NationStates

Caninope wrote:Honestly, I don't want third parties to have any of a chance.

We have crazy third parties. Does anyone want the Constitution Party, Libertarians, Green Party, CPUSA, or SPUSA in charge?

The more moderate third parties have been largely absorbed by the two prevailing parties as a consequence of strategic voting. The parties you list would be present, but more reasonable ones would emerge.

Farnhamia wrote:

United States of Cascadia wrote:A first past the post political system will always necessitate a 2 group system. Whether that will be 2 officially established political parties or not matters little.

True. Doing away with that system requires a huge change in American politics and culture. I'm not sure it could be done.

That's exactly what I'm trying to figure out: what should the new one look like? A unitary state with a proportionally elected parliament and a prime minister might work. Is that better?

Farnhamia wrote:

United States of Cascadia wrote:A first past the post political system will always necessitate a 2 group system. Whether that will be 2 officially established political parties or not matters little.

True. Doing away with that system requires a huge change in American politics and culture. I'm not sure it could be done.

The other thing is, you pretty much need a first past the post for something like a presidential election. You could do a two round election, which would work reasonably well, to ensure no split votes. In the senate and house on the other hand, proportional representation would work much better, since it would allow a much wider range of political opinions, and hence represent the will of the American people much better than a dividing line.

Socialdemokraterne wrote:

Caninope wrote:Honestly, I don't want third parties to have any of a chance.

We have crazy third parties. Does anyone want the Constitution Party, Libertarians, Green Party, CPUSA, or SPUSA in charge?

The more moderate third parties have been largely absorbed by the two prevailing parties as a consequence of strategic voting. The parties you list would be present, but more reasonable ones would emerge.

What's wrong, then?

If there are already reasonable factions within the coalitions that are the GOP and the Democratic parties, then's what's the problem?

Caninope wrote:

Socialdemokraterne wrote:
The more moderate third parties have been largely absorbed by the two prevailing parties as a consequence of strategic voting. The parties you list would be present, but more reasonable ones would emerge.

What's wrong, then?

If there are already reasonable factions within the coalitions that are the GOP and the Democratic parties, then's what's the problem?

The effects of Duverger's Law, strategic voting, and the Median Voter Theorem are what's wrong. We have a system which has winner-take-all as its general rule of thumb. Or have I misunderstood your question, and you weren't actually asking "Why don't those more reasonable third parties simply branch off"?

Farnhamia wrote:

Black Flag Union wrote:I personally think America should embrace a Direct Democracy model of government. It would certainly improve the country.

As for this, eh, America is basically a one party state since both parties stand for almost the same thing. So I really have no problems with the abolishment of the parties. I still think a Direct Democracy model would be better.

Freedom of association is guaranteed by the Constitution, so abolishing parties is impossible. And direct democracy? Yes, let's have votes on every single thing, that's a great way to run a country as big as the US.

It couldn't be done much worse than it is right now.

Your current politicians seem to either sit on the far or mid-right. (Obama is not that left wing, contrary to what others seem to think, he just happens to be the most left wing in your system).

Now if your concerned about the size of the country, do direct democracy with each individual state. There, problem solved.

Finally, nothing gets done in your country anyway as it is. Your Republicans block everything the Democrats want to do, and your Democrats block everything the Republicans want to do. It's an absolute mess as it is right now.

And bugger the Consitution. That was made like 200 years ago. >.>. Surely your country is smart enough to adapt itself without having to cross reference a document made in the 19 hundreds.

Socialdemokraterne wrote:

Caninope wrote:What's wrong, then?

If there are already reasonable factions within the coalitions that are the GOP and the Democratic parties, then's what's the problem?

The effects of Duverger's Law, strategic voting, and the Median Voter Theorem are what's wrong. We have a system which has winner-take-all as its general rule of thumb. Or have I misunderstood your question, and you weren't actually asking "Why don't those more reasonable third parties simply branch off"?

I was actually asking, "what's wrong with just have reasonable factions in two parties as opposed to reasonable third parties"?

Saluterre wrote:Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism

Neither party are laissez-faire. I'm not saying this to defend laissez-faire capitalism, it's just a fact.

Nordengrund wrote:What about a triumvirate, where there are three leaders (consuls) and there is one consul representing a political party.

Ex. A Republican Consul, An Democrat Consul, and a Communist or Libertarian Consul.

That's an interesting idea and might accomplish things but it's kinda zany.

Black Flag Union wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Freedom of association is guaranteed by the Constitution, so abolishing parties is impossible. And direct democracy? Yes, let's have votes on every single thing, that's a great way to run a country as big as the US.

