NationStates Jolt Archive

well there you have it. Discuss. I'm off to bed.

Dissatisfaction with the current system - third party voted in by the public

well there you have it. Discuss. I'm off to bed.

I'm no Nostradamus, but the most likely way would be if either of the two parties fails to adapt to the changing ideals and aspirations of a sizeable proportion of the voting populace and is slowly replaced by a splinter of one party or the other, a combination of the dissatisfied from both parties, or an entirely new one. Right now, it seems most likely this will happen to the democrats if they continue on their leftward drift, listening to the leftist extremists and mindless Hollywood elitists.

Massive Atomic Destruction :P
It will aboviously kill all the Democrats and Republicans, leaving only the Green party with its survival skills, this will immidiatly splinter into a number of parties equal to the number of memberes in the Green party at the time.

Hooray!

I think the Republicans will split into a more conservative group and a less conservative group.

I'm no Nostradamus, but the most likely way would be if either of the two parties fails to adapt to the changing ideals and aspirations of a sizeable proportion of the voting populace and is slowly replaced by a splinter of one party or the other, a combination of the dissatisfied from both parties, or an entirely new one. Right now, it seems most likely this will happen to the democrats if they continue on their leftward drift, listening to the leftist extremists and mindless Hollywood elitists.The same thing could be said of the Republicans, as they continue on their rightward drift, listening to the rightest extremists and mindless fundamentalists.

I agree that one party will probably split, I'm just not so sure it will be the Democrats. I'm not saying it'll be the Republicans either, I honestly don't know.

The same thing could be said of the Republicans, as they continue on their rightward drift, listening to the rightest extremists and mindless fundamentalists.

Perhaps so, although the number of "pepole of faith" in the US seems to be increasing. Perhaps we're heading for another "great awakening?"

Perhaps so, although the number of "pepole of faith" in the US seems to be increasing. Perhaps we're heading for another "great awakening?"While it would be rather amusing to hear those fire and brimstone sermons come into the mainstream again, I don't think I'd like another Great Awakening. I've always been of the belief that faith and religion is a personal thing. Which is why I don't mind that Bush is a devout Christian. Good for him. I just get annoyed when he brings it up constantly.

I'm also not sure if the number of people of faith is actually increasing, or if they are just taking a more active role in the public discourse. The United States has always been a "faithful" nation, perhaps one of the most faithful in the Western world. It's just hard to measure these sorts of things. But like I said, I could just as easily see the Democrats coming apart at the seams as the Republicans at this point. Though if you had asked me this same question four years ago, I would have picked the Republicans, no doubt. Take that for what it's worth.

If a significant crisis, disaster, or fiasco occurs under Bush's 2nd term, then it will likely be an angry electoral reprisal that a group of dissatisfied Democrats will take advantage of to form a separate party with more teeth and fangs.

If nothing of such magnitude happens, then it will come close to a one-party system as anyone in America will allow to happen.

I'm no Nostradamus, but the most likely way would be if either of the two parties fails to adapt to the changing ideals and aspirations of a sizeable proportion of the voting populace and is slowly replaced by a splinter of one party or the other, a combination of the dissatisfied from both parties, or an entirely new one. Right now, it seems most likely this will happen to the democrats if they continue on their leftward drift, listening to the leftist extremists and mindless Hollywood elitists.

what universe do you live in where the democrats are drifting leftward? must be an interesting place.

in any case, a splinter party would not end the two party system. the only way we might wind up with more than two major parties given the current system of first past the post elections is if we got one or more regional parties. otherwise you are pretty much stuck with two parties - names and positions being the only variables.

If it happens, it'll be a party split, and at this point the Democrats are much more ripe for a split than the Republicans.

If it happens, it'll be a party split, and at this point the Democrats are much more ripe for a split than the Republicans.

not for lack of glaring internal contradictions, though

I think it'll be something that starts at the local level and moves up. There are already some Green and Libertarian mayors along with a lot of city councilmen. If a successful one runs for the state legislature, he/she would have a realistic chance of winning. Eventually, one of them turns out to be rich enough to win a statewide race, which boosts other members of that party. Once they reach opposition (second) party status in one state, other states follow.

Speaking just for me, I'm hoping the Republicans and Democrats both split into two parties. The West-Reps will be the party of smalltown/rural america and limited government, and the South-Reps will be the party of big oil and big business. Meanwhile the Labor-Dems will be the party of soccer moms and (mostly unionized) workers and Commie-Dems will be the party of trial lawyers and ridiculously wealthy welfare advocates (well, and disaffected youths who don't vote). The spontaneous West-Rep/Labor-Dem coalition will soundly beat the puny South-Reps and Commie-Dems who will be at each other's throats at all times. Then they'll roll back a few decades of government expansion, cut taxes and fix the trade deficit, making everything cheaper and lowering unemployment to near-zero.

... and we live happily ever after ...

Massive Atomic Destruction :P
It will aboviously kill all the Democrats and Republicans, leaving only the Green party with its survival skills ...

Um. What survival skills? I don't think tree-hugging counts.

Pretty much all the people I know who have the skills to survive in the wild lean conservative.

A splinter from the Republicans would be Libertarian? Give me a break.

The only reason that Libertarians are closer to Republicans than Democrats is because both of the major parties got their gun control backwards.

In fact, the Libertarian candidate made a concerted effort to help Kerry.

Only Superman can save us now.

NOW threatened to start a third party a few years ago, and last year the Godless Americans started their own party. I think it'd be hilarious if one of them got big.

Dissatisfaction with the current system - third party voted in by the public
Yes - I'd love to see a Libertarian candidate in office :)

I am a libertarian and voted for Badnarik. I think it will be a combination of things that leads to a 3rd party and more but I do not see this happening for a while. I will do my part I have spoke to many people informing them of the libertarian party. I feel most people in the USA are libertarian if they would look at the broad spectrum of things and not be so narrow-minded.

I do not hold to all the parties ideals but there is no party that fits everything that believe but it is by far the closest.

Nuclear war? Or maybe the USA being invaded and turned into a puppet-dictatorship?

kidding of course ;)

If a significant crisis, disaster, or fiasco occurs under Bush's 2nd term, then it will likely be an angry electoral reprisal that a group of dissatisfied Democrats will take advantage of to form a separate party with more teeth and fangs.

A Democratic Party with teeth and fangs? :eek:

Now THERE's an image I didn't need! LOL!

( pictures Hillary Clinton with vampire fangs! )

if the two party system ends.it will be in one of the following ways.

the neocons break off fully from the real republicans.

or,the neocons make it illegal to vote dem.

