NationStates Jolt Archive

Question is right there in the title. Fact is, political issues don't just have two stances on them. You can't just be for or against, with or without, deny or accept. Pick any issue, and I guarentee you there's at least seven different positions one can hold.

But what do we have in American politics? We have two parties that seem to matter. Only two. The so called left-wing Democrats, and the so called right-wing Republicans. One party which has been around since the founding of this country(though it has gone through some name changes) and the other founded in--what, the 1870's? It's ridiculous. No one even thinks about third parties other than how they affect the chances of a certain candidate from one of the two parties winning or losing.

What's worse, so many people in this country believe that we're much more stable politically because we have only two parties trying to represent all the various positions on all the various issues. They point mis-informed fingers at European countries who are "less stable" and state that multiple parties are at fault. (And while this does have some elements of truth, the problem was created by too many parties, on the number of up to 160. A more reasonable number of parties, say, seven or eight, wouldn't cause this kind of problem.)

The chokehold these two parties have on our country is solidified in many ways, first and foremost by the electoral college system, which essentially disenfranchises hundreds of thousands to millions of voters in every state every Presidential election, and is THE main reason for voter apathy. Primaries exist only for these parties, preventing us from having much say with the third parties. The constant stream of political commentary from all the pundits center on the Democrats and Republicans. It's gotten to the point where even the terms left-wing, right-wing, liberal, and conservative have all lost their real meaning and simply become interchangeable with Democrat and Republican.

It's absurd. It's ridiculous. And I'm so SICK of it. I know so many of us here are as well. So how do we break the hold they have? How?

In my personal opinion, what we need to focus on are making new political parties that can represent the positions people have on issues. For example, let's take the Human Rights Party that ran for Parliamentary seats in the NS Parliament. It's a party that I would join instantly if one just like it existed in real life, with the stances it holds and whatnot. The good thing about this hypothetical HRP is that it isn't extreme, whereas every single on of the third parties in the U.S. The Libertarian Party and the Constitutional Party, two of the more well known ones, are both full of extreme-right nutcases, which is why we need better third parties.

Of course, this is hardly the only thing we need to do. So, I ask you, NSers: what steps do we take to destroy once and for all the two-party system of American politics, stop the kind of voter apathy and idiocy that leads to horrible leaders being elected because the only other choice was just as bad? How do we finally make politics in this country about who is BEST, rather than who is WORSE?

its near impossible. They have the power they will do everything to keep it.

its near impossible. They have the power they will do everything to keep it.

Too true. And lets face it, as the political thought processes exemplified by this forum alone show, there are too many people with a such a massively vested interest in the dogma of those two parties that they will resist any and all attempts to alter the status quo for fear that it will weaken their party.

Fire!

Too true. And lets face it, as the political thought processes exemplified by this forum alone show, there are too many people with a such a massively vested interest in the dogma of those two parties that they will resist any and all attempts to alter the status quo for fear that it will weaken their party.
So just because it's extremely difficult, we give up? I'd start listing examples of how people didn't give up during adversity, but that would make me look stupid, since people are rarely inspired by that kind of thing. The point is, it's precisely BECAUSE we refuse to do anything that they can maintain their chokehold. If we all start doing something about it, we can effect the changes we desire.

How Do We Break The Hold The Dems and The Repubs Have On American Politics?

Until we ratify an amendment establishing Proportional Representation over First Past The Post, we're stuck by Duverger's Law (linky (http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html)).

Because of the stranglehold the DNC and RNC have over national politics, it's unlikely anything short of a party implosion will create a viable third party -- and all that new party would do under the current system is supplant the defunct party. (cf., the Republicans forming from the remnants of the Whigs in the U.S. during the 1850s.)

How Do We Break The Hold The Dems and The Repubs Have On American Politics?

Oh, that's simple. Vote for someone else.
.

By popular pressure to abolish the institutional aids to the two-party system - first-past-the-post elections being the major one.

Establish proportional representation and vote Libertarian.

What does it matter if you vote Libertarian? Under a PR system, any party getting more than, say, 5% of the vote is going to get seats -- including the Libertarians. That's the cool part. It lets you vote for ANY party without the guilt of feeling like you're throwing your vote away.

Until we ratify an amendment establishing Proportional Representation over First Past The Post, we're stuck by Duverger's Law (linky (http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html)).

Because of the stranglehold the DNC and RNC have over national politics, it's unlikely anything short of a party implosion will create a viable third party -- and all that new party would do under the current system is supplant the defunct party. (cf., the Republicans forming from the remnants of the Whigs in the U.S. during the 1850s.)
...so, wait...every other democratic country has proportional representation, and we're the only ones with a first past the post system? In essence, the two are linked? That's something I find somewhat shocking, because if there's anything that would be even HARDER to change than the stranglehold of the two parties, it's the FPTP system.

...so, wait...every other democratic country has proportional representation, and we're the only ones with a first past the post system? In essence, the two are linked? That's something I find somewhat shocking, because if there's anything that would be even HARDER to change than the stranglehold of the two parties, it's the FPTP system.

I never said we're the only ones that have First Past The Post. The UK, for example, also uses that system. It has three major parties, but it's third most powerful party (in terms of seats in the House of Commons) has less than 10% of the seats. Hell, if you look at the graph in my Duverger's Law link, you can see a FPTP system with 4 effective parties based on votes AND seats.

But, yes, as a rule, FPTP and the two-party system are linked.

EDIT: Hmm, according to rangevoting.org, the two most notable exceptions to Duverger's Law are Canada and India -- the farthest right green dots.

You don't, not with the voting ballot.

Most drastic means than that would be required.

I never said we're the only ones that have First Past The Post. The UK, for example, also uses that system. It has three major parties, but it's third most powerful party (in terms of seats in the House of Commons) has less than 10% of the seats. Hell, if you look at the graph in my Duverger's Law link, you can see a FPTP system with 4 effective parties based on votes AND seats.

But, yes, as a rule, FPTP and the two-party system are linked.

EDIT: Hmm, according to rangevoting.org, the two most notable exceptions to Duverger's Law are Canada and India -- the farthest right green dots.

So what would it take to get rid of the FPTP system? What kind of changes would that mean to our system of government? Would we be able to keep the way Congress works at all, for instance? Because I'm not sure we could seriously institute such radical changes, even over a number of years. Unless, of course, I'm confusing myself, and proportional representation and parliamentary systems are not linked in the way I thought they were.

Abolish majoritarian voting, and switch to proportional - see Germany, or Italy until 1991.
Then create a parliamentary republic - instead of the presidential system. The government must obtain the confidence of both branches of parliament.

A to the Q: Ultraviolence! Unleash the militias! :p

So what would it take to get rid of the FPTP system? What kind of changes would that mean to our system of government? Would we be able to keep the way Congress works at all, for instance? Because I'm not sure we could seriously institute such radical changes, even over a number of years. Unless, of course, I'm confusing myself, and proportional representation and parliamentary systems are not linked in the way I thought they were.

Proportional Representation comes in many guises, comrades.

PR is, whichever brand you take, the most democratic form of voting. It would mean no change to the system of governance in the US - you'd still elect your Pres, your Senate, etc. The only difference would be in the number of parties present - hell, the Communist Party of America or the Greens might even get a seat! :p

They're not 'radical' changes, they're just taking a different direction to the way you reach the makeup of your govt.

Take the Senate. At the moment, it's got Reps or Dems in, right?

Introduce a form of PR, perhaps Single Transferrable Vote. Now (the theory goes) you'll get Green, Rep, Dem, Commie, Independent, and Martian Senators. The number of seats wouldn't necessarily have to change, and given the US system of one pres for 4/8 years, you could easily institute STV during one pres's first term in office.

Of course, you won't. Just like the Labour Party didn't, in Britain: Manifesto in 1997 - we will introduce PR voting to Westminster! By 2001, that'd vanished. By 2005, no-one was talking about it any more, despite the fact that a Parliamentary Commission had already produced a detailed How To report which is sitting on shelves somewhere in Westminster, waiting to be implemented.

