Down With the Two Party System

[Shofercia]

Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that the Republicans won the Senate. So what's one of the first things they do? Link Obamacare to illegal immigration and attempt to repeal it, or at least the parts that aid illegals? Try and pass a decent law against illegal immigration that actually fines employers who hire illegals? Provide a fiscally sound solution to Obama's Budget? Come up with a detailed plan for America?

Of course not. They did the exact same thing that pissed off Americans in the first place - sucking up to big oil: http://news.yahoo.com/house-9th-pipelin ... 50491.html. For an unbiased analysis of why it's a really bad fucking idea, you can read this: http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/22/opinion/t ... -pipeline/ but I'll just say that it's a really bad idea. For those too lazy to click:

The potential for pollution of vital groundwater from the Keystone XL pipeline is even more frightening. Depending on the final route of the pipeline, spills would threaten the Ogallala Aquifer, the largest aquifer in the western North American region, upon which millions of people and agricultural businesses depend for drinking water, irrigation and livestock watering. But spills anywhere along the route would threaten crucial drinking water supplies, from local and municipal drinking water wells to the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in Texas, a critical water supply for drought-stricken East Texas and Houston. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the water scarcity problems in that region should understand how a sizable pipeline failure could have catastrophic consequences.

Living in California, I know all too well what that can lead to. So my choices are either letting millions of illegal immigrants settle in the US, courtesy of my taxpayer dollars, or watching the groundwater be polluted. Come on guys, it's an oil company, they'll spill. What wonderful choices! This is yet another reason why I think that America needs something like the rebirth of Teddy Roosevelt's Progressives.

I know you guys disagree with me on a lot of stuff, including foreign policy, or mod bias, but let's keep all of that, including the petty personal attacks, out of this thread. Do you think that American needs to be a country with a multi-party system? I do, I've explained why above, now let's hear from you. Poll's included. If you can vote in the US, use the first two options. If you're not, use the second two options.

[Southern Arkansas]

Yep. Neither party represents my beliefs well.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I agree with a third-party system that is healthy.

The current party system is like choosing between two bowls of shit, the only thing is that one smells worse than the other, and usually is that of Republicans.

[The Alma Mater]

Sadly, the USA seems to be a country that loves it Dichotomies. It is either Republicans or Democrats. Either evolution or creation. Either with us or against us.

As long as that mindset dominates, I fear nothing will change. Which indeed it should - the world is not that black and white

[Infected Mushroom]

i am actually of the opposite view. I think we need less parties.

i would prefer a system with just one party so that a strong leader can make the right decisions

This way the focus can be on the governing of the country (rather than petty competitive elections and partisan theatrics). I think the USA is an example of the sort of divisions, aggressive theatrics, focus on pork barrel politics, and the types of corruptions, divided society that competitive elections foster and create.

I prefer a more united society under the right leader. And if it means one party (be it Republican or Democrat, it doesn't really matter) takes unconditional charge, then so be it.

If you increase the number of parties, you will multiply the hatred across party lines and the divisions across society. It's not the type of society you want to live in trust me.

[The Alma Mater]

I agree with a third-party system that is healthy.

The current party system is like choosing between two bowls of shit, the only thing is that one smells worse than the other, and usually is that of Republicans.

Indeed - the old Southpark Turd Sandwich vs Giant Douche dilemma.

[Infected Mushroom]

I agree with a third-party system that is healthy.

The current party system is like choosing between two bowls of corporate shit, the only thing is that one smells worse than the other, and usually is that of Republicans.

there you go

fixed it

[Socialist Tera]

Yes. Both democrats and the republicans are terrible.

[Tsaraine]

As wholehearted and uncontroversial as the thread title may be, we can't really have profanities showing up in the "Latest Forum Topics" sidebar, so I'm going to edit the thread title. Let me know if you've a preferred replacement title.