I voted other because you didn't leave an option that partisan politics will stay around. The margins of victory between republicans and democrats are slim, and a third party dosen't have a leg to stand on if it dosen't have the votes. Plenty of Green Voters urged us not to vote for Nader because Kerry was the only one that had a chance. The only way I could see a party split happening is if the republicans gain a large percentage of the vote, right now I feel like republicans a basicly unified in their beleifs, however, if we had a larger percentage of the votes it would leave some room for disent in the ranks, then some could form a third party. But, like I said, I think republicans goals are far to similar to allow that to happen.

Your going to see a splintering of Christian conservatives into their own political party when they find out the Republicans have just been stringing them along for decades by putting phrases like "Family Values" and "Sanctity Of Life" in their speeches.

It won't be.

There has never been a time in the nation's history where three major parties compeated in two consecutive elections. There is no reason to believe it will happen any time soon.

And before you bring up the longevity of the Libertarians, Communists, Greens, Bull Moose, etc: None of them have ever won even 10 electoral votes in two elections straight.

I don't see a splinter from the right winning, but it could happen from the left. The problem with that is you need money, but the kind of party that would break away from the main stream left (the Greens perhaps) would not have verh much cash. That's why it would also need backig from someone with a whole lotta money (George Soros?). And it would need the third element of having both of these things happen at a time when voters are laregely dissatisfied witht the existing parties.

I don't see a splinter from the right winning, but it could happen from the left. The problem with that is you need money, but the kind of party that would break away from the main stream left (the Greens perhaps) would not have verh much cash. That's why it would also need backig from someone with a whole lotta money (George Soros?). And it would need the third element of having both of these things happen at a time when voters are laregely dissatisfied witht the existing parties.


It's not easy being "Green". :rolleyes: :D

As of right now, it seems as if the democrats are failing. They lost the presidential election, and loss many seats in the House and the Senate.

I take over the world and become supreme overlord

Popular dissatisfaction with the current system will be capitalized upon by splinter parties led by wealthy, probably media owning leaders (Ted Turner, perhaps Rupert Murdoch). It will be meaningless without campaign finance reform though.

The two party system will not change unless the electoral college system changes. That cannot change without changes to the constitution, so it probably will never change. The current electoral system promotes a two party system. Thats just the way it is. However, nothing says that the two parties that vie for power have to always be the democrats and republicans. Both parties can and will change, and its feasible that other parties would step up to replace one of the parties if it begins to fail. Lets not forget that the democrats and republicans have already switched sides once, and this could happen again (Republicans used to be the big government, more government involvement party and the democrats were the opposite, now the roles are reversed).

Right now, it seems most likely this will happen to the democrats if they continue on their leftward drift, listening to the leftist extremists and mindless Hollywood elitists.
Admittedly I' not the closest of observers, but I have not noticed the Democrats becoming more left-wing recently. Could you give policy examples, perhaps?

Your going to see a splintering of Christian conservatives into their own political party when they find out the Republicans have just been stringing them along for decades by putting phrases like "Family Values" and "Sanctity Of Life" in their speeches.
Yes, abortion has been legal in America for 32 years, and Republicans have been in the majority for most of the time since then. There's been plenty of anti-abortion talk, but what have they done about it?

(Republicans used to be the big government, more government involvement party and the democrats were the opposite, now the roles are reversed).
Republicans are for big governent and intervention, as are the Democrats, but in slightly different ways.

Your going to see a splintering of Christian conservatives into their own political party when they find out the Republicans have just been stringing them along for decades by putting phrases like "Family Values" and "Sanctity Of Life" in their speeches.

the same could be said for the 'libertarians' who vote republican. the problem is that most of the people in these groups still voting republican are either hopelessly deluded or willfully ignorant. i don't see that changing any time soon. and their leaders are certainly rather happy with the status quo.

I'd suspect a split off from one of the major parties, probably led by a rich Ross Perot type fellow. I'd suspect that the split would be towards the middle, instead of the edges, and would nab members of both parties in a sustainable third party.

Yes, abortion has been legal in America for 32 years, and Republicans have been in the majority for most of the time since then. There's been plenty of anti-abortion talk, but what have they done about it?
Nothing, because they can't do anything. The Supreme Court tied the Republican's hands, while giving them an issue. Couldn't have been anything better for 'em.

I think it's most likely that one party will eventually gain nearly absolute dominance and bar all other parties from running for any office higher than the mayor's fucktoy.

It won't be.

There has never been a time in the nation's history where three major parties compeated in two consecutive elections. There is no reason to believe it will happen any time soon.

And before you bring up the longevity of the Libertarians, Communists, Greens, Bull Moose, etc: None of them have ever won even 10 electoral votes in two elections straight.

I said if it happens. I don't see what a "it won't happen" choice would serve in a poll asking how it would happen if it did. The Libertarians and Greens were just examples of possible splits - it could be an entire split by someone completely different somewhere else on the spectrum.

Yes - I'd love to see a Libertarian candidate in office :)
As I see it, it's the only party capable of making both parties happy about what they (supposedly) care the most about:
Republicans= $Money$
Democrats= Civil Liberties

Neither will have a really big boner though as we're not that into God or social wellfare, but you can't please them all all of the time.

And I'm sure most Americans still care about freedom, right?
Let's hope so. They can't all be little Commando2's.

the same could be said for the 'libertarians' who vote republican. the problem is that most of the people in these groups still voting republican are either hopelessly deluded or willfully ignorant. i don't see that changing any time soon. and their leaders are certainly rather happy with the status quo.

Well the big difference with the religious right is that the Republicans have been promising what they would deliver for the past twenty years if they had control. With both house and the executive they can, if they concentrate on conservative moral issues.

Already Bush has abandoned the Homosexual marriage ban,. How many times did you hear the Republicans mention preserving traditional male/female marriages during the election? One of the major moral issues of the election and Bush drops it right out of the gate.

Then there's abortion. Will the Republicans pass a Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortion? If not, why not? They've got the numbers they just need the will, and according to their election promises they have the will.

Not with a bang, but a whimper.

I said if it happens. I don't see what a "it won't happen" choice would serve in a poll asking how it would happen if it did. The Libertarians and Greens were just examples of possible splits - it could be an entire split by someone completely different somewhere else on the spectrum.

Right... I'm just saying that it's not going to happen as there being more than two parties at any one time. If you'll note, I did not say that the GOP or the Dems were going to be around forever.

My entire point is that if it were to happen, it would require the dissolution of a party, not a splintering.

My entire point is that if it were to happen, it would require the dissolution of a party, not a splintering.

or a change in the electoral system the united states uses. use "first past the post", get two competitive parties in any particular district. that's just how it works.

or a change in the electoral system the united states uses. use "first past the post", get two competitive parties in any particular district. that's just how it works.

There's no mention of parties in the US electoral system.

First past the post? You mean, win a majority? We already have that.

What would have to happen would be for a law to be passed disbanding parties as illegal entities. Obviously, this won't happen.