So what would it take to get rid of the FPTP system? What kind of changes would that mean to our system of government? Would we be able to keep the way Congress works at all, for instance? Because I'm not sure we could seriously institute such radical changes, even over a number of years. Unless, of course, I'm confusing myself, and proportional representation and parliamentary systems are not linked in the way I thought they were.

It would take a constitutional amendment to partially rewrite Article I. In addition to voting for your preferred candidate, you vote for preferred party. Each party gets seats on a committee in proportion to its overall vote. Legislation can originate from the House or the Senate, but must pass through this committee with its assent in order to make it to the House or Senate at large. This is similar to the German Bundesrat, but different by my own design to make it fit our system without *too* many changes.

This would require a coalition if no party gets a majority of seats in order to get the passing vote necessary for legislation to make it back to it's originating half of the Capitol. Coalition = compromise, which leads to more representative laws than only two parties can provide.

One further benefit is that even if a smaller fringe party wins a seat or two on committee, they would be a lot easier to ignore than the vocal lunatic fringe of a political party that is supposed to represent 50% of the populace.

I think, the PR is much more democratic. But there is a problem.

If there are too may parties in parliament, it's almost impossible to create a stable government. Look at Italy or Israel. In Italy, almost every goverment was removed of office before the legislation period was over.

And in Israel, there are so many small extreme parties part of the government, that there is always quarreling.

Ideal would be four or five parties, I think. A coalition with more than three parties won't work for long. But even five parties could be a problem sometimes. In Germany, there are five parties in parliament. The conservative CDU/CSU, the liberal FDP, the social democratic SPD, the Green Party and and the left winged party "Die Linke". The big parties are the CDU/CSU and the SPD.

After the election, nobody wanted to make a coalition with the Lefties. And nor CDU/CSU - FDP neither SPD/Greens had a majority.

The FDP didn't want to make a coalition with the Green party.

So the only possibility was a big coalition between CDU/CSU and FDP. And now they mess it up, because they can't decide what to do.

So, if you want a PR system, it is necessary not to let every party in the parliament. They should get 5% of the votes at least, so that there are not too many in parliament.

But something else occured to me. In the USA, every state has two senators, if I'm right. That means, that North Dakota and Alaska have the same amount of representation like California or New York. This isn't really representative, is it?

So, if you want a PR system, it is necessary not to let every party in the parliament. They should get 5% of the votes at least, so that there are not too many in parliament.

But something else occured to me. In the USA, every state has two senators, if I'm right. That means, that North Dakota and Alaska have the same amount of representation like California or New York. This isn't really representative, is it?

I agree that a 5% minimum should be set so that not EVERYONE gets a seat to hold everything up. But the Senate is a compromise in itself. Without it, the smaller states are effectively disenfranchised. Nebraska has 3 representatives in the House. California has 53. In terms of getting Nebraska-promoting legislation passed, California would always smack Nebraska back into its seat. Even representation in the Senate makes sure the little guys get a vote too. (Which, by the way, is the same argument used for keeping the electoral college -- and I disagree with it in THAT context, but that's another thread for another day.)

I agree that a 5% minimum should be set so that not EVERYONE gets a seat to hold everything up. But the Senate is a compromise in itself. Without it, the smaller states are effectively disenfranchised. Nebraska has 3 representatives in the House. California has 53. In terms of getting Nebraska-promoting legislation passed, California would always smack Nebraska back into its seat. Even representation in the Senate makes sure the little guys get a vote too. (Which, by the way, is the same argument used for keeping the electoral college -- and I disagree with it in THAT context, but that's another thread for another day.)
We could always keep the Senate working the way it is currently, in that we vote for favored candidates, but turn the HoR into a proportionally representative environment. Since it's TECHNICALLY that anyway, we could simply switch up voting for candidates for voting for parties to fill the seats for each state. We would still turn the President into a Prime Minister, though we'd still have to work out a way to do that while simultaneously allowing the people to choose them.

As for the electoral college, that's bullshit. With the electoral college out of the way, methinks you'd get nigh equal votes for the Republican and Democratic candidates for President. States are only solid blue or solid red BECAUSE of the electoral college. One of the many reasons we need to get rid of it so we can institute proportional representation.

its near impossible. They have the power they will do everything to keep it.

Not to mention that our system was set up for a two party system.

Look in the past. There have rarely been more than two parties,and usually having three only lasted a few short years.

Approval voting. Take the primaries out, replace them with uniform petition requirements to get on the ballots with candidates identifying themselves with a party if they so choose. Toss the electoral college. Shrink House districts to something reasonable.

If you set up the HoR to be proportional based upon people voting for parties, you have just eliminated the possibility of independent candidates. Thus, you have killed the idea that any citizen could be elected to office.

The problem is that you have the two parties fighting tooth and nail to keep everyone focused on just those two, because even though the other might win this time, you will eventually be back in power. If people were to actually look at a list of candidates, the party leadership might not be assured of having power again.

Look at presidential debates – both Republicans and Democrats say that if a third party is included that they will not participate. They also demand that they have the questions beforehand and get to choose which ones will be asked. It is not a ‘debate’ at all, just a chance for them to stand next to each other and take turns spouting the sound bites they have been rehearsing.

If you wanted to shake things up a bit, every major party should be represented.
While television time is too expensive for most people, PBS debates could easily give every significant candidate a chance to properly debate each other.

Educating the electorate is the most important part of the election process – the problem is that the voting public is so grossly ill-informed that most people only tend to think in terms of a two-party system. Educating the public about viable third parties would start to shake up the system a bit.

You do not necessarily need to win an election to influence the government, just make enough noise to force a candidate to adopt some of your platform or loose.

The Senate is set up to make sure that every state is represented equally.
The House of Representatives makes sure that the people are represented equally.
This system is a very strong one and should not be changed.

The problem is at a local level with how elections are conducted and with the political parties themselves.

The Democrats and Republicans have to encompass wildly different philosophies under one party. You cannot take multiple positions on the same issue and declare yourself to have a single platform without being grossly hypocritical.

Were parties to be split off into much smaller issue groups, and each of those small parties gave their support to a candidate, things might be much better. You could have one candidate nominated by a small selection of parties, so you can better gauge their stance on the whole. If a candidate is nominated by the ‘Tree-huggers of America’, the ‘ban all oil imports now’, and the ‘socialism is really neat’ parties, you have a much better view of that candidate than if you just saw ‘Democrat’. If a candidate is nominated by the ‘Evangelicals for the advancement of the apocalypse’ and the ‘Subsidies for Pineapple growers of Alaska’ party you get a better picture than ‘Republican’.

The Senate is set up to make sure that every state is represented equally.
The House of Representatives makes sure that the people are represented equally.
This system is a very strong one and should not be changed.

The problem is at a local level with how elections are conducted and with the political parties themselves.

The Democrats and Republicans have to encompass wildly different philosophies under one party. You cannot take multiple positions on the same issue and declare yourself to have a single platform without being grossly hypocritical.

Were parties to be split off into much smaller issue groups, and each of those small parties gave their support to a candidate, things might be much better. You could have one candidate nominated by a small selection of parties, so you can better gauge their stance on the whole. If a candidate is nominated by the ‘Tree-huggers of America’, the ‘ban all oil imports now’, and the ‘socialism is really neat’ parties, you have a much better view of that candidate than if you just saw ‘Democrat’. If a candidate is nominated by the ‘Evangelicals for the advancement of the apocalypse’ and the ‘Subsidies for Pineapple growers of Alaska’ party you get a better picture than ‘Republican’.

Very nicely put.

It is possible to fragment one of the main parties, I mean, where are the Whigs now (I know, they mostly became Republicans, but you know what I mean)? It just takes hard work and time and there's an air of "instant gratification wanted" about these debates. You want to change the Republican Party? Find like-minded people and organize with them. If you're persevering enough, you might just make the ones you don't like break away. Or you will, which maybe accomplishes the same thing.