It couldn't be done much worse than it is right now.

Your current politicians seem to either sit on the far or mid-right. (Obama is not that left wing, contrary to what others seem to think, he just happens to be the most left wing in your system).

Now if your concerned about the size of the country, do direct democracy with each individual state. There, problem solved.

Finally, nothing gets done in your country anyway as it is. Your Republicans block everything the Democrats want to do, and your Democrats block everything the Republicans want to do. It's an absolute mess as it is right now.

And bugger the Consitution. That was made like 200 years ago. >.>. Surely your country is smart enough to adapt itself without having to cross reference a document made in the 19 hundreds.

Made in the 1700s, O wide one. And we have adapted, there are 27 amendments to the Constitution. Why, one was ratified as recently as 1992! I will admit that political partisanship has gotten out of hand of late, but I expect that to rectified in the November election, or perhaps in 2016. The direction taken by the Republican Party is straight toward some rather bad reefs and I think we'll see it break up in the near future. The party that rises from the ashes should be more amenable to compromise.

It would be futile; my city does not allow for people to run as Democrats or Republicans, but we all know who is on what side. And if you wanted to more seriously constrain the existence of parties, such that parties would not only cease to exist de jure but also de facto, I think it would make things very difficult; you need a campaign machine once you have a certain number of constituents, and the larger said machine is generally the better (think economies of scale.)

Caninope wrote:

Socialdemokraterne wrote:
The effects of Duverger's Law, strategic voting, and the Median Voter Theorem are what's wrong. We have a system which has winner-take-all as its general rule of thumb. Or have I misunderstood your question, and you weren't actually asking "Why don't those more reasonable third parties simply branch off"?

I was actually asking, "what's wrong with just have reasonable factions in two parties as opposed to reasonable third parties"?

I'm a tad flustered right now from my embarrassing performance so far. I don't want to dig this hole any deeper, and I'm not really sure how to answer your question. I'm sorry, everyone. I stand by the parliamentarism thing, but the rest I retract. I admit defeat, Farnhamia.

Is it possible that what you're driving at is that even within the two-party system there are coalitions which are being made and broken all the time, and so the benefits of a multiparty system are actually already present in the current one even if those conflicts aren't as visible?

The Black Forrest wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:It maintains the illusion that states with smaller populations count for anything except maybe scenery.

I know. It's broken when it doesn't favor what you want.

...actually that's exactly what I think.

Yes, I know this wasn't directed at me, but how is that bad to say?

West Vandengaarde wrote:

Alaje wrote:I ,for one, believe the political parties should be banned....all the parties do is rag on eachother, they don't actually talk about anything important. They don't actually care what is right or wrong, only winning elections.

That's just cynical tripe. They do talk about important things. The only problem is compromise in a deadlocked/hung parliament or congress or whatever, which is increasingly common in harsh economic conditions.

Name one instance in whichCongress discussed legalizing drugs, or finding some way to end the war on drugs.

Amog other things.

Xeng He wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:


I know. It's broken when it doesn't favor what you want.

...actually that's exactly what I think.

Yes, I know this wasn't directed at me, but how is that bad to say?

Well? You see the third parties always fail because they seem to think if they have the white house everything will fall into place.

Too much effort or time to grass roots it to the top.

They take that approach; then the possible reality of nobody really cares about your message comes into play.

It's easier to talk about conspiracies keeping you out of the White house.

People only take to the two parties because they don't sound as wonko as the third parties sound.......

Returning from the tangent:

The system doesn't prevent you for changing it. You need enough people to change it.

The Black Forrest wrote:
Well? You see the third parties always fail because they seem to think if they have the white house everything will fall into place.

...eh?

I myself was thinking Congress the most, but...

Too much effort or time to grass roots it to the top.

They take that approach; then the possible reality of nobody really cares about your message comes into play.

Interesting. Your debating points always seem to connect, almost, but really act like things that the mind can only struggle to put together.

This is what conversational hypnosis looks like.

You make the plan happen; in the end the possibility of what you're doing is wrong comes into play.

It's best not to think about doing it.

----------------------------------------------------

There we go. I can tangent too!

Returning from the tangent:

The system doesn't prevent you for changing it. You need enough people to change it.

But if you think about it, that's precisely the problem. Since you have to pass a certain threshold to change the system, even numbers that are relevant, like say...1/2 the threshold...don't change enough.

Xeng He wrote:

West Vandengaarde wrote:That's just cynical tripe. They do talk about important things. The only problem is compromise in a deadlocked/hung parliament or congress or whatever, which is increasingly common in harsh economic conditions.