Splinter party breaks off from the Republicans and rises to power (Libertarian)
I'd like to point out that thie above statement really pisses me off. It's incredibly ignorant.
The Republicans may appreciate the Libertarians POV, but it's unreciprocated for the most part. Legalize drugs, prostitution and gmbling?
Does that sound incredibly conservative to you????

The Libertarians are not just a splinter group of the Republican party.

I'd like to point out that thie above statement really pisses me off. It's incredibly ignorant.
The Republicans may appreciate the Libertarians POV, but it's unreciprocated for the most part. Legalize drugs, prostitution and gmbling?
Does that sound incredibly conservative to you????

The Libertarians are not just a splinter group of the Republican party.

It was an example. It could be interpreted to be a libertarian-leaning split. Keep in mind that congressman Ron Paul was a former Libertarian party candidate so that's why I made that point.

It was an example. It could be interpreted to be a libertarian-leaning split. Keep in mind that congressman Ron Paul was a former Libertarian party candidate so that's why I made that point.
It doesn't piss me off so much that you chose Libertarianism as an example.
Just that so many liberals hear the word Libertarian, and think Republican who likes to get high. :rolleyes:

As I see it, it's the only party capable of making both parties happy about what they (supposedly) care the most about:
Republicans= $Money$
Democrats= Civil Liberties

Neither will have a really big boner though as we're not that into God or social wellfare, but you can't please them all all of the time.

And I'm sure most Americans still care about freedom, right?
Let's hope so. They can't all be little Commando2's.

If the Libertarian party wants to win, I think they'll need to compromise on issues to begin with.

For example, the legalization of drugs, elimination of welfare, and privatization of education need to be compromised to WIN. For drugs, I think it would be best to attack the WAR ON DRUGS, not the actually legalization of drugs. After that, drug legalization can be dealt with. But as of now, the pro-drug war propaganda has a hold on the american public. Eliminating welfare completely would definitely lose alot of the social liberals that libertarians may attract as well. So, cuts to welfare might be a better route. And privatizing education is just a big no-no, I think both parties agree on that. However, the Libertarians stances on freedom of speech (which sounds really good to everyone, even if they're the same people who are against porn and stuff), gun rights, and especially low taxes are tantalizing. Of course, I'm no polysci student so my assumptions may be 100% wrong.

If the Libertarian party wants to win, I think they'll need to compromise on issues to begin with.
:p I have no delusions that we'll win the presidency or run the house anytime soon. But it'd be nice.

For example, the legalization of drugs, elimination of welfare, and privatization of education need to be compromised to WIN. For drugs, I think it would be best to attack the WAR ON DRUGS, not the actually legalization of drugs. After that, drug legalization can be dealt with. But as of now, the pro-drug war propaganda has a hold on the american public. Eliminating welfare completely would definitely lose alot of the social liberals that libertarians may attract as well. So, cuts to welfare might be a better route. And privatizing education is just a big no-no, I think both parties agree on that. However, the Libertarians stances on freedom of speech (which sounds really good to everyone, even if they're the same people who are against porn and stuff), gun rights, and especially low taxes are tantalizing. Of course, I'm no polysci student so my assumptions may be 100% wrong.

I may be more centrist than some, but I think you may be confusing the Party's platform and plan of action with the hard-lined small-"L" libertarian philosophy.
The Libs wouldn't just shut off welfare and social programs, so to speak. More like a weaning from the teat over a planned timeline.
Also, the platform I'm aware of has only lambasted the "War" on Drugs.
It's more about prhibition, I mean warfare, that's at the heart of the party's anti-drug war platform.

First past the post? You mean, win a majority? We already have that.
First past the Post doesn't mean a majority. It means whoever gets more votes than the other partieS wins. It's a necessity if you have more than two parties... but I don't quite get what he was trying to say with it, as he was only talking about two competitive parties.

There's no mention of parties in the US electoral system.

First past the post? You mean, win a majority? We already have that.

What would have to happen would be for a law to be passed disbanding parties as illegal entities. Obviously, this won't happen.

'first past the post' means dividing up the representative body so that each member comes from a particular district and each district elects only one member through a system of plurality voting.

if you use this system, then you are almost certainly going to only have two competitive parties in any particular district (at most - add in a bit of gerrymandering and you have almost no competitive districts at all). this will happen whether you write the existence of political parties into a constitution or not, as it means that only those who create the biggest tent and have the most resources will win any representation at all. the evolutionarily stable political situation that develops is therefore characterized by two big tent parties and maybe a few regional/local parties.

change the system of election, and you change the number of major-ish parties able to exist.

First past the Post doesn't mean a majority. It means whoever gets more votes than the other partieS wins.

:confused: That's a majority...

It's a necessity if you have more than two parties... but I don't quite get what he was trying to say with it, as he was only talking about two competitive parties.

I'm not sure I get it yet either.

'first past the post' means dividing up the representative body so that each member comes from a particular district and each district elects only one member through a system of plurality voting.

That's the House of Representatives in a nutshell.


if you use this system, then you are almost certainly going to only have two competitive parties in any particular district (at most - add in a bit of gerrymandering and you have almost no competitive districts at all).

That's New Haven, CT in a nutshell.


this will happen whether you write the existence of political parties into a constitution or not, as it means that only those who create the biggest tent and have the most resources will win any representation at all.

And that's Congress & the White House right now, in a nutshell.


the evolutionarily stable political situation that develops is therefore characterized by two big tent parties and maybe a few regional/local parties.

change the system of election, and you change the number of major-ish parties able to exist.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see what the difference between "first past the post" and majority voting by these examples...

Change the system *how*??
I did find this in google: http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esd01.htm

But I still fail to see how this would be advantageous, as it still has parties. All this would do would be to get rid of the Electoral College for Presidential Elections, which is out of scope for this topic.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see what the difference between "first past the post" and majority voting by these examples...

first past the post isn't a majority vote - people can win with less than 50% +1 of the votes. if you want majority votes you have to have some sort of run-off system in place, instant or otherwise.

Change the system *how*??

well, that depends on what you want to achieve. if the goal is merely to end the two party system while keeping party politics and representative democracy in place, then pretty much any form of proportional representation will do the trick. not my idea of a good time, but it does that job well enough. and it would be marginally better than the insane asylum system they call a government that is in effect now.

first past the post isn't a majority vote - people can win with less than 50% +1 of the votes. if you want majority votes you have to have some sort of run-off system in place, instant or otherwise.

I'm confused. Are you saying that John could have 30 votes, Bill could have 50 votes, and John gets the nod?
Or, are you saying that John wins with 31% of the vote if Bill only has 28% and the rest of the vote is split up among other candidates?


well, that depends on what you want to achieve. if the goal is merely to end the two party system while keeping party politics and representative democracy in place, then pretty much any form of proportional representation will do the trick. not my idea of a good time, but it does that job well enough. and it would be marginally better than the insane asylum system they call a government that is in effect now.