Change the electoral system. I think its quite laughable that so many Americans have said to me that the British electoral system is undemocratic. The American one is far worse. Only individual states matter, with populations so high that the fact of the matter is one persons vote doesnt count, and such a complex system that most people are turned away by that alone. Its far better the British way, with a simple and easy to understand system that produces stable govenrment with apropriate non-dominant representation.

I'd love to see parties fragment. But how likely is that right now, even with all that has been going on? Parties have fragmented before, but it's always been around one person and that smaller party has always disappeared afterwards. Teddy Rosevelt and the Bull Moose Party is a good example of this.

It will never happen. It would require a constitutional ammendment and essentially a rejection of the "American system" of government that we've been using since 1789.

You have to start locally. Reform the elections of local councils, school boards, etc. Get 3rd party candidates elected. Then work your way up to state politics, and finally the nation.

An act of god, more or less. It has been a two party system for a very, very long time, and shows no indications of possibly reforming.

You have to start locally. Reform the elections of local councils, school boards, etc. Get 3rd party candidates elected. Then work your way up to state politics, and finally the nation.

Question is, do I found a new political party, or work from within one closest to my political views?

Nothing short of bringing the nation to the brink of revolution will bring any real change. The New Deal? It didn't come out of any supposed compassion of FDR. The nation was on the brink of revolution and the only way he and the rest of the elite could keep their power was to enact a social safety and institute large government programs to help the disenfranchised. Civil rights for minorities? Again, the only way it came about was by people taking to the streets and bringing the nation to the brink of revolution once again. Those in power will never make significant changes unless they truly fear that they will lose their power if they don't. So don't hold your breath. The American people aren't to that point yet.

Nothing short of bringing the nation to the brink of revolution will bring any real change. The New Deal? It didn't come out of any supposed compassion of FDR. The nation was on the brink of revolution and the only way he and the rest of the elite could keep their power was to enact a social safety and institute large government programs to help the disenfranchised. Civil rights for minorities? Again, the only way it came about was by people taking to the streets and bringing the nation to the brink of revolution once again. Those in power will never make significant changes unless they truly fear that they will lose their power if they don't. So don't hold your breath. The American people aren't to that point yet.

Then we must bring it to that point. Bring it as the Civil Rights movement did. Change this nation forever, though peacefully. It's either that, or move to Canada. And I'm not ready to give up my home nation just yet.

Question is right there in the title. Fact is, political issues don't just have two stances on them. You can't just be for or against, with or without, deny or accept. Pick any issue, and I guarentee you there's at least seven different positions one can hold.

But what do we have in American politics? We have two parties that seem to matter. Only two. The so called left-wing Democrats, and the so called right-wing Republicans. One party which has been around since the founding of this country(though it has gone through some name changes) and the other founded in--what, the 1870's? It's ridiculous. No one even thinks about third parties other than how they affect the chances of a certain candidate from one of the two parties winning or losing.

What's worse, so many people in this country believe that we're much more stable politically because we have only two parties trying to represent all the various positions on all the various issues. They point mis-informed fingers at European countries who are "less stable" and state that multiple parties are at fault. (And while this does have some elements of truth, the problem was created by too many parties, on the number of up to 160. A more reasonable number of parties, say, seven or eight, wouldn't cause this kind of problem.)

The chokehold these two parties have on our country is solidified in many ways, first and foremost by the electoral college system, which essentially disenfranchises hundreds of thousands to millions of voters in every state every Presidential election, and is THE main reason for voter apathy. Primaries exist only for these parties, preventing us from having much say with the third parties. The constant stream of political commentary from all the pundits center on the Democrats and Republicans. It's gotten to the point where even the terms left-wing, right-wing, liberal, and conservative have all lost their real meaning and simply become interchangeable with Democrat and Republican.

It's absurd. It's ridiculous. And I'm so SICK of it. I know so many of us here are as well. So how do we break the hold they have? How?

In my personal opinion, what we need to focus on are making new political parties that can represent the positions people have on issues. For example, let's take the Human Rights Party that ran for Parliamentary seats in the NS Parliament. It's a party that I would join instantly if one just like it existed in real life, with the stances it holds and whatnot. The good thing about this hypothetical HRP is that it isn't extreme, whereas every single on of the third parties in the U.S. The Libertarian Party and the Constitutional Party, two of the more well known ones, are both full of extreme-right nutcases, which is why we need better third parties.

Of course, this is hardly the only thing we need to do. So, I ask you, NSers: what steps do we take to destroy once and for all the two-party system of American politics, stop the kind of voter apathy and idiocy that leads to horrible leaders being elected because the only other choice was just as bad? How do we finally make politics in this country about who is BEST, rather than who is WORSE?

I read this expecting to be enraged by its contents and was pleasantly suprised to completely agree.

For now, if third parties want to play in the big leagues, they need to moderate themselves. Then I might actually be forced to choose between the Democrats and the HRP surrogate. ;)

That and (this is the kicker), the current system is designed for big, national interests with broad platforms. It's been that way since it was created (Madison was proud of it, because he thought it prevented factionalizing).

I read this expecting to be enraged by its contents and was pleasantly suprised to completely agree.

For now, if third parties want to play in the big leagues, they need to moderate themselves. Then I might actually be forced to choose between the Democrats and the HRP surrogate. ;)

That and (this is the kicker), the current system is designed for big, national interests with broad platforms. It's been that way since it was created (Madison was proud of it, because he thought it prevented factionalizing).
I'm not surprised that Madison thought it prevented factionalizing. At the time, situations with too many political parties were prevalent among the semi-democratic states in Europe, and since that IS something to avoid for stability purposes, the design of America's government appears to make sense. But, as I pointed out, only until you fully examine it from a modern viewpoint.

Then we must bring it to that point.

I'm all for that. However, I see little indication that the majority of the US population is even near that point yet. Mind you that could change fairly quickly. If the repubs were to hold both houses of congress and keep the presidency in '08 despite low approval rating/polls, there could be a huge wave of anger that could be harnessed for that purpose.

It's either that, or move to Canada.

I'm all for that too. :p But sadly, Canada won't have me. :(

The place to work on achieving a multi-party system isn't in National politics. You need to start at the local elections and work up to the State elections. Once your party is a major factor in a State, then start sending Congressmen to D.C. Eventually, a mixed Congress will evolve and then you can gain ground on Presidential elections.

Oh, and if you're Libertarian, drop the pro-drug thing. It's a good idea, but just too weird to catch on right away.

How Do We Break The Hold The Dems and The Repubs Have On American Politics?Never ever vote for either no matter how much you want to? That's what I'll be doing.

We can start by outlawing the Republican and Democratic parties.

(I'm semi-joking.)

So, I ask you, NSers: what steps do we take to destroy once and for all the two-party system of American politics, stop the kind of voter apathy and idiocy that leads to horrible leaders being elected because the only other choice was just as bad? How do we finally make politics in this country about who is BEST, rather than who is WORSE?

You don't.

This has been another installment of short answers to simple questions.

The place to work on achieving a multi-party system isn't in National politics. You need to start at the local elections and work up to the State elections. Once your party is a major factor in a State, then start sending Congressmen to D.C. Eventually, a mixed Congress will evolve and then you can gain ground on Presidential elections.

Oh, and if you're Libertarian, drop the pro-drug thing. It's a good idea, but just too weird to catch on right away.
I'm a social Libertarian and an economic moderate. I hardly qualify for the Libertarian party of the U.S., tragesty that it is. Legalizing drugs makes economic sense, though, in many ways that I shall not go into here.

Nazz: How odd. I'd have thought you would be for this kind of thing.

Quote:
How Do We Break The Hold The Dems and The Repubs Have On American Politics?

