NationStates Jolt Archive

What if a system were put in place for at least 4 parties to exist in America. How would you think it should be set up?

I think that each would need to get at least 10% of the vote. If less than 4 parties got less than 10% of the vote then the government should be recessed and another election held in 4 months.

What do you think?

and

What would you change/add?

What if a system were put in place for at least 4 parties to exist in America. How would you think it should be set up?

I think that each would need to get at least 10% of the vote. If less than 4 parties got less than 10% of the vote then the government should be recessed and another election held in 4 months.

What do you think?

and

What would you change/add?

Yeah. Because that way always atleast a third of the population would not want that leader.And if the people who want him/her are more than two thirds you should hold another election.

Yeah. Because that way always atleast a third of the population would not want that leader.And if the people who want him/her are more than two thirds you should hold another election.

Then of course we have to concern the way congress/senators are elected. I was channelling the Canadian example for a minute there where parties are elected and not just a individual like in the american system.

I wonder if the compulsory system would be best with the parliamentary system?

What would the cost/benefits be of a system like this in the US?

Then of course we have to concern the way congress/senators are elected. I was channelling the Canadian example for a minute there where parties are elected and not just a individual like in the american system.

I wonder if the compulsory system would be best with the parliamentary system?

What would the cost/benefits be of a system like this in the US?

In Britain we use a parliamentary system. I have no idea how it would affect the US, but it must be better than the current method.

Though to be honest I don't think it would work in America as there are too many people. The principle relies on each MP voted in to control a small area, known to them locally usually, with a few tens of thousands of people in it. Not sure if the Canadian system works the same.

But America is just too big and too heavily populated. I couldn't see it working.

do most Americans want a multi-party system?

It's an illiberal idea that prevents the rise of mass ideaological movements. However, their are at least four parties here. In fact, there are hundreds, if not thousands of them.

Yeah. Because that way always atleast a third of the population would not want that leader.And if the people who want him/her are more than two thirds you should hold another election.

Wait, if two-thirds of the people vote for someone, that means there should be a re-vote?

I don't follow you.

What if a system were put in place for at least 4 parties to exist in America. How would you think it should be set up?

I think that each would need to get at least 10% of the vote. If less than 4 parties got less than 10% of the vote then the government should be recessed and another election held in 4 months.

what? why would you want to do that? if you want multiple parties, why not just institute multimember districts and proportional representation like everybody else?

Multiparty systems are a nice idea, but they do create some weaknesses - for example, it is much harder to accomplish something with a plurality out of four competing ideologies rather than a majority out of two. The Wermar Republic was multiparty, and we all saw how that ended up (some personally, others, like myself, must watch endless reruns on the History Channel).

I understand the drawbacks of the two-party system, since everything winds up boiling down to a sort of black-and-white (or red-and-blue) issue. For example: are you for gun control? Then you are also for abortion! And affirmative action too!

I think that a two-party system with more moderation would be a better system than any multiparty morass.

Multiple parties are well and good, but mandating them in that way doesn't sound like the most wonderful idea I've ever heard.

We have a plethora of parties in Brazil. All that happens is that people get confused about which party represents what political idea (particularly as most of them don't.) The UK has, or at least had when I was there, four serious parties, but two of them only had any effect if the big two were more or less evenly balanced. Balance of power effect. (Sorry SNP and Plaid Cymru, I didn't include you as serious)

How would having two new, non traditional parties have any effect on the American system?

Multiparty systems are a nice idea, but they do create some weaknesses - for example, it is much harder to accomplish something with a plurality out of four competing ideologies rather than a majority out of two. The Wermar Republic was multiparty, and we all saw how that ended up (some personally, others, like myself, must watch endless reruns on the History Channel).
What? You're talking about multiparty systems and you bring up the Weimar Republic as an example to "prove" their inferiority?

Why not bring up any of the modern European systems, which are more successful?

Yes, I know, it would not suit your pro-2 party stance.

The UK has, or at least had when I was there, four serious parties, but two of them only had any effect if the big two were more or less evenly balanced. Balance of power effect. (Sorry SNP and Plaid Cymru, I didn't include you as serious)
Britain is really a three-party system now.

America has at least 4 parties!!

America has at least 4 parties!!

Yeah...but only 2 have any real power, hence the problem. I was wondering if this could get more honest debate going within the political system. Having a law that forces 4 parties into a decent presence in the legislative bodies could have a positive effect (as unlikely it is for such a law to be passed to begin with).

There are plenty of libertarians voting for Repubs and Nader fans voting for Dems. This would finally give them the opportunity to vote their conscience and know that it will matter. No more being 'shut out' by the more dominant parties. They would be guaranteed status.

BTW pluralities are no biggie. They break the backs of the more dominant parties, force parties to make concessions while creating laws. Sure they 'slow things down' but they also improve quality of the legislative process. To be honest I prefer minority governments.

Legislating something as foolish as "If you don't conform to specific percentages of voting we'll keep on reholding the election until you do" does not equate to giving libertarians, greens, etc... the ability to vote their conscience. Especially since I personally doubt the Libertarians or the Greens could ever hope to each get a different 10% of a national vote. We would always be holding elections.

What I wouldn't mind is a system that allots seats in congress based on percentage of voters who vote for a party, after the seats are up the people then vote for who they want to get the seats. This would end up with teh senate being full of only democrats and republicans and the house would be full of Libertarians, Greens, Democrats, Republicans etc…

IE, the order would be

1) Everyone who wants to vote goes out and votes for which party they like
2) Everyone then votes inside 1, and 1, party only for who they wish to represent them in that party. They would vote for both the House and the Senate separately naturally
3) For senate seats to gain both you would need more than 60% of the total vote. Otherwise the two highest vote getters get the two seats for their party.

Lets make up the wonderful state of X.
1)41% vote Republican, 39% vote democrat, 12% vote Libertarian and 8% vote Green.
2) The republican voters vote on the republican candidates, the democrats vote on the democratic candidates etc...
3) You end up with one 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator and then the house seats are split up 41%, 39%, 12%, 8% among their respective parties.

To my mind that kind of system would more accurately represent the people far better than simple majority voting.