I have to disagree here. The will of the people is the will of the people. Even if they don't agree with you or I. The rules must be practiced even when one is not on the winning side.

I'm confused. Are you saying that John could have 30 votes, Bill could have 50 votes, and John gets the nod?
Or, are you saying that John wins with 31% of the vote if Bill only has 28% and the rest of the vote is split up among other candidates?

i'm saying that in 1992 bill clinton became president, even though he only got 43% of the vote. the united states has a plurality system. on the other hand, the french presidential system is a majoritarian system with a run-off between the top two candidates.

I have to disagree here. The will of the people is the will of the people. Even if they don't agree with you or I. The rules must be practiced even when one is not on the winning side.

um, what? i have never been on the winning side in any election. but that isn't what is being discussed at all.

maybe i'm using terms you are unfamiliar with. do you know what i mean by proportional representation?

Considering the major partisanry in this country, I'd say the only way the duopoly would end is by a major cataclysm. :(

Considering the major partisanry in this country, I'd say the only way the duopoly would end is by a major cataclysm. :(

no, seriously. if the united states had some system of proportional representation, the greens and libertarians (at least) would wind up with seats in the first election.

no, seriously. if the united states had some system of proportional representation, the greens and libertarians (at least) would wind up with seats in the first election.

I agree. But there will never be proportional representation until the Democrats and Republicans are kicked out of Congress. And that won't happen until partisanry in the US ceases. And that won't happen until the Democrats and Republicans are kicked out of the government. It's a catch-22 or some related logical fallacy.

I agree. But there will never be proportional representation until the Democrats and Republicans are kicked out of Congress. And that won't happen until partisanry in the US ceases. And that won't happen until the Democrats and Republicans are kicked out of the government. It's a catch-22 or some related logical fallacy.

well, there is always revolution.

though it would be supremely lame if we had the revolution and only asked for some proportional representation in the legislature.

i'm saying that in 1992 bill clinton became president, even though he only got 43% of the vote. the united states has a plurality system. on the other hand, the french presidential system is a majoritarian system with a run-off between the top two candidates.

Ah! *That* clears a lot up, thanks. But I (personally) don't have a problem with plurality, as it's still the will of the people. And, in respects to this thread, I don't see changing to majoritarian as being particuarly effective way to "diversfy" the election process.

But the French just have a 4 party malaise instead of a 2 party malaise. I'm dont see that's much better.


um, what? i have never been on the winning side in any election. but that isn't what is being discussed at all.

maybe i'm using terms you are unfamiliar with. do you know what i mean by proportional representation?

That's too bad... I'm 3 and 2 in terms of presidentials...

Yep. I just wasn't clear what you were on about.

And, in respects to this thread, I don't see changing to majoritarian as being particuarly effective way to "diversfy" the election process.

it wouldn't. that's why i don't know what all those greens and liberts are on about irv for. seems counter-productive to me.

But I (personally) don't have a problem with plurality, as it's still the will of the people.

is it? in what way is 'the will of the people' expressed when only one person is chosen to represent a whole pile of opposing viewpoints, and that person doesn't even have the tacit approval of 50%+1 of the voters?

if you want 'the will of the people' you are pretty much committing yourself to either some type of direct democracy, or some form of proportional representation in multi-member bodies and some form of election that satisfies the condorcet criterion for single-member positions.

everything else essentially leaves out significant parts of 'the will of the people' while drastically overstating other parts.

if you want 'the will of the people' you are pretty much committing yourself to either some type of direct democracy, or some form of proportional representation in multi-member bodies and some form of election that satisfies the condorcet criterion for single-member positions.

Nowadays direct democracy could work. Just give everyone PDAs that are intrinsically linked with their identity and capable of voting on issues. Add in biometric security so political groups don't engage in mass thievery.

is it? in what way is 'the will of the people' expressed when only one person is chosen to represent a whole pile of opposing viewpoints, and that person doesn't even have the tacit approval of 50%+1 of the voters?

Why is 50% a magic number? If 20% abstain, then 40%+1 becomes the magic number. The 20% have chosen not to decide.


if you want 'the will of the people' you are pretty much committing yourself to either some type of direct democracy, or some form of proportional representation in multi-member bodies and some form of election that satisfies the condorcet criterion for single-member positions.


I disagree in terms of definition: the will of the people is simply the outcome of any election under whatever counting method is used. Be it majority or plurality, there's still a winner.


everything else essentially leaves out significant parts of 'the will of the people' while drastically overstating other parts.

Not at all. Unvocal parts of the populace are exactly that. This is why Senior Citizens are "over-represented" and 18-30 year olds are "under-represented": people whom go vote and are politically aware will effect the will of the people more.

Why is 50% a magic number? If 20% abstain, then 40%+1 becomes the magic number. The 20% have chosen not to decide.

don't be dense.

a gets 5%
b gets 5%
c gets 10%
d gets 10%
e gets 15%
f gets 15%
g gets 16%
h gets 14%
i gets 4%
j gets 6%

in what way would 'the will of the people' be served by declaring that only candidate g is the representative of 'the people'? 50%+1 is a magic number in democratic theory because it indicates that more people approve of something than disapprove of it - which is kind of the entire point. abstentions have nothing to do with it.


I disagree in terms of definition: the will of the people is simply the outcome of any election under whatever counting method is used. Be it majority or plurality, there's still a winner.

that is utterly ridiculous. you cannot possibly mean 'whatever counting method is used'. or for that matter, 'any election'.

suppose you have an election where the counting method involves giving nearly all of the voting power to a select group of voters (the party officials, for example). everyone votes, but no matter who they vote for the person chosen by the select group becomes the winner. 'will of the people'?

or suppose you have an election where everyone's votes count equally, but there is only one candidate allowed on the ballot (or a set of candidates, all of which are hand picked by the government). does the winner (either with the most votes or majority of them) of this vote really represent 'the will of the people'?

i assume that you meant to include an unspoken assumption about 'fair elections' rather than just flat out saying that any person who wins an election represents 'the will of the people'. but fairness is exactly the quality being examined. there are a number of criteria that could arguably be called necessary to have a fair election. the point is, you have to argue for them.