That's an easy one let's all become moderate independents. That way everyone will be able to vote for the person they most agree with, not just for the party they most agree with.

I'm a social Libertarian and an economic moderate. I hardly qualify for the Libertarian party of the U.S., tragesty that it is. Legalizing drugs makes economic sense, though, in many ways that I shall not go into here.

Nazz: How odd. I'd have thought you would be for this kind of thing.

I would love for it to happen, but I'm a realist. Short of a full-blown revolution, we're not getting rid of the two-party system. They've consolidated too much power between themselves. It's the one bi-partisan constant.

The two party system is the best way to truly represent a majority... if you start adding extra parties you'll have a plurality in control...and that will be worse than what we've got now...

I would love for it to happen, but I'm a realist. Short of a full-blown revolution, we're not getting rid of the two-party system. They've consolidated too much power between themselves. It's the one bi-partisan constant.

I would think that even that is overcomeable. The discontent with the two-party system is beginning to rise, but not nearly to the level that some activists wish it were. My plan for the takeover is to focus all available good candidates at local positions- and then have them work their asses off.

As soon as they become notable for civic action/good policies, they can have a go at mayor, then governer, then Senate. The whole process may take 40-50 years, but the hold is breakable.

We don't.

The two party system is the best way to truly represent a majority(1)... if you start adding extra parties you'll have a plurality in control...and [that will be worse than what we've got now(2)...

1. Not exactly what we were shooting for.

2. We've got it pretty bad now, and there are many countries with large #'s of parties that are more politically stable than us.

if you start adding extra parties you'll have a plurality in control...

Surely you have heard of coalitions?

Kill the electoral college is a good start to any sort of reform.

I would think that even that is overcomeable. The discontent with the two-party system is beginning to rise, but not nearly to the level that some activists wish it were. My plan for the takeover is to focus all available good candidates at local positions- and then have them work their asses off.

As soon as they become notable for civic action/good policies, they can have a go at mayor, then governer, then Senate. The whole process may take 40-50 years, but the hold is breakable.

Aye. The problem is, this can't just happen in one area. This has to happen everywhere, at once. Well...perhaps not ALL at once. Somewhat in one area, then in another, and then in another, gradually. But we can't allow it to be localized to one area, or else it'll fall apart eventually, or worse, turn into another useless third party.

The two party system is the best way to truly represent a majority... if you start adding extra parties you'll have a plurality in control...and that will be worse than what we've got now...
Actually, the two-party system works to put a small plurality in charge.

See, each of the two parties is made up of a coalition of factions. For example, the Republican party includes a combination of
militarists
economic libertarians
social conservatives
self-interested businessmen
and the Democrats include in their factions
organized labor
social libertarians
environmentalists
educators

None of these groups are necessarily related - and a candidate usually only serves one of these groups well. So what happens is that primary season rolls around; a small fraction of Democratic and Republican voters determine who the Republican and Democratic candidates are (e.g., evangelists, NRA, NARAL, etc).

In the end, a very small fraction is being represented by the candidate who makes it to office. A true majoritarian would dispense with the current plurality system and move to approval voting without primaries - in which the candidate who commands the broadest support wins.

To explain this, the way approval voting works is simple:

You vote for as many candidates as you like. In essence, you look at each candidate, and vote yes or no on them. It works, quite simply; I've seen how simply taking up the use of approval instead of plurality voting can reduce friction, pressure, and lead to a much happier and more satisfied decision-making process.

There's no need for a winnowing primary season, carefully selecting a candidate who will pay lip service to a small enough fraction of the factions you happen to be linked with, etc etc etc.

Quote:
How Do We Break The Hold The Dems and The Repubs Have On American Politics?

That's an easy one let's all become moderate independents. That way everyone will be able to vote for the person they most agree with, not just for the party they most agree with.

Here's how I see that playing out (and not just with Mr. Lieberman as in the strip, either):

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW10-25-06.jpg

Here's how I see that playing out (and not just with Mr. Lieberman as in the strip, either):

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW10-25-06.jpg
That's utterly ridiculous.

None of these groups are necessarily related - and a candidate usually only serves one of these groups well. So what happens is that primary season rolls around; a small fraction of Democratic and Republican voters determine who the Republican and Democratic candidates are (e.g., evangelists, NRA, NARAL, etc).

Yes - but this is not the end of the story.

The candidates selected in this stage who are most partisan and narrowly-focused will also do the worst in the actual election (in theory, anyway.)

In the end, a very small fraction is being represented by the candidate who makes it to office.

This would be true, were it not for the fact that there is a strong incentive for both political parties to have candidates who appeal to a lot more than a "very small fraction."

A true majoritarian would dispense with the current plurality system and move to approval voting without primaries - in which the candidate who commands the broadest support wins.

To explain this, the way approval voting works is simple:

You vote for as many candidates as you like. In essence, you look at each candidate, and vote yes or no on them. It works, quite simply; I've seen how simply taking up the use of approval instead of plurality voting can reduce friction, pressure, and lead to a much happier and more satisfied decision-making process.

There's no need for a winnowing primary season, carefully selecting a candidate who will pay lip service to a small enough fraction of the factions you happen to be linked with, etc etc etc.

Only, we have preferences among the candidates we approve of that approval voting ignores.

Aye. The problem is, this can't just happen in one area. This has to happen everywhere, at once. Well...perhaps not ALL at once. Somewhat in one area, then in another, and then in another, gradually. But we can't allow it to be localized to one area, or else it'll fall apart eventually, or worse, turn into another useless third party.

Ah, I see that you are correct. It would certainly take one hell of a grassroots movement to accomplish putting independent/third parties into a majority of even county offices evrywhere.

Though I wouldnt say third parties are useless. Even the ones that dont get elected to federal office are capable as organized voters for certain bills. They also have lobbying potential.

Well you could try to get lots of indies elected who would reform it.. I estimate it would take 50 years of hard efforts. Too bad the Electoral college cant be challenged in court.

I would think that even that is overcomeable. The discontent with the two-party system is beginning to rise, but not nearly to the level that some activists wish it were. My plan for the takeover is to focus all available good candidates at local positions- and then have them work their asses off.

As soon as they become notable for civic action/good policies, they can have a go at mayor, then governer, then Senate. The whole process may take 40-50 years, but the hold is breakable.

Whenever a viable third party has risen in the past, one of the two major parties moves its policies just enough to peel off support and render it essentially lifeless. Every time. US history is filled with examples, but the most recent one is Ross Perot's Reform party. When people talk about why he got out of the 1992 presidential race, they often bring up the mini-meltdown where he claimed the CIA was after his daughter or something, but his original reason was that he said he wanted to bring attention to some problems that he'd seen, and that Clinton had moved to address them, so he was no longer necessary. The same thing happened to the progressives and populists around the turn of the century, and when organized labor looked like it might break out into its own party, it was quickly adopted by the Democrats.

As long as we have our current electoral system, we'll have a two party system, and as long as we have a two party system, we won't have real electoral reform. It's a catch-22.

Well you could try to get lots of indies elected who would reform it.. I estimate it would take 50 years of hard efforts. Too bad the Electoral college cant be challenged in court.
There is a very legal workaround, (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/) however.

There is a very legal workaround, (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/) however.

A Constitutional Amendment would render a great many of the problems we currently face in regards to our two party system null and void, but how likely are we to get enough support for it?

A Constitutional Amendment would render a great many of the problems we currently face in regards to our two party system null and void, but how likely are we to get enough support for it?
That's the beauty of this thing--it's perfectly constitutional, so we don't have to go through the rigors of amending the Constitution. An amendment would be more likely to last, and less open to the potential of states pulling out of the compact, but if this got done, and voters got used to the idea of the popular vote mattering most, then if a state pulled out, there would be real grassroots interest in getting the electoral college abolished.

It passed in California, though I don't know if Ah-nold signed it or not. And it's got sponsors in 29 other states. This is the kind of thing that I imagine if it gets about halfway to the necessary number, it'll get lots of traction and roll. It's getting that first half that's a bitch.