~ Tsar the Mod

[IshCong]

Voting for third parties is disadvantageous under the current electoral system in the United States. One of the two primary parties, even if you view both of them as utterly crap, should be at least slightly closer to your own ideals and (this is the really important part) one of them is going to win. It's just the inherent nature of the FPTP system. Voting for third parties that are more representative of your ideals but less popular generally just takes votes away from the more popular party that is closer to your desires. Which, in turn, gives an advantage to one of the two primary parties that doesn't split their vote. Even if a third party were to get strong enough to seriously compete, that would come at the expense of one of the two present primary parties, and you'd get a two-party system anyway, just with different parties.

What you really want isn't for Americans to vote for third parties more. If you want a multi-party system your best bet is probably reforming the entire electoral system in the US. That, however, has its own problems.

[Shofercia]

As wholehearted and uncontroversial as the thread title may be, we can't really have profanities showing up in the "Latest Forum Topics" sidebar, so I'm going to edit the thread title. Let me know if you've a preferred replacement title.

~ Tsar the Mod

Is screw a profanity?

[Shofercia]

Voting for third parties is disadvantageous under the current electoral system in the United States. One of the two primary parties, even if you view both of them as utterly crap, should be at least slightly closer to your own ideals and (this is the really important part) one of them is going to win. It's just the inherent nature of the FPTP system. Voting for third parties that are more representative of your ideals but less popular generally just takes votes away from the more popular party that is closer to your desires. Which, in turn, gives an advantage to one of the two primary parties that doesn't split their vote. Even if a third party were to get strong enough to seriously compete, that would come at the expense of one of the two present primary parties, and you'd get a two-party system anyway, just with different parties.

What you really want isn't for Americans to vote for third parties more. If you want a multi-party system your best bet is probably reforming the entire electoral system in the US. That, however, has its own problems.

Independent candidates won before. The two party system thrives on the belief that no other parties can win. However, that's bullshit. Let's take the country as a whole: http://news.yahoo.com/voter-turnout-201 ... 06756.html

Just 36.3 percent of eligible voters cast votes

What if the other 2/3rds voted for third parties instead? Then their candidates would win. In 2008, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2008-electi ... year-high/, 61.6 percent of the nation's eligible voters, voted. Considering that quite a few states had a 60-40 split, that means that the winning candidate needed just 22% of the vote. If, instead of staying home, those voters turned out and voted for a third party, well, 61.6 - 36.3 - that'd be a number that's higher than 22, by an uncontroversial 3%. It's doable.

[IshCong]

Voting for third parties is disadvantageous under the current electoral system in the United States. One of the two primary parties, even if you view both of them as utterly crap, should be at least slightly closer to your own ideals and (this is the really important part) one of them is going to win. It's just the inherent nature of the FPTP system. Voting for third parties that are more representative of your ideals but less popular generally just takes votes away from the more popular party that is closer to your desires. Which, in turn, gives an advantage to one of the two primary parties that doesn't split their vote. Even if a third party were to get strong enough to seriously compete, that would come at the expense of one of the two present primary parties, and you'd get a two-party system anyway, just with different parties.

What you really want isn't for Americans to vote for third parties more. If you want a multi-party system your best bet is probably reforming the entire electoral system in the US. That, however, has its own problems.

Independent candidates won before. The two party system thrives on the belief that no other parties can win. However, that's bullshit. Let's take the country as a whole: http://news.yahoo.com/voter-turnout-201 ... 06756.html

Just 36.3 percent of eligible voters cast votes

What if the other 2/3rds voted for third parties instead? Then their candidates would win. In 2008, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2008-electi ... year-high/, 61.6 percent of the nation's eligible voters, voted. Considering that quite a few states had a 60-40 split, that means that the winning candidate needed just 22% of the vote. If, instead of staying home, those voters turned out and voted for a third party, well, 61.6 - 36.3 - that'd be a number that's higher than 22, by an uncontroversial 3%. It's doable.