Not at all. Unvocal parts of the populace are exactly that. This is why Senior Citizens are "over-represented" and 18-30 year olds are "under-represented": people whom go vote and are politically aware will effect the will of the people more.

what are you talking about exactly? what do people who don't vote have to do with anything?

ok, let me lay this out for you. in a single member district operating on a plurality winner-take-all system (first past the post), not everyone who votes has their opinion represented in the governmental body. everyone who voted for any candidate that wasn't the plurality winner gets no representation at all. in other words, many people who did express an opinion are not counted in 'the will of the people' as far as representatives go. but there are other possible systems where this doesn't come up as much. proportional representation systems, for example. under pr, seats in a multi-member body are assigned according to the level of support given to the various parties. pr tends to keep things in line with actual public opinion, while winner-take-all systems tend to vastly under-represent smaller parties.

did any reform party members get into congress back when the reform party had rather widespread support? of course not. but around 9% of the population voted for the reform party, which means that they likely would have liked to see the reform party in power. given the chance, they would also have liked to have some representation in congress for their views. they made up 9% of the voting public, and yet had 0% of the seats in congress. fair?

don't be dense.

a gets 5%
b gets 5%
c gets 10%
d gets 10%
e gets 15%
f gets 15%
g gets 16%
h gets 14%
i gets 4%
j gets 6%

in what way would 'the will of the people' be served by declaring that only candidate g is the representative of 'the people'? 50%+1 is a magic number in democratic theory because it indicates that more people approve of something than disapprove of it - which is kind of the entire point. abstentions have nothing to do with it.

G has the most votes, the people have spoken. QED.

Consider:
If you're wanting 50%+1 of the electorate to be behind a candidate to win, it is no more logical than having compulory voting. Voting is the people choosing their candidate for office, right?
Well, if you have less than 100% of eligible voters vote, it's not the will of the people according to your own definition. After all... any result will NOT necessarily be that 50%+1 approval.

Oh, and, a... don't be dense. ;)

that is utterly ridiculous. you cannot possibly mean 'whatever counting method is used'. or for that matter, 'any election'.

Um, no, it is most certainly NOT ridiculous. If the rules are pre-agreed upon, and someone fullfills the requirement, they win. That's it. No Rosie O'Donnell recounts. No do-overs. No re-votes.

suppose you have an election where the counting method involves giving nearly all of the voting power to a select group of voters (the party officials, for example). everyone votes, but no matter who they vote for the person chosen by the select group becomes the winner. 'will of the people'?

Ah, the spurious example. May as well have given goldfish the vote while you're at it. :D
Seriously: As long as ANYONE can vote, you have will of the people. Once you follow your example, you're no longer in a representative anything.

or suppose you have an election where everyone's votes count equally, but there is only one candidate allowed on the ballot (or a set of candidates, all of which are hand picked by the government). does the winner (either with the most votes or majority of them) of this vote really represent 'the will of the people'?

I've seen that, in Czechoslovakia in the 80s. It doesn't work. And it's another spurious example. Of course that's not will of the people. See my next paragraph's response, it ties in.

i assume that you meant to include an unspoken assumption about 'fair elections' rather than just flat out saying that any person who wins an election represents 'the will of the people'.

I assumed that since we've been discussing *American* politics that it was a fair assumption that we'd stay in that arena. I mean, hey, even though they haven't won in over 90 years, the Republicans still run a candidate for mayor in New Haven, CT. And elections are not the same in every municipality.

but fairness is exactly the quality being examined. there are a number of criteria that could arguably be called necessary to have a fair election. the point is, you have to argue for them.

Er? We do? As far as I know, there's nowhere in the Union that doesn't have at least 50 years of successful elections.

what are you talking about exactly? what do people who don't vote have to do with anything?

Quite a bit. It was a mostly untapped demographic, and one that in part got Bush re-elected. It also makes the arguement that even a person not winning your 50%+1 magic number may in actuality have it. Cf; my explaination up top at "Consider:".


ok, let me lay this out for you. in a single member district operating on a plurality winner-take-all system (first past the post), not everyone who votes has their opinion represented in the governmental body. everyone who voted for any candidate that wasn't the plurality winner gets no representation at all. in other words, many people who did express an opinion are not counted in 'the will of the people' as far as representatives go. but there are other possible systems where this doesn't come up as much. proportional representation systems, for example. under pr, seats in a multi-member body are assigned according to the level of support given to the various parties. pr tends to keep things in line with actual public opinion, while winner-take-all systems tend to vastly under-represent smaller parties.

did any reform party members get into congress back when the reform party had rather widespread support? of course not. but around 9% of the population voted for the reform party, which means that they likely would have liked to see the reform party in power. given the chance, they would also have liked to have some representation in congress for their views. they made up 9% of the voting public, and yet had 0% of the seats in congress. fair?

Aha! So you're keen on a tyranny of the minority, where every single voice gets their say on every matter on an official level, no matter how inane.

Look, the main reason why the current system is the way it is: the nation's size. Simply put, for any function larger than the local level, large scale representation bogs down and nothing gets done. This is why there are no state-wide or nation-wide town hall meetings. At least, not ones where just anyone can show/call up and be heard. Nothing would get done.

9%? What the heck race was that?

maybe its me...

have i been too vague and unclear? i didn't think i was, but you know, sometimes you can't see your own words properly.

I'd suspect a split off from one of the major parties, probably led by a rich Ross Perot type fellow. I'd suspect that the split would be towards the middle, instead of the edges, and would nab members of both parties in a sustainable third party.
Yeah I agree. Maybe there could be a charismatic libertarian candidate.

I've noticed that what Republicans dislike most about liberals is their socialism, while what liberals dislike most about Republicans is their authoritarianism. Obviously libertarianism is a good compromise for them!

I said if it happens. I don't see what a "it won't happen" choice would serve in a poll asking how it would happen if it did. The Libertarians and Greens were just examples of possible splits - it could be an entire split by someone completely different somewhere else on the spectrum.
How about an authoritarian? You know, like a Christian conservative socialist! In 1896 such a person, Will Bryant, was the Democratic presidential candidate. It could happen again. Everyone in the South would vote for this candidate, the east and midwest would be split, and the west would be against him. Sounds like an election-winning formula.

I said if it happens. I don't see what a "it won't happen" choice would serve in a poll asking how it would happen if it did. The Libertarians and Greens were just examples of possible splits - it could be an entire split by someone completely different somewhere else on the spectrum.
How about an authoritarian? You know, like a Christian conservative socialist! In 1896 such a person, Will Bryant, was the Democratic presidential candidate. It could happen again. Everyone in the South would vote for this candidate, the east and midwest would be split, and the west would be against him. Sounds like an election-winning formula.

I'm waiting for the coup. But Americans are stupid and don't know how to fight.

Look, the main reason why the current system is the way it is: the nation's size. Simply put, for any function larger than the local level, large scale representation bogs down and nothing gets done.
It seems to me, as a foreign observer, that it would be better for the USA to just split up into a few smaller countries. You could have The South (theocracy), The West (libertarian) and The East (liberal) and the Midwest (moderately socialist). (I think I'm roughly right as to the dominant political views in those regions, yes?) Americans seem to be so angry about politics now. Massachusetts liberals hate having morals dictated to them by people from Texas. Arizona hates having the Minnesotans voting to raise their federal taxes. It would be so much easier surely if people in the South just decided policy for the south, and ditto for other places.