This would be true, were it not for the fact that there is a strong incentive for both political parties to have candidates who appeal to a lot more than a "very small fraction."


No, there isn't. Especially not for the Republicans.

The easy solution would be to move away from a two party system & adopt a system like, say.. Sweden.

Of course, all your different parties would have to compromise with eachother if you did that, and it prolly wouldn't be so easy to be corrupt either.

Yes - but this is not the end of the story.

The candidates selected in this stage who are most partisan and narrowly-focused will also do the worst in the actual election (in theory, anyway.)
Actually, not necessarily. A substantial fraction of the voting public is sufficiently unenamored of the process so as to immediately disenfranchise themselves by not voting; secondarily, the candidate need not have broad appeal, simply seem marginally less partisan a hack than the singular candidate that is considered to have a chance of defeating them.

And mostly, they need to be able to mobilize their "party base" and get them to show up to the polls. This does not involve "broad appeal."
This would be true, were it not for the fact that there is a strong incentive for both political parties to have candidates who appeal to a lot more than a "very small fraction."
Not really that much.
Only, we have preferences among the candidates we approve of that approval voting ignores.
And those preferences are ignored even more in simple plurality. Very few people are realistically suggesting trying to run national or state-wide elections via Borda count.

You can choose to vote in an approval voting system exactly the same way as you wanted to in a plurality election, by approving of only one candidate. This simple fact should tell you right away that an approval voting system isn't going to reduce the amount of information collected at the polls; it will increase it.

You are, however, critically not forced to make that an exclusive choice, which allows approval voting to dodge non-monotone behavior that plagues plurality-based systems.

For example... France's voters moved to the left in the 2002 election... famously leading to an unpopular runoff between LePen and Chirac, the two furthest right-wing candidates. Third party candidates in the US are referred to as "spoilers" because their presence actually hurts their political cause in the ballot boxes in the short term - a fine example of non-monotone behavior.

These sorts of things don't happen in approval voting.

Of course, we're all forgetting the single largest obstacle to our goal: lack of proper political education. Most people are so politically naive and apathetic that they go so far as to just swallow down their local newspaper's opinions! Sickening, really. (For those of you who saw the Daily Show interview with Lou Dobbs: I don't agree with him on most things, but if there is one thing I do agree with, it's the way education has been gutted. So disgusting.) Of course, the internet should allow us an easy way of educating voters. All we have to do is figure out the right way that appeals to everyone.

...

Yeah...THAT'LL be easy...:rolleyes:

Fire!

No one wants to burn congress with me.:(

I'm a social Libertarian and an economic moderate. I hardly qualify for the Libertarian party of the U.S., tragesty that it is. Legalizing drugs makes economic sense, though, in many ways that I shall not go into here.

Nazz: How odd. I'd have thought you would be for this kind of thing.

Things that make sense are not always best. Drug legalization is a hard pill to swallow for many that might be on board with other economic and social policies. It shouldn't be abandoned, just not spotlighted.

i like our way its simular to englands.
differnet mix of parties, which leads to coalitions so different parties can find middle grounds. it allows politicians who dont to be in a party, in the government. and new parties can be formed.

Of course, we're all forgetting the single largest obstacle to our goal: lack of proper political education. Most people are so politically naive and apathetic that they go so far as to just swallow down their local newspaper's opinions! Sickening, really. (For those of you who saw the Daily Show interview with Lou Dobbs: I don't agree with him on most things, but if there is one thing I do agree with, it's the way education has been gutted. So disgusting.) Of course, the internet should allow us an easy way of educating voters. All we have to do is figure out the right way that appeals to everyone.

...

Yeah...THAT'LL be easy...:rolleyes:

Public education in general has been gutted over the last 30 years and I have a theory as to why. Post WWII, the US had one of the finest public educational systems in the world, and the generation that came up in that system saw through a lot of the bullshit in the political system as a result. What did we get? The late 60's counter-culture revolution and lots of talk about tearing down the system. Gutting public education was a reaction to that, I believe--keep them stupid and you never have to worry about them seeing that card up your sleeve.

Public education in general has been gutted over the last 30 years and I have a theory as to why. Post WWII, the US had one of the finest public educational systems in the world, and the generation that came up in that system saw through a lot of the bullshit in the political system as a result. What did we get? The late 60's counter-culture revolution and lots of talk about tearing down the system. Gutting public education was a reaction to that, I believe--keep them stupid and you never have to worry about them seeing that card up your sleeve.
Well, it was hardly going to work THAT well. Hopefully we can have a similar movement to get education back where it truly belongs. Right now, I don't believe a single politician out there on any education policy they claim they want to put into place. None of their plans will have any real chance of success, and they know that, because they don't give a true shit about it.

No one wants to burn congress with me.:(

I do! I do!

Public education in general has been gutted over the last 30 years and I have a theory as to why. Post WWII, the US had one of the finest public educational systems in the world, and the generation that came up in that system saw through a lot of the bullshit in the political system as a result. What did we get? The late 60's counter-culture revolution and lots of talk about tearing down the system. Gutting public education was a reaction to that, I believe--keep them stupid and you never have to worry about them seeing that card up your sleeve.

That's a good theory. It certainly fits the facts. Since I was a product of that public school system, it's even more clear that it has become 'dumbed down'. My theory is that there is too much experimentation done in public schools in reaction to the latest popular philosophy. Whole language was bad enough, but just imagine what we would have now in inner city schools if the philosophy of teaching ebonics had been realized.

That's a good theory. It certainly fits the facts. Since I was a product of that public school system, it's even more clear that it has become 'dumbed down'. My theory is that there is too much experimentation done in public schools in reaction to the latest popular philosophy. Whole language was bad enough, but just imagine what we would have now in inner city schools if the philosophy of teaching ebonics had been realized.

I remember teaching my daughter to read, and then wondering what had happened to phonics when she started school. And as she's gotten older, things haven't improved much. I taught her how to write interesting essays, how to form paragraphs and complex sentences, and then taught her how to write in such a way that she'd pass the FCAT for the state, because the two are not the same.

I've been very subversive in her education. When her teachers have written stupid comments on her papers or on her homework, I've pointed it out to her. When her 7th grade English teacher sent me emails rife with spelling and usage errors, I showed them to her. And most of all, I noted that in the time I've taught at the university levels, my worst students have almost invariably been education majors. She didn't believe me at first--she's learned.

And I don't mean to slam all teachers by any means. There are good ones at every school, and the way we treat them is shameful--you can't expect a high school English teacher to teach writing if he or she has 150-180 students a day, five days a week. You can barely ask that teacher to be a disciplinarian under those circumstances. Given the situation in most schools, it's a wonder they do as well as they do.

I do! I do!

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once.

http://users.argolink.net/instantattitudes/gifs/bs238.gif

Public education in general has been gutted over the last 30 years and I have a theory as to why. Post WWII, the US had one of the finest public educational systems in the world, and the generation that came up in that system saw through a lot of the bullshit in the political system as a result. What did we get? The late 60's counter-culture revolution and lots of talk about tearing down the system. Gutting public education was a reaction to that, I believe--keep them stupid and you never have to worry about them seeing that card up your sleeve.
Interesting.

I remember teaching my daughter to read, and then wondering what had happened to phonics when she started school. And as she's gotten older, things haven't improved much. I taught her how to write interesting essays, how to form paragraphs and complex sentences, and then taught her how to write in such a way that she'd pass the FCAT for the state, because the two are not the same.

I've been very subversive in her education. When her teachers have written stupid comments on her papers or on her homework, I've pointed it out to her. When her 7th grade English teacher sent me emails rife with spelling and usage errors, I showed them to her. And most of all, I noted that in the time I've taught at the university levels, my worst students have almost invariably been education majors. She didn't believe me at first--she's learned.