Name one instance in whichCongress discussed legalizing drugs, or finding some way to end the war on drugs.

Amog other things.

Pretty damn sure drugs aren't as important as solving 1. The economy, 2. the crises in the middle east, and 3. our trade with the rest of the world. Drug may connect to those in some way, but not talking about what you want them to talk about =/= not talking about anything important. Get out of your self-centered little universe, and see that some things are more important than drugs. Thanks.

Nordengrund wrote:

Samuraikoku wrote:
No. Political freedoms. First Amendment. United States Constitution.

I know, but we should at least let other parties have a voice and representation in government.

Then we should get rid of FPTP and have proportional representation.

Farnhamia wrote:Made in the 1700s, O wide one. And we have adapted, there are 27 amendments to the Constitution. Why, one was ratified as recently as 1992! I will admit that political partisanship has gotten out of hand of late, but I expect that to rectified in the November election, or perhaps in 2016. The direction taken by the Republican Party is straight toward some rather bad reefs and I think we'll see it break up in the near future. The party that rises from the ashes should be more amenable to compromise.

We haven't adapted the Constitution in any meaningful way in the past two hundred years or so. Other than that I generally agree with what you said, even if I am a bit less optimistic about the decline of partisan politics.

And as for the discussion on the electoral college a page back, I'm quite fine with it. Electing the president by popular vote would be too democratic for my tastes.

Don't like 'em, unconstitiutional and unAmerican to ban them, but they are more interested in beating eachother than doing whats right for American and that is why our country is so f-d up.

Aglorea wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Made in the 1700s, O wide one. And we have adapted, there are 27 amendments to the Constitution. Why, one was ratified as recently as 1992! I will admit that political partisanship has gotten out of hand of late, but I expect that to rectified in the November election, or perhaps in 2016. The direction taken by the Republican Party is straight toward some rather bad reefs and I think we'll see it break up in the near future. The party that rises from the ashes should be more amenable to compromise.

We haven't adapted the Constitution in any meaningful way in the past two hundred years or so. Other than that I generally agree with what you said, even if I am a bit less optimistic about the decline of partisan politics.

And as for the discussion on the electoral college a page back, I'm quite fine with it. Electing the president by popular vote would be too democratic for my tastes.

I have a few black friends who want to disagree with that.

Luw wrote:

Samuraikoku wrote:No. Political freedoms.

The illusion of political freedoms. Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.

That's going into my sig.

to do away with political parties entirely, as indeed i support my cameroi of doing, requires a free and honest electoral system which does not in any way depend upon them. this absolutely must come first.
if and when such a thing is created, then political parties become needless and meaningless.

frankly it quite defies my comprehension, that so few, if any, nations have proceeded to accomplish this.

Caninope wrote:

Japao wrote:I know that it's unconstitutional, but I simply said it as an alternative to just getting rid of all political parties like the OP said. Yes, there would be an uproar, from voters and corporations alike. And truthfully, I can't say if they wouldn't just meld back into the two dominant parties again. I also can't and won't speak for everyone, but it is my personal belief that by getting rid of those two parties but make the voting game much more level. That way third parties can get equal representation and a fairer chance to be heard.

I'm not trying to offer up the solution, simply a solution.

Honestly, I don't want third parties to have any of a chance.

We have crazy third parties. Does anyone want the Constitution Party, Libertarians, Green Party, CPUSA, or SPUSA in charge?

The Green Party and SPUSA aren't crazy.

And I'm pretty sure CPUSA isn't either.

Luw wrote:

Samuraikoku wrote:No. Political freedoms.

The illusion of political freedoms. Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.

You do realize it's possible to get rid of the two-party system, right?

It's not a "Doing away with" issue. Parties are a natural result of Democracy. With a voting populace comes factionalism, and that's not going away.

George Washington had a great ideal, but it was only ever an ideal, it's impossible to avoid parties in the United States without one Party ruling them all, and even then, there will be factions within that party, "Mini-Parties" if you will, ask the USSR.

If I'm for Gay Marriage, and Bob from down the lane is also for Gay Marriage, yet Amy and Alan from the street over are against it, then we're naturally going to be in different factions. This is represented in the party system in the United States.

Rather than banning parties, which is impossible, I would argue what we really need is to open up the system to third and fourth and so-on parties, and end the two-party dominance that is entrenched in our system. Dems and Reps will be on every ballot in every state, we somehow need to put third and fourth parties on those tickets as well. And the money available to them all needs to be evened out as well so that the two big parties can't simply buy out elections against the third parties.