It seems to me, as a foreign observer, that it would be better for the USA to just split up into a few smaller countries. You could have The South (theocracy), The West (libertarian) and The East (liberal) and the Midwest (moderately socialist). (I think I'm roughly right as to the dominant political views in those regions, yes?) Americans seem to be so angry about politics now. Massachusetts liberals hate having morals dictated to them by people from Texas. Arizona hates having the Minnesotans voting to raise their federal taxes. It would be so much easier surely if people in the South just decided policy for the south, and ditto for other places.

Nah. The fact is, we agree on about 75% of everything. It's that last 25% that makes life interesting.

Besides, if we balkanized, it'd just put the USA into the same state as Europe, and that's not going to help us out anyway. ;)

I don't think the average American is any angrier now than in 1986. I blame the late unpleasantness firmly on cable news... and the idiots that watch it for HOURS a day. Back in the 70s, you could watch the news for an hour or two... and that was it. Now, you get conditioned by seeing the same stories 15 times a day. :(

Electoral college has to go first. Even a guy with Perot-level appeal still gets no votes under the current system. Winner-take-all needs to go; states need to make ballot-access fair (potentially standardized across the nation); and campaign finance needs to be cleaned up. With those changes, third-party candidates have a more realistic shot. Put a couple charismatic candidates in the mix (maybe two or three elections with Perot-level third-party numbers [20% popular vote]) and all of a sudden third-party candidates aren't seen as such a waste of votes.

It wouldn't surprise me if both major parties splintered into the following factions: Libertarian-Republican (closest to mine), Christian-Conservative, Mainstream Moderate Republican, Mainstream Centrist Democrat, Old Labor-Liberal Democrat, and New Labor-Liberal Democrat. Six major parties would make for quite an election. :p

I probably could have chosen a combination of the above because I have a feeling what could happen is that the extreme wings of both parties (the extreme right of the Republican Party and the extreme left of the Democratic Party) will alienate the more centrist wings of both parties to the point where the moderates realize they have more in common with each other than with their extremeist brethren.

This would have to be a combination of several "perfect" events for a third party candidate to win office, but this is how it might happen:

During the start of the 2008 campaign season (roughly the second half of 2007), the battle lines between the parties gets drawn and the whole red state-blue state brouhaha returns. The right wingers in the Republican Party mount their standard fare of moral values, among other issues. The left wingers among the Democrats go on a counter-offensive that ends up painting both parties as extremists. Moderates in both parties get irritated at what becomes polarizing statements from party leaders in both extremes (the "either you're totally for us or you're against us" mentality). It gets to a point where the extremists from both parties attack their moderate brethren.

Finally, the moderates in the two parties realize they have more similarities with each other than they do with their radical counterparts and decide to form a coalition. That coalition eventually takes the form of a third party that includes some who might have signed on with the Reform Party in its heyday. A candidate among the centrists emerges who is charismatic and can attack BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans and does. He or she is able to appeal to the moderate voters and when Election Day 2008 comes, he or she wins the Presidency in a repudiation of the same old tactics of both the Democrats and Republicans.

Both parties then realize they are going to have to change the way they do business or they both could go under in a Second Era of Good Feelings.

It wouldn't surprise me if both major parties splintered into the following factions: Libertarian-Republican (closest to mine), Christian-Conservative, Mainstream Moderate Republican, Mainstream Centrist Democrat, Old Labor-Liberal Democrat, and New Labor-Liberal Democrat. Six major parties would make for quite an election. :p

There's only one small flaw in your concept:

No money: (stars, celebs and rich people will not give to these)
Libertarian-Republican
Mainstream Moderate Republican
Mainstream Centrist Democrat

No popular support:
Christian-Conservative, (believe it or not, it's just a veeeeeeeery vocal minority)
Old Labor-Liberal Democrat, (I'm pretty sure they're as dead as manufacturing jobs in the US.)
New Labor-Liberal Democrat (I'm not even sure what this is, but I'm assuming it's the "Old LLDs" with a few slightly different outlooks on a few issues?)

...so we're back to 2 major parties with large enough tents such that they can get enough votes to win -- basically the Mainstreams you list.

And yes, both the GOP and DEMs are mainstream even in today's highly divinsive political climate.

I don't forsee it being broken. I think that most Americans can categorize themselves as Democrat or Republican. I know what I am, and I know I will not switch anytime soon.

No money: (stars, celebs and rich people will not give to these)
Libertarian-Republican
Mainstream Moderate Republican
Mainstream Centrist Democrat

No popular support:
Christian-Conservative, (believe it or not, it's just a veeeeeeeery vocal minority)
Old Labor-Liberal Democrat, (I'm pretty sure they're as dead as manufacturing jobs in the US.)
New Labor-Liberal Democrat (I'm not even sure what this is, but I'm assuming it's the "Old LLDs" with a few slightly different outlooks on a few issues?)

I basically see it as there are four factions (with varying size) in each party:
The moderates, the hardcores, the socials, and the fiscals. The latter two are mean to determine which scale they feel more strongly about. I, for example, am a social liberal. I am very strong left on social issues, but left-LEANING on economic issues. I therefore favor fiscal conservatives to social conservatives, because on the so-called political compass, we are slightly closer to each other.

as much as i would love to see it, i don't think it will ever happen. unfortunately, i am quite cynical (i prefer realist) when it comes to 2-party politics. i don't think it will ever happen because of 2 things: money and power and the republicans and democrats will fight together to keep it that way to prevent loss of their own power. IMO, politicians, no matter what party look out for each other long before they look out for you or me. the two parties are nothing but big corporations, acting in their own self-interests (which doesn't include dilution of their own power).

that is my $.02

as much as i would love to see it, i don't think it will ever happen. unfortunately, i am quite cynical (i prefer realist) when it comes to 2-party politics. i don't think it will ever happen because of 2 things: money and power and the republicans and democrats will fight together to keep it that way to prevent loss of their own power. IMO, politicians, no matter what party look out for each other long before they look out for you or me. the two parties are nothing but big corporations, acting in their own self-interests (which doesn't include dilution of their own power).

that is my $.02
I take it you're a Green? Big corporations and all?

I take it you're a Green? Big corporations and all?


actually, i have no qualms whatsover with corporations, as i think they do more societal good than bad. while most corporations provide a tangible good/service, political parties (may or may not provide a valuable service depending on your view) lust for politcal power (uhh, by definition i guess...)

i honestly struggle to align myself with a politcal party, i guess on pure principle/party theme, i would consider myself libertarian, but there are sure a lot of positions i do not agree with. i guess i am more more anti-2 party politics than necessarily pro-[insert 3rd party here]. sorry about the rambling....