And I don't mean to slam all teachers by any means. There are good ones at every school, and the way we treat them is shameful--you can't expect a high school English teacher to teach writing if he or she has 150-180 students a day, five days a week. You can barely ask that teacher to be a disciplinarian under those circumstances. Given the situation in most schools, it's a wonder they do as well as they do.
Unfortunately, statistics back up your observation. What bothers me even more is the number of 'Doctor' teachers that are still doing the same things wrong.

I'm not trying to indict teachers of being dumb or lazy, either. There are good ones. I'm married to one. She goes well out of her way to provide extra opportunities for kids to learn things that are important, but skipped because the topic isn't required for a standardized test. My biggest gripe with the way we treat teachers is that we don't compensate them commensurate with their ability. A barely literate English teacher (sorry, it's Language now) shouldn't be at the high end of any pay scale because of seniority. Yet that's the only yardstick we apply to figure pay.

The reason that the Democrat and Republican parties remain the only game in town is not boondoggling of elections. Nor is it our voting system; simple plurality victory (which is NOT first past the post; there are significant differences) is the both the simplest and the fairest system yet developed, since every person's vote counts the same in any one race(wheras a proportional system can result in one person's vote counting multiple times).

The reason is that people are happy. Most people - the vast majority, in fact - have enough to eat, a roof over their heads, enough money to pay the bills, and a little extra for fun. Oh, they've all got worries - will I get the promotion? Can we really afford the new baby? - and some feel that a change is probably needed in some areas. But that same vast majority will NEVER vote for massive change. That's A) scary and B) all too likely to make things worse than they are now.

How do we move the Democrats and Republicans off centre stage? Two ways. First, major social upheavel - Great Depression level, or even Civil War level. Second, Party Splits or self destruction. Given the potpourri of things the Democratic Party seems to have become home for, I'd expect any such in their ranks if it occurs in the near future.

Nor is it our voting system; simple plurality victory (which is NOT first past the post; there are significant differences) is the both the simplest and the fairest system yet developed, since every person's vote counts the same in any one race(wheras a proportional system can result in one person's vote counting multiple times).

Now, I’m not an expert on the American Electoral System, but how can you say that the American system is fair and that every vote counts?

In an American State:
49% of people vote for candidate A, 51% votes for candidate B. B takes the state, A goes home to cry, and 49% of the population just wasted their vote.

In Denmark:
49% votes for party A, 51% votes for party B. Party A gets 49% of the seats in Parliament, Party B gets 51%, and no vote was lost.

Ok, so this is probably somewhat simplified. There’s weighted voting and such things. But is it not, in the main, a correct assessment of the two systems?

honest to god there is ONLY ONE way. Unfortunetly, that way would be with violence. A revolution. And Kill them, ALL. That is seriously the only way it would happen. Then we would rebuild the government system so that political parties were much less influencail.

Now, I’m not an expert on the American Electoral System, but how can you say that the American system is fair and that every vote counts?

In an American State:
49% of people vote for candidate A, 51% votes for candidate B. B takes the state, A goes home to cry, and 49% of the population just wasted their vote.

In Denmark:
49% votes for party A, 51% votes for party B. Party A gets 49% of the seats in Parliament, Party B gets 51%, and no vote was lost.

Ok, so this is probably somewhat simplified. There’s weighted voting and such things. But is it not, in the main, a correct assessment of the two systems?


It's a good rough approximation. But I totally disagree that any votes under the Plurality Victory system are "wasted". Everyone has their say, and the person with the most votes wins - and as we've seen in a number of recent elections, one or two votes either way can tip the scales. And it's TOTALLY fair - every person gets exactly the same say as every other person.
The difference is that the US does not ascribe to the fiction that the people actually RUN the government - while it is "Of the People, for the People and by the people" government is actually RUN by our elected representatives. And, our system ensures that individuals can be held accountable by their electorate - more than one Speaker of the House or President Pro Tem of the Senate has suddenly found himself unemployed because he spent too much time being the Big Man In Congress and not enough time on his constituents - with a purely proportional system, the leaders of the parties are NEVER in danger of losing their seats.

It's a good rough approximation. But I totally disagree that any votes under the Plurality Victory system are "wasted". Everyone has their say, and the person with the most votes wins - and as we've seen in a number of recent elections, one or two votes either way can tip the scales. And it's TOTALLY fair - every person gets exactly the same say as every other person.

Yes, every vote is equal. That is, until the voting is over.

In Denmark, every vote would be directly represented in the Parliament. In America, 49% of the voters would have no representation in the government. Is that fair?

In theory, it's extremely simple:


Proportional Representation
Parliamentary legislative system

It's a major problem. Recently, I announced my belief in the Libertarian party, and was swiftly challenged as to why I would "throw my vote away."

buh?

How is that throwing my vote away? That's like saying that since i live in Maryland, I may as well vote Democrat in all presidential elections because otherwise, I'm throwing my vote away.

I'll vote Libertarian because, at the very least, I'm denying my vote to the parties that I don't feel deserve it, and just maybe someday enough people will do the same that things will start changing.

The two big parties have all the power, yeah... but only because we give it to them.

It's a major problem. Recently, I announced my belief in the Libertarian party, and was swiftly challenged as to why I would "throw my vote away."

buh?

How is that throwing my vote away? That's like saying that since i live in Maryland, I may as well vote Democrat in all presidential elections because otherwise, I'm throwing my vote away.

I'll vote Libertarian because, at the very least, I'm denying my vote to the parties that I don't feel deserve it, and just maybe someday enough people will do the same that things will start changing.

The two big parties have all the power, yeah... but only because we give it to them.
A lot of folks "threw away" their votes on Ross Perot and changed the election. If a few more had voted their conscience and not the party, the Reform party might have become a real National party. Okay, a lot more, but there were a lot of people that didn't like Clinton, OR Bush. Those are the ones that need a real third choice.

How Do We Break The Hold The Dems and The Repubs Have On American Politics?

Offer something better in an honest manner and prove it with your actions and committment over a decade or two. People are quite ripe and eager for a better way or at least a better cast of characters. So far a lot of cheap talk has happened and little of substance. Most people realise that newer alone doesnt mean better. Better means better. Most people wont buy the latest snake oil unless their neighbor buys it first and likes it.

How Do We Break The Hold The Dems and The Repubs Have On American Politics?

Offer something better in an honest manner and prove it with your actions and committment over a decade or two. People are quite ripe and eager for a better way or at least a better cast of characters. So far a lot of cheap talk has happened and little of substance. Most people realise that newer alone doesnt mean better. Better means better. Most people wont buy the latest snake oil unless their neighbor buys it first and likes it.

You are a real Pollyanna, if ever there was one. I posted this in another thread, but it makes more sense here.

Political parties aren't about ideas, anymore. They're about the acquisition and maintenance of power. Most Americans want socialized medicine. It doesn't matter which party is in power, eventually the system will be forced upon us. Lots of other issues are like that. Immigration reform is a battle that will never be fought because we want our cheap food. Never mind that the illegals shitting in the spinach fields cause outbreaks of e-coli. (wild pigs, my ass) Most Americans want a secure retirement, but are unwilling to support even the most minimal adjustments in a broke Social Security system.

Life in this country is going to have to suck and suck badly before we see any real reforms. People are just too lazy and too complacent to risk any real changes.

To the OP:

The only way to do away with the dems and the republicans is to go to Propotional Rep. It'll never happen because neither of them will want to lose power, and they're in power.

The chokehold these two parties have on our country is solidified in many ways, first and foremost by the electoral college system, which essentially disenfranchises hundreds of thousands to millions of voters in every state every Presidential election, and is THE main reason for voter apathyChange the electoral system. I think its quite laughable that so many Americans have said to me that the British electoral system is undemocratic. The American one is far worse. Only individual states matter, with populations so high that the fact of the matter is one persons vote doesnt count, and such a complex system that most people are turned away by that alone.We have the electoral college is because the President is the head of the United States, not the people of the United States. The electoral college has nothing to do with why third parties are regularly clobbered. There is nothing wrong with it either, as I'll explain shortly (though I can't honestly compare it to the British version because I know nothing on that).

