The Three Parties of the Future

[candycorn]

the two-party system in this country is dooming the country's future.

it is ridiculous.

Are you suggesting we move to a parliamentary form of government? Here is the problem with having multiple parties in our system. You need a majority of the vote to be elected in most cases. So if you have multiple candidates running, you end up with a runoff with the two who received the most votes. This is normally what happens at the local level. As for presidential elections, if we did have three or four viable parties, the House of Representatives would likely be selecting our president in most elections as nobody would win the majority of the electoral votes.

The way our system is set up is the reason we ended up with a two party system. It just works the best given our set of rules. If we had a parliamentary system, then coalitions could be built to determine winners and losers. That would be more conducive to a multi-party system.

I don't know about the parlimentary form of government but there would be candidates who seeked to fill the gray areas between the traditional parties. There is mucho room for it too. I saw one stat that said something like 90% of all Catholic women used contraception of some form or the other though their Church prohibits it. I would imagine that if you were to approach most white middle-income liberals and suggest that affirmative action be expanded; they'd tell you to go "F" yourself.

There is a sensible center of the American Political Spectrum that is being ignored by and large by both Republicans and Democrats. Why? Because they take it for granted that every 4th November, those in the center will gravitate to one of the ends of the spectrum. Give us a candidate in the middle--a serious politician--and lets see who wins.

As for the fallout; I would imagine you're right; the House and Senate would be picking our chief executives for about a generation but eventually, you'll end up with centeriest in those bodies as well.

There is a great reason, in my view--I wasn't there and anyone who says their intent was X or Y is full of shit--that the founders removed mention of Party from the founding documents and that G Washington spoke against political parties.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The libertarian party would be a good replacement for the Republican party, and the Green party have a lot of good values and ideas too.

Now all we need to do is revise all the rules in every state for getting candidates on the ballot at every level. The current systems makes it almost impossible to do.

And, get the media to realize there's more than two parties.

Which end of the grass roots will act?

 

[Vox]

the two-party system in this country is dooming the country's future.

it is ridiculous.

Are you suggesting we move to a parliamentary form of government? Here is the problem with having multiple parties in our system. You need a majority of the vote to be elected in most cases. So if you have multiple candidates running, you end up with a runoff with the two who received the most votes. This is normally what happens at the local level. As for presidential elections, if we did have three or four viable parties, the House of Representatives would likely be selecting our president in most elections as nobody would win the majority of the electoral votes.

The way our system is set up is the reason we ended up with a two party system. It just works the best given our set of rules. If we had a parliamentary system, then coalitions could be built to determine winners and losers. That would be more conducive to a multi-party system.

Not necessarily. The election of the House and the Senate and the President is not designed to two party system only.

Many countries have presidential republics and multi-party systems.

Does it pose some problems.
Obviously.

But it is still better representation than 2 party one.

Will they have to form coalitions? Absolutely.

Will it cause tensions. Yes, it will. But it is a natural process.

And a President if he won't have a majority supporting him in the Congress - will have to work with coalitions.

 

[Vox]

It is discriminatory in any number of ways.

nope. voting is a privilege and responsibility. if one does not have a mental capacity to answer simple questions regarding the very reason he/she is voting - he/she is not capable of choosing elected officials and should not be allowed to participate.

Give us an example...and make it multi-lingual too since we don't have a national language...of an unbiased question you'd like asked before someone voted for President?

we have a national language and it is ENGLISH. you don't understand - too bad. not eligible to participate. You don't know English - you won't pass Naturalization exam.
simple. same applies for voting as a direct privilege and responsibility of the American Citizen

and example? easy.
What elections are you going to participate today ( presidential, Senate, House, etc)?
how many candidates are there for each seat?
do you know them?
what is the role of the Senate?
what is the role of the House?
How many justices are there in the Supreme Court?

an example can be the famous 100 questions in the civics exam for Naturalization
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Office o...ip Resource Center Site/Publications/100q.pdf

 

[Borillar]

There are multiple political parties in the USA covering a wide spectrum of positions. Here in Oregon, you typically see candidates from the Greens, Libertarians, Constitution, etc, alongside the Democrats and Republicans on our ballots. If states would institute instant runoff voting, a voter could vote for candidates closer to their own point of view and then other candidates down the line. For example, an environmentally aware liberal voter could vote for a Green candidate with a Democrat as a second choice. A social conservative could vote Constitution party then Republican. A fiscal conservative, social liberal could vote Libertarian then Republican. This would allow voters to express what they actually want out of their elected officials without throwing their votes away.

 

[candycorn]

nope. voting is a privilege and responsibility. if one does not have a mental capacity to answer simple questions regarding the very reason he/she is voting - he/she is not capable of choosing elected officials and should not be allowed to participate.

