you. This is my point exactly, and it's hardly controversial.

It's basic comparative politics 101. Freshman stuff.

 

[Anachronism]

Your recourse? Get busy organizing/supporting a party that creates a viable alternative to the R and D.

No. My recourse is to suggest that we should get rid of ALL political parties. I RARELY find anyone in either of the main parties to vote for at anything more than the local level. A lot of the time I can't even find them there.

In the 5 Presidential elections I've been able to vote in, only TWICE have I voted for an R/D candidate. I didn't in 2008 and I don't expect I will be able to in 2012. The difference in 2012 is that I will be able to write my own name on the ballot now.

Have fun with that. At best, you'll eliminate one letter and stick another one in there.

Exactly. That's why we need to outlaw political parties entirely.

That's your recourse. You don't havwe to like it - but there it is. There no legal way to force a 3+ party system.

Exactly. That's why we need to blow the whole system up and start again from scratch.

Exactly, without fundamentally changing our system of government, there is no way to create a 3+ party system.

Deal with it.

Yep. I would like to deal with it by blowing the whole system up and starting again from scratch.

 

[Polk]

A viable third party would be enough.

If no one party every had a super majority then we'd have to see some actual work get done to pass a bill instead of the straight party line votes that we get now.

The problem is the exact opposite. The system is currently designed so that no party has an actual majority.

 

[geauxtohell]

Exactly. That's why we need to outlaw political parties entirely.

Again, good luck with the whole outlawing of the right to assemble thing.

I think you'll run into significant problems, but everyone needs a goal in life.

 

[Anachronism]

Again, good luck with the whole outlawing of the right to assemble thing.

I think you'll run into significant problems, but everyone needs a goal in life.

As I said, that's why I believe we need to go all the way back to Square #1 and start over from scratch. Next time around "freedom of assembly" would not be included in the same way it is currently envisioned.

 

[geauxtohell]

Again, good luck with the whole outlawing of the right to assemble thing.

I think you'll run into significant problems, but everyone needs a goal in life.

As I said, that's why I believe we need to go all the way back to Square #1 and start over from scratch. Next time around "freedom of assembly" would not be included in the same way it is currently envisioned.

Amended to: "Good luck with the whole chucking the constitution thing".

I think our system works fine. Clunky at times, but no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Polk]

As much as I hate the two parties, there is little that we can do to change this issue as far as I see it and remain America as we know it. One thing we seem to pride ourselves on is freedom of association. As long as we are going to do that there is nothing we can do to stop all the corrupted morons in Washington from banding together in the particular parties of choice.

Those morons tend to go with the organizations that they think will bring them the best chance of winning as winning is all that matters and right now that means either the Democrats or the Republicans. As long as voters support those two parties and only those two parties then we are stuck with those two parties and only those two parties.

You cannot legislate a three or five party system and still remain the land of the free. This has to be the will of the people. If we won't make it difficult for these parties to win, then politicians will continue to flock to them and we will always have just a two party system.

Immie

Strongly disagree. The existence of a two-party system is not a natural phenomena. It's the result of certain institutional design decisions.

 

[Polk]

A three party system will always coelesce into a two party system in an executive/bi-cameral (as distinct from a parliamentary) political arrangement .
Without political parties a political system will devolve into chaos; political parties are the glue that holds disparate elements and coalitions together under an overarching philosophy.

Even that's not necessarily true. France has a separate executive and a bi-cameral legislature and has 12 parties with some level of representation in their legislature.

 

[Polk]

As long as were a country with 2 reining parties, were never going to get anywhere. It will continue to be Tit 4 Tat. We need something more like a 5 party system, to mix it up a little, so that we can move forward.

Members of both parties will just continue to toe the party line, you know it, and I know it.

"A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND"

A five party system would be better for the USA because of all the diverse people and cultures. Either we are, or were not, the melting pot of the world.

You know that the 2-party system was not 'created' by any sort of legislative genesis, that it evolved over time, right?

How do you s'pose we get rid of the 2-party and create an (x)-party system?

We would have to switch to a parliamentary/power-sharing form of government.

This is basic comparative politics 101.

Or, alternatively, change how voting districts are composed.

 

[Polk]

You know that the 2-party system was not 'created' by any sort of legislative genesis, that it evolved over time, right?

How do you s'pose we get rid of the 2-party and create an (x)-party system?

We would have to switch to a parliamentary/power-sharing form of government.

This is basic comparative politics 101.

Silly. UK is parliamentary and you have labor and Tory. Are there many lessor parties? Yes. Here too, without parliamentary system, that is unwanted here.

If enough reasonable people decide they have candidates to compete with present parties, they will win. Look local.

The Liberal Democrats hold 10% of the seats, so I wouldn't say the UK only has two parties. The UK has two parties that a viable candidates to form a government for the same reason the United States does though: the first-past-the-post voting system.