We in the USA live in a democratic-republican nation. Each state is somewhat sovereign, and the citizens within elect people who will govern them. It is neither a pure repuclic, nor is it a pure democracy. Our government is set up so that like-minded people can have more impact on the laws that govern them. It starts at the community level, with fewer but more broad-sweeping laws as you go up towards the state level. That's where the concept, "All politics are local politics," comes from.

The quirk comes in at the federal level. The federal government is really where you have the most ability to supercede the will of the people, because the federal government can override state laws at any level. Let's be frank, values sometimes vary dramatically from state-to-state. As such, when our country was founded, the federal government was set up in an attempt to make it powerful but minimize the harm it could do.

Part of that includes the electoral college. Without it, the smaller states could never hope to be represented unless they were lucky enough to be the same ideology as the more popular one. That is exactly why the President is elected by the states and always has been. It is his job to limit the power of the federal government to pass laws over the states. By keeping the federal government in check, our states will (hopefully) not become legislatively homogenized by the will of people who live elsewhere. It makes absolutely no sense for the President to be elected by the popular vote; functionally, he represents the states.

Our electoral system isn't a problem. It's doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing: ensuring we have more control over how we're governed than popular opinion does. I'm sure someone could make an argument that the laws of the federal government affect everyone, then draw some plausible (but ultimately facitious) argument that the President represents the will of the people. He doesn't. This is especially obvious if you're aware of what powers he actually has under the law. The state government has far more impact on your life and the laws you're forced to live by (assuming you're a US citizen). That's the way it should be, because you have more impact on the state government.


The Libertarian Party and the Constitutional Party, two of the more well known ones, are both full of extreme-right nutcases, which is why we need better third parties.The Libertarian party is full of extreme-right nutcases? I never realized how many extreme-right ideolgues there were who were for the legalization of drugs, legalized prostitution, pro-secularization, and pro-abortion. Their are plenty of extreme-left nutcases ruining the Libertarian chances of acceptance, too. The problem with the Libertarian party is it's full of libertarian ideologues. The sad thing is that wouldn't be a problem if there were more libertarian voters.


Of course, this is hardly the only thing we need to do. So, I ask you, NSers: what steps do we take to destroy once and for all the two-party system of American politics, stop the kind of voter apathy and idiocy that leads to horrible leaders being elected because the only other choice was just as bad? How do we finally make politics in this country about who is BEST, rather than who is WORSE?To answer your original question, there is nothing we can do quickly. The two main parties are in power because they better represent the people than the "third" parties. What typically happens is things go too far to the right so people vote Democrat to even things out. Then things go too far to the left and they vote Republican. This cycle repeats itself. Though the people aren't represented perfectly by either side, their will is represented over time.

It's hard to find a popular belief people can hold that isn't lumped into conservative or liberal politics. Moderates and centrists (like myself) often find their beliefs split between the parties and just vote based on which politician represents us better -or- whichever issue is most important to get forward. Sure, you're lucky to really be represented, but voting is important because it's the only thing that scares politicians.

There's no conspiracy. I'm sure the Republicans and Democrats take turns stomping the third parties, but what keeps them down is a lack of popular support. If they were smart, they'd focus on becoming legislators and governers. They would build their way up gradually and prove they weren't incompetent crackpots along the way. They'd take a shot at the Federal government, yes, but they'd do it the smart way. Third-party state legislators would shoot for the Congress and Senate, and third-party state governers would shoot for the Presidency.

However, they aren't smart. They're impatient. They try to catapult right up to the Presidency as if the best way to beat the two party system is a doomed attempt to grab the highest office in the country, doomed because they didn't bother building popular support first.

An indenpendant can win. Jesse Venture won. But then what did he say when he won? he said "We shocked the world" didn't he?

Some indenpendants have great ideas but if they only have 1 or 2 percentage points in the pre-election polls, then voting for them only helps one of the two main parties and the chance is waisted to send ANY kind of message to the legislative process.

To the OP:

The only way to do away with the dems and the republicans is to go to Propotional Rep. It'll never happen because neither of them will want to lose power, and they're in power.

Propoprtional representation is no solution. At best we'd get exactly the same as we have now, because most people support one of the two big parties. At worst - and I've seen this happen - you'll get a tiny, all-but unsupported fringe party holding the balance of power, and being able to force it's extremist agenda on a nation that does not want it.

I find it astonishing that people cling to this myth that the way to solve partisan politics is to adopt a system that encourages partisan politics and puts the party ahead of individuals, or even the country itself!

I agree with Risottia. As somebody who lives in another two-party system, I think you need parliamentary government by the Senate and Congress, with greater reductions in presidential power. That way you could cut down the huge corruption that seems to happen in presidential elections, alter the separation of state powers (i.e. executive, legislative and judiciary) and make your state governors more accountable for their actions.

This would lead to a generally more open and democratic system, which would prevent people becoming disillusioned with politics and the behaviour of certain politicians. After all, how democratic can elections be if they only offer two ideologies, and both the ideologies base their campaigns on the same issues? As many people seem to have said, the result is that people will vote on issues in future, not ideologies. Perhaps the answer for unsatisfied American voters is to support campaigns on issues that matter to you... if there is enough consensus, you can achieve a voting turnaround and even aid the (gradual) rise of new political movements (a recent example in the UK is the Respect Party, which won a constituency in local elections from the governing Labour Party, based on it's stance against the Prime Minister and his decision to invade Iraq).

So my advice as a British citizen: campaign for a parliamentary system based on Proportional Representation, support smaller political movements that campaign on reforming issues close to your values and ensure that your President represents a political party instead of just him/herself!
I fully encourage any attempt you can make to make politics more transparent and based more on the issues that matter... I'm sure you'll find that people in Europe are just as fed up of corrupt, insincere politicians as you are in the USA.

The reason that the Democrat and Republican parties remain the only game in town is not boondoggling of elections. Nor is it our voting system; simple plurality victory (which is NOT first past the post; there are significant differences) is the both the simplest and the fairest system yet developed, since every person's vote counts the same in any one race(wheras a proportional system can result in one person's vote counting multiple times).
Simplest? Perhaps. Fairest? Heck no. The only time a simple plurality election is fair is when there are only two options. Even marginally supported third choices create serious problems for a simple plurality system.

Simplest? Perhaps. Fairest? Heck no. The only time a simple plurality election is fair is when there are only two options. Even marginally supported third choices create serious problems for a simple plurality system.

I honestly don't agree at all. One electoral district selects one person to represent them, on the basis of that person getting the most votes at the election - how much fairer can it be?! Everything else just seems like a case of molly-coddling the guy who lost - "there, there, you can still go to parliament!"

In my experience it's the PROPORTIONAL system that fails utterly when faced with lore than two choices. You end up with the weakest of the parties getting to act as kingmaker - a result that is much less likely with simple plurality (though to be fair, it can happen).

I honestly don't agree at all. One electoral district selects one person to represent them, on the basis of that person getting the most votes at the election - how much fairer can it be?! Everything else just seems like a case of molly-coddling the guy who lost - "there, there, you can still go to parliament!"

In my experience it's the PROPORTIONAL system that fails utterly when faced with lore than two choices. You end up with the weakest of the parties getting to act as kingmaker - a result that is much less likely with simple plurality (though to be fair, it can happen).

Having a mix of small and large parties making up the government is, IMHO, a good way to ensure that no-one gets to powerful.

The big parties needs to listen to the smaller parties, while the smaller parties needs a “big brother” to help them get their own ideas through. Where this system fails, again IMHO, is that it forces all parties to take the middle of the road because they need to cater to each others needs and demands. Get too extreme, to either side, and you’ll suddenly find it difficult to garner support for your politics.