Give us an example...and make it multi-lingual too since we don't have a national language...of an unbiased question you'd like asked before someone voted for President?

we have a national language and it is ENGLISH. you don't understand - too bad. not eligible to participate. You don't know English - you won't pass Naturalization exam.
simple. same applies for voting as a direct privilege and responsibility of the American Citizen

and example? easy.
What elections are you going to participate today ( presidential, Senate, House, etc)?
how many candidates are there for each seat?
do you know them?
what is the role of the Senate?
what is the role of the House?
How many justices are there in the Supreme Court?

an example can be the famous 100 questions in the civics exam for Naturalization
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Office o...ip Resource Center Site/Publications/100q.pdf

What state do you live in?

Do you know how many people were on the ballot for President where you voted? How many was it?

English is not the national language by the way.

 

[kiwiman127]

While this thoughtful editorial comes from a Breitbart blog, it contains links and is worthwhile reading, even if you're a dedicated Leftist who doesn't want to believe anything but party propaganda.

Could the leaders of both parties have it wrong? Could top Republicans and top Democrats inside DC be simultaneously obtuse about the reality beyond the Beltway? You know, out there in the USA? Is there something about life in Powertown that distorts insiders’ perception of outsiders? Okay, that last one is a trick question, because by now it’s obvious that Washington politicos of both parties are drastically out of touch with the folks they purport to represent.

As the leadership of BOTH parties seems so far out of step with the majority of Americans, where will the people turn? What, if any, third party represents their values and desires?

I'd say include the righties in this statement; "if you're a dedicated Leftist who doesn't want to believe anything but party propaganda."

I've never seen so many and so much propaganda talking points from ideologues of all stripes on any board I have posted on, since I started posting on political boards in the late 90's.
It's always the other side that spewing talking points! And then we have Breitbart used a reference point! There we go again!

 

[Unkotare]

Many countries have presidential republics and multi-party systems.

Does it pose some problems.
Obviously.

But it is still better representation than 2 party one.

Will they have to form coalitions? Absolutely...

Which would mean for all practical purposes less representation, not more.

 

[Unkotare]

we have a national language and it is ENGLISH.

As a de facto matter, but not de jure.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

While this thoughtful editorial comes from a Breitbart blog, it contains links and is worthwhile reading, even if you're a dedicated Leftist who doesn't want to believe anything but party propaganda.

Could the leaders of both parties have it wrong? Could top Republicans and top Democrats inside DC be simultaneously obtuse about the reality beyond the Beltway? You know, out there in the USA? Is there something about life in Powertown that distorts insiders’ perception of outsiders? Okay, that last one is a trick question, because by now it’s obvious that Washington politicos of both parties are drastically out of touch with the folks they purport to represent.

As the leadership of BOTH parties seems so far out of step with the majority of Americans, where will the people turn? What, if any, third party represents their values and desires?

LOL. Its brietbart, for Pete's sake.

But, including the failure of the "The Tea Party" that is really just a vehicle for the Koch's to spoonfeed their propaganda to the weak minded, we already have dozens of "parties".

What would be gained by adding even more splinters?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

we have a national language and it is ENGLISH.

As a de facto matter, but not de jure.

True but, IMO, even more important is that our stubborn commitment to ignorance is hurting us on the national stage. "English only" is just another facet of the R race to the bottom.

 

[Unkotare]

we have a national language and it is ENGLISH.

As a de facto matter, but not de jure.

True but, IMO, even more important is that our stubborn commitment to ignorance is hurting us on the national stage. "English only" is just another facet of the R race to the bottom.

"hurting us on the national stage"?


Care to elaborate on that post?

 

[kiwiman127]

I would love to see a party for moderates. In the 2012 election, moderates were the largest voting bloc. As both parties continue to veer to the extremes, it's very, very clear that the middle has no representation and neither party has made any effort to represent this growing segment of voters.

 

[hipeter924]

I would love to see a party for moderates. In the 2012 election, moderates were the largest voting bloc. As both parties continue to veer to the extremes, it's very, very clear that the middle has no representation and neither party has made any effort to represent this growing segment of voters.

I would prefer a moderate left wing party, and a moderate right wing party; but not going to get those in the US. Back in New Zealand it is still a political circus, but nowhere near as bad as the US thanks to the multi-party system.

In the US there are limited options, you either vote Republican and get screwed, or vote Democrat and get screwed; as there are politicians in both parties that mess things up. Independents never have much power, unless the Democrats or the Republicans in a rare occasion need an extra vote. I could never vote Republican, it would mean giving up my support of universal healthcare, free education, and social welfare programs; and the Democratic party isn't to the left enough for me, so never going to be overly enthusiastic about it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The 3 parties
1. Tea party 20%
2. Moderate...Pro science, infrastructure and tech. Good business policies...50%.
3. Socialist 30%

I'll be voting 2. This is how I think everything will wash out by 2020.