Considering the middling-right trend of both parties I suspect that should a party splinter, it will be the Democrats. Hard right voters maintain considerable sway in the Republican party but the hard left has always had trouble keeping a hold on the Democratic party, particularly since the corporate interests gained ground in the 1980s.

That being said strict campaign finance reform might stop any divide (which is unlikely as is) in its tracks.

I basically see it as there are four factions (with varying size) in each party:
The moderates, the hardcores, the socials, and the fiscals. The latter two are mean to determine which scale they feel more strongly about. I, for example, am a social liberal. I am very strong left on social issues, but left-LEANING on economic issues. I therefore favor fiscal conservatives to social conservatives, because on the so-called political compass, we are slightly closer to each other.

I agree that those are four attributes of just about anybody. But as a whole, I don't see them as dividing lines. I'm moderate on social issues, fiscal conservative but hardcore against censorship and gun control.

The problem is that there are dozens of different issues, and neither party will ever balkanize on any one or even three of them, lest the other party get waaaaaay ahead.

Canada and the US will both have their own civil wars within the next 50 years. You can feel it in air, and you can see it on the news. The 21st century shall prove to be very interesting.

Canada and the US will both have their own civil wars within the next 50 years. You can feel it in air, and you can see it on the news. The 21st century shall prove to be very interesting.

What a bunch of blather. Exactly what circumstances do you see unfolding where your neighbors pick up guns and go into the street and shoot one another?

This last election was one of the most contentious in the 20th century, yet for all that no one rioted, no one was killed and in spite of all the passion and rhetoric only about 60% of eligible voters actually cared enough to pull a lever.

Civil war?

Please.

It wouldn't surprise me if both major parties splintered into the following factions: Libertarian-Republican (closest to mine), Christian-Conservative, Mainstream Moderate Republican, Mainstream Centrist Democrat, Old Labor-Liberal Democrat, and New Labor-Liberal Democrat. Six major parties would make for quite an election. :p

You have identified factions within the two political parties, but that does not mean they will break away from those two parties.

In the American system the Constitution ensures that elections are won by a plurality of votes. We do not have proportional representation, so that means third parties - successful third parties, that is - are destined to one of two fates:

1) Replace one of the two parties. The most wildly successful possibility is that they eventually supplant one of the existing two major parties. After being replaced the former major party ceases to exist or dwindles down to an insignificant third party and the two party system is again re-established. This is what happened in the 1850s and 1860s when the Republicans replaced the Whigs. However, since both parties are attempting to win 50%+ of the electorate the new party must appeal to the same voters as the party they replaced, ensuring a moderate, middle of the road platform.

2) Success of the ideas but not the party. In this scenario the idea or ideas of the third party prove to be so appealing, pulling voters away from one or both of the major parties, that the major parties (or at least one of them) adopt those ideas as part of their platform. This has happened to the Temperance Party, the Greenback Party, the Populist Party, and most successfully, the Progressives of the early 20th century, whose major ideas were adopted by both the Democratic and the Republican Parties (Teddy Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson all called themselves Progressives and FDR's New Deal can be seen as an extension of the Progressive agenda). Once their ideas were co-opted they had no further reason to exist and the Progressive Party's last hurrah was the 1912 losing campaign when they ran Teddy Roosevelt as a "Bull Moose" (not counting a brief resurrection in 1948 when they ran former VP Henry Wallace for president).

The only way there will ever be permanent successful third parties is if the Constitution is amended and it is highly unlikely that either of the two major parties (or any parties that may eventually replace them) will allow that to happen.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8030855&postcount=8




Originally Posted by Markreich
The Liberal Party technically ceased to exist in 1988... that "new" group calling themselves hasn't even a seat in Commons!

Originally Posted byToujours-Rouge:
I know, its' a pity. I think one reason for that is Labour scare-mongering that 'the tories will get back into power' or (far worse) the BNP. Therefore, left wingers who aren't too happy with Labour are still voting for them to keep out extremist right wingers. I may still vote Labour at the next election for precisely that reason - too many bigots in my area make me uneasy.
However, from my understanding of Liberal policy (and politics isnt my 'strongest' area) they seem to be the 'major' party closest to sharing my views so i'd rather see them in power.


As our English friends show, more parties are not necessarily the answer!
The two party system: the worst system, except for every other one we've tried. :D

bump

As our English friends show, more parties are not necessarily the answer!
The two party system: the worst system, except for every other one we've tried. :D

except that the english system is the american system. winner-take-all plurality districts. what that post describes is the 'spoiler effect'. its what keeps the green and libertarian votes so low in the u.s. the lib-dems face the same problem, but they have been winning some seats in fairly targetted campaigns. kind of a special case of the regional party (which is what other parties holding seats are).

I voted "Other" and here is my explanation:

I think it is highly possible that the Republicans will gain a greater majority in the House and Senate and will likely hold on to the White House for a long time as well. The Constitution does not mandate a "multi-party system" and I don't consider it to be a benchmark indicator of a free nation. A nation is made up first and foremost of individuals.

So, the Republicans gain a sizable majority. They will also begin propping up the Libertarian Party in traditionally Democratic areas where they know they won't win. Dissolving the Democrat Party base further and creating a temporary 3-Party Democrat - Libertarian - Republican paradigm which will then be followed by Libertarian-Republican two-party paradigm a merger of the Libertarians into the Republican Party. With only one party, America will finally live up to the wishes of George Washington and individualism will triumph as everyone becomes Independents.

That said: Support an Amendment tripling the size of the House of Representatives! Martin Luther King Jr. on the $50 bill!

That said: Support an Amendment tripling the size of the House of Representatives! Martin Luther King Jr. on the $50 bill!

Martin Luther King Jr. means absolutely nothing to me. My parents immigrated from a Communist nation in 1970. The man was not a founding father, was not a President, and is not worthy of being on currency.

I am also against the Susan B. Anthony and Sacajawea Dollar coins. If anything, Reagan should be put on currency... perhaps the $5 since Lincoln already has the penny or the $1 since Washington already has the quarter.

I'd say a new Democrat should be put on currency as well, but FDR and JFK are already there, and Carter & Clinton are still alive (and may not make the grade... just like Bush Sr and Ford will never be so honored.)

Martin Luther King Jr. means absolutely nothing to me. My parents immigrated from a Communist nation in 1970. The man was not a founding father, was not a President, and is not worthy of being on currency.

I am also against the Susan B. Anthony and Sacajawea Dollar coins. If anything, Reagan should be put on currency... perhaps the $5 since Lincoln already has the penny or the $1 since Washington already has the quarter.