Yes, independent candidates have won before. No, some outliers do not disprove the general trend. Nor are they a valid basis for deliberately picking a voting strategy that is usually disadvantageous in contrast to one (voting for the strongest party that is closest to your desires) that is usually advantageous.

Your second paragraph was already addressed above. Let's go to that example. Voters voted 60(D)-40(R) in some states (hypothetical, you can flip the parties if you wish). If the Democratic voters instead vote for a third party, they split their vote and what *would* have been a Democratic win instead hands plurality off to the Republicans, say, 30% wind up voting Dems and 30% voted for, I dunno, Green Party. You have just shot your own interests in the foot handily. Note that Republican voters (in this hypothetical) aren't likely to split their votes for the same party as erstwhile Dem voters unless there is a *fourth* party, and even if there is a fourth party, as shown above, it is a better strategy to just vote Dem or Repub to avoid splitting your vote, ensuring plurality.

And, like stated above, even if that third party does get strong enough to flat out win without either one of the two main parties adjusting properly, that is almost certainly going to come at the expense of support for those two main parties. So you would wind up with either Repubs or Dems losing voting share to the new party...resulting in two parties. Again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past ... cal_voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_v ... ity_voting

[AiliailiA]

Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that the Republicans won the Senate. So what's one of the first things they do?

I shouldn't have to point this out, but the current Congress is exactly the same. The newly elected Congress doesn't take over until January 3 2015.

I think the Democrats in the Senate may as well let the pipeline extension come to a vote during this Congress. There will be some further delay, as the House and Senate versions are reconciled, then Obama will have to sign or veto it. I think Senate Democrats have been protecting him from that, but they can't keep doing so next year ... so why not get it over with?

[Jinos]

Voting for third parties accomplishes nothing.

You need to change the fundamental way voting is handled in America before third parties become viable. To do that you need to start as the state level.

Frankly, the only state that stands a realistic chance of making third parties matter is California (due to its proposition system).

[AiliailiA]

Ish-Cong, you make a very logical argument for why third parties stand no chance in a first-past-the-post single-member-constituency system.

But how do you explain what happened in the UK? Their central government is elected exactly that way (single member constituencies, most votes wins) yet the Liberal Democrats increased their representation over successive elections and eventually gained a share of power. They will probably lose it again (next year, next election) but they did get there.

I have no explanation for it myself. It seems to contradict two-party theory.

[Finland SSR]

It's not that easy to institute a multi-party system by just voting for other parties.
You have the Spoiler Effect, which only makes things worse.

[Artaeon]

I've never considered Two party system a proper Democratic way of governing a state. It should go!

[Novaya Equestria]

I go for a multi-party system.

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

The american two party system is the best ever created. No need to change it.

[Mefpan]

America's elections are so fucked. Proportional representation would be a lot better but I don't see that being reformed any time soon given that America's two big parties have had over a century of experience of how it actually benefits them to let the democratic system rot.

[Forsher]

Yeah, for the most part you need to reform how voting is done before you can move away from two parties (which is quite undemocratic really).

[Meowfoundland]

Ish-Cong, you make a very logical argument for why third parties stand no chance in a first-past-the-post single-member-constituency system.

But how do you explain what happened in the UK? Their central government is elected exactly that way (single member constituencies, most votes wins) yet the Liberal Democrats increased their representation over successive elections and eventually gained a share of power. They will probably lose it again (next year, next election) but they did get there.

I have no explanation for it myself. It seems to contradict two-party theory.

Could that be because the Lib Dems are the successor of two other parties, one of which was major, giving them some areas of base support? They didn't have to go through the trouble of gaining representation because they already had it, or something like that.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yeah, down with the system! *shakes fist*

As it stands though, voting for a third party candidate is pretty much useless given they just won't win. It would be nice to see it happen though but I think one reason third party groups never seem to do good is because they all seem to be varying shades of batshit. Maybe if we got some more sensible third party candidates they would have a chance.

[Theistic Satanism]

No.
We don't need political parties, because frankly they are stupid and illogical.