Still, it’s much better than the American one-party system as seen today. Look at the mess that USA is in because the Republicans have had 6 years of total power…

Having a mix of small and large parties making up the government is, IMHO, a good way to ensure that no-one gets to powerful.

The big parties needs to listen to the smaller parties, while the smaller parties needs a “big brother” to help them get their own ideas through. Where this system fails, again IMHO, is that it forces all parties to take the middle of the road because they need to cater to each others needs and demands. Get too extreme, to either side, and you’ll suddenly find it difficult to garner support for your politics.

Still, it’s much better than the American one-party system as seen today. Look at the mess that USA is in because the Republicans have had 6 years of total power…

Oh, I certainly do agree with you on that - I do not support the two-party system. I just don't believe that A) Proportional Representation will help in that regard in the US, or B) that proportional representation is as good as simple plurality, as I believe it overcomplicates the electoral process, increases party importance at the expense of individual responsibility to the voters, and dilutes the value of the vote.

How to do it.

Republicans and Democrats will be in the whitehouse for a while.


So elect city councils and other posistions to third parties, it increases there credability.

Eventually they may make senate

In the beginning of the country they didn't have political parties, they voted for who was the best, simple as that.

Don't vote for a Democrat. Don't vote for a Republican. Vote for an American.

What he said.

How Do We Break The Hold The Dems and The Repubs Have On American Politics? If you want to acheive that.. You must reform the Lobby Laws..

as it is today.. US politics are driven by Millions of Dollares..
If you do not have the backing of very rich people.. You cant run.

The political system of the US works really well… for what it was designed to do.

The Federal government was not meant to be very powerful nor all encompassing, regulating every aspect of your life. It was to be strictly limited in its power.

The vast majority of government was supposed to be held at the state level. State governments, and to an even greater extent the County government, is very accountable to individual voters and can better reflect the will of the local population.

There is nothing wrong with the Electoral College – it functions quite well at what it is meant to do. While most states have a winner take all system to determine who gets the Electoral College votes, some states have it broken down by the proportion of votes gained. The State decides how and for whom the votes are cast.

So long as States are designated as red or blue, we will continue to have a two party system. When States become varied, then the presidential election can become more dynamic.

I have a simple question for everyone who complains about the government, party politics, elections, or anything else relating to the political system we have - what have you done to improve the country? Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

Get out and get active! Please!

Research the candidates, get involved in a campaign, make a nuisance of yourself at your party headquarters, and make your voice and opinions heard. Right now politics is dominated by nutcases because they are the loudest group – become a nutcase. Only the psychotically squeaky wheel gets the proverbial grease.

When was the last time you visited your Senator or Representative? Have you ever been to see your State delegate? Do you even know who is running for county commissioner?

If you have not spent any time talking to your representatives then you have no right to complain – YOU are the reason why the system is broken. It’s all your fault.

The Federal government was not meant to be very powerful nor all encompassing, regulating every aspect of your life. It was to be strictly limited in its power.

The vast majority of government was supposed to be held at the state level. State governments, and to an even greater extent the County government, is very accountable to individual voters and can better reflect the will of the local population.

Then how come that the president is so powerful? How come that USA can be involved in multiple wars despite a strong opposition in amongst the “common man”?
If the focus of the politics should be on a state level, then how come that the federal government have so much to say?

I’m not dissing the US government – I’m just trying to understand. I hear you talk about the greatness that is the two-party system and how the focus should be state rather than federal. And yet, your president has led your country into the biggest mess you’ve been in for a long loooong time – possibly since the civil war…

Do you "REALLY" want to break down the 2 party system?

Offer a "Viable" alternative party candidate.

(The Democrats and Republicans got together to Boot the Federalists out of office more than 150 years ago.)
Have one party or the other get together with an Independant party candidate and support them. The "Coalition" party will then gain superiority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Beck
Don't vote for a Democrat. Don't vote for a Republican. Vote for an American.


What he said.


What he said ;)

Then how come that the president is so powerful? How come that USA can be involved in multiple wars despite a strong opposition in amongst the “common man”?
If the focus of the politics should be on a state level, then how come that the federal government have so much to say?

I’m not dissing the US government – I’m just trying to understand. I hear you talk about the greatness that is the two-party system and how the focus should be state rather than federal. And yet, your president has led your country into the biggest mess you’ve been in for a long loooong time – possibly since the civil war…

Over the years, the Federal government has made excuses to get away with grabbing just a little more power. They use whatever tragedy of the day is to manipulate it in their favor – these days it is ‘terrorism’. If you question their power grab it must be because you support terrorism. This has been the case throughout our history.

The constitution limits the federal government to a couple of simple things – at its most basic, it was only to provide a common defense (sort of a state level NATO), regulate trade (both between the states and with other countries – it was supposed to stay out of business done within a state), and with international relations.

To give you an example: Widgets are produced in a factory in Maryland. These widgets (as you would expect) are sometimes sold to people that do not live in Maryland. Since a widget might cross state lines, the federal government claims the right to regulate everything relating to widgets.

This was not the intention of the constitution. Regulating interstate commerce was a federal purview to ensure that the US was effectively a free trade area and goods did not have to pass a customs inspection when crossing state lines.

Unfortunately they take more power a little piece at a time but will never give up anything it has taken. Eventually they go from extremely limited to pervasive over time.

Just to set the record straight, I have never proclaimed that a two-party system was great (it isn’t).

The reason why we got into this mess is because the voting public is dumb and panicy. They are easily frightened and will react without putting any thought into what they are doing – as a result the Bush administration was able to pretty much ride roughshod over anyone who objected (remember the terrorists – if you don’t give us blind obedience they are going to win) and get away with it for a couple years. By the time people calmed down and started to think, it was too late.

This is also a problem with our system – you end up choosing between two poor choices for office. Unfortunately you don’t always know just how bad your choice will be.

Were candidates to actually debate issues (and voters pay attention) rather than crafting sound bites, you might get a better view of the candidates. Then if you had a few good candidates to choose from, rather than the compromise candidates a party chooses in an attempt to appease the vocal extremes and yet be halfway acceptable to the rest (the least offensive candidate rather than the best), then you might see some decent leadership.

Don't vote for a Democrat. Don't vote for a Republican. Vote for an American. -Glenn Beck--

What he said.What he said ;)they are all American.
The Clintons are American, The Bushies are American.. all of them.

In case anyone was interested…
The Green Party, Libertarian Party, and the Populist Party are all supporting the same guy for the senate race in Maryland. I find that mildly amusing.

In case anyone was interested…
The Green Party, Libertarian Party, and the Populist Party are all supporting the same guy for the senate race in Maryland. I find that mildly amusing.

That's really amusing. I have no idea how the Green Party (a bunch of market socialists) could find common ground with the extreme laissez faire Libertarian Party, and the lukewarm moderate Populist party.

..my thread resurrected itself. First time I've ever had a thread that did that.

Anyway, I personally plan to contribute my own way by doing two things:

1. Earn a worthwhile college education and enter into business to earn large sums of money with which to finance any political ambitions.

2. Once fully established and capable, form a new political party based around my core views and start running for local positions--county commisioner and whatnot.

What happens after that, I refuse to fully plan out, seeing as how there are far too many variables to do so at this time.

That sounds great, Kyronea. Just beware of one major pitfall.

It's the one that has caused so many third-party wannabes to self destruct. That pitfall is Federal Funding.

Anybody with two friends can get them together and declare themselves a political party. But in order to qualify for Federally mandated funding of your party, you must put forward candidates in major races in multiple states and the federal elections. Which winds up eating all your funds, and the party gets nowhere at the local level.

Secure a financial base first, then refuse federal funding if it's offered. The strings that come with it aren't worth the grief.

How Do We Break The Hold The Dems and The Repubs Have On American Politics?

For some reason I think of the movie Soldier.

"What are you going to do?"

"I'm going to kill them all sir."


:D