I'd say a new Democrat should be put on currency as well, but FDR and JFK are already there, and Carter & Clinton are still alive (and may not make the grade... just like Bush Sr and Ford will never be so honored.)
Ronald Reagan would be a good choice and should be on the penny or quarter. Washington I think would be best kept on the $1. As for Martin Luther King Jr. let us remember that America is not a white nation, but a melting pot of all nations. Martin Luther King Jr. represents this splendidly and would make a great addition to the $50 bill and many Americans consider him a founding father of the modern United States.

Carter & Clinton would never be so honored. Reagan yes, Ford no, Bush Sr. no. Reagan would do well on the quarter but I believe they're trying to put him on the dime. But lets face, Grant on the $50 ? What gives with that? Honestly, he doesn't make the grade. Teddy Roosevelt, maybe.

With only one party, America will finally live up to the wishes of George Washington and individualism will triumph as everyone becomes Independents.
Do you honestly believe that a one-party state would be a victory for individualism? Do you know anything about history?

Do you honestly believe that a one-party state would be a victory for individualism? Do you know anything about history?
Yes, and a one party state is equivalent to no parties at all. Where internal party politics = one man is his own party. The Constitution does not mandate political parties.

many Americans consider him a founding father of the modern United States.
You wouldn't happen to have a source for that, would you? I didn't even know people thought there were founding fathers of the "modern" United States.

You wouldn't happen to have a source for that, would you? I didn't even know people thought there were founding fathers of the "modern" United States.
It is the opinion I've formed over my life based on the many testimonies by black Americans that the United States was not a 'true democracy' representing all of Americans until after Martin Luther King Jr.

Also, my point will require some historical distance. A thousand years from now the United States will look back on the first 300 years as "The Founding Era" just as we look back today on the first hundred years as a "Founding Era" counting Abraham Lincoln as one of our Founding Fathers.

Also, I believe that including Martin Luther King Jr. on the $50 bill will help keep black Americans from feeling alienated by the system. African-Americans are an important part of our nation, and deserve recognition.

Ronald Reagan would be a good choice and should be on the penny or quarter. Washington I think would be best kept on the $1. As for Martin Luther King Jr. let us remember that America is not a white nation, but a melting pot of all nations. Martin Luther King Jr. represents this splendidly and would make a great addition to the $50 bill and many Americans consider him a founding father of the modern United States.

Carter & Clinton would never be so honored. Reagan yes, Ford no, Bush Sr. no. Reagan would do well on the quarter but I believe they're trying to put him on the dime. But lets face, Grant on the $50 ? What gives with that? Honestly, he doesn't make the grade. Teddy Roosevelt, maybe.

I agree w/ Grant, I'd rather see him replaced with Rutherford B. Hayes, argueably the best President of the post Civil War/pre T. Roosevelt Era.

I still disagree about King, tho. It's *American* currency. It should only honor Presidents and founders, something we all have in common. King means no more to me that Dubcek or Masaryk means to Dennis Rodman.

It is the opinion I've formed over my life based on the many testimonies by black Americans that the United States was not a 'true democracy' representing all of Americans until after Martin Luther King Jr.

Also, my point will require some historical distance. A thousand years from now the United States will look back on the first 300 years as "The Founding Era" just as we look back today on the first hundred years as a "Founding Era" counting Abraham Lincoln as one of our Founding Fathers.

Also, I believe that including Martin Luther King Jr. on the $50 bill will help keep black Americans from feeling alienated by the system. African-Americans are an important part of our nation, and deserve recognition.

Okay, by that arguement:
It took Washington 133 years (after he died) to get on currency in 1932. Let the Americans in 2101 decide (133 year after 1968) decide if he is indeed "currency worthy".

As for "recognition" : The $100 "I" Series bond already does that.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/sav/sbiwho.htm

So what are you going to do for gays & lesbians, Poles, Irish, and Italians?
And all the other important minorities in our nation?

Feeling alienated? Please. The man did nothing for the nation, just for a distinct ethnic group. Laudable. Commendable. Worthy of respect. But an accolade like being put on currency? Absurd. Just like his birthday being a Federal holiday.
I want Koscuisko's birthday off! :)
http://members.tripod.com/~kclocke/index-3.html

It won't ever happen. That's because to win you need a plurality of the votes, not a simple majority.

Precisely. I chose "forcibly legislated" because until there's a huge change in the way our elections are run, the two party system will definitely still be in place. Even if a party like the libertarians or the greens eventually gain popularity, they'll simply take the place of one of the original parties as either the dems or the reps fade like the whigs and federalists did.

I'm a libertarian (although I'm from Europe) and it's my guess that nothing will change, I personally hope that there's a conflict in the Republican Party which will cause the Republican Libertarians to split and go to the LP, hopefully other Libertarian-leaning Conservatives (Consitution Party) will follow their lead and unite in the LP.

I don't see it happen though:

First of all the Libertarian Nature, Libertarians (from my POV) aren't easily united, they are very individualist and can be assholes. They are all a bunch of lone wolves which have much difficulties fitting in a group and hate authority/government (and therefore are also unwilling to serve under some leader)

Second of all I'm just wishful thinking, I hope it'll happen, but nothing will change, people are just too stubborn, maybe in a next generation, after some heavy marketing campaigns by a charismatic LP candidate, with support from famous libertarians but the current generation will stick to their current parties.....

Offcourse the other way is that the Free State Project succeeds, New Hampshire becomes a Libertarian Utopia, every American sees how good it is there and becomes libertarian, America goes on a isolationist course, there's some civil war in the Balkan and everyone hates America for not intervening and America says meh. Oh and the United Nations is screwed too.

Yes, and a one party state is equivalent to no parties at all. Where internal party politics = one man is his own party. The Constitution does not mandate political parties.
This has been proven wrong in reality every time. Do you think that such one-party states as Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany or Castro's Cuba prize individualism? One party is not the same as no party. If you stray too far from the party line, you're in trouble.

I voted for splinters from both,

Democrats have the far left progressives that repluse most Americans, The Republicans have the far right , not sure what to classify them, that repluse most Americans.

With the progressives demanding more say in the Democrat Party it is only time before they decide to go their own way possibly joining the Green Party. Hard to say which issue will finally be the straw to break the back. But I see it coming from all the websites I read from this group.

The Republicans have a huge fight on their hands with their base coming soon. It happens to be the illegal alien issue. Most Republicans will abandon the party if Bush forces through the open border policy he is trying to do. Forming their own party or joining the Libertarians. Hard to say for sure if this will be the main issue for this spliinter. But from everything I have read from their sites suggest this will be the main wedge.

As for who it will happen to first. I will say the Democrats will splinter long before the Republicans. Giving us a viable 3rd party, then the Rebulicans who are unsatisfied with the current policies of the party will splinter and give us a viable 4th party.