What is the problem with American politics?

[Aperonia]

The two-party system and the electoral college.

[The Holy NeoSpanish Empire]

i want that they becoume part of my empire ( they actually are in my nationstate so i am happy)

[Shilya]

Bernie Sanders of Vermont was elected to the House as an independent in 1988, the year that Ronald Reagan ate Walter Mondale's lunch.

And is still in office in the Senate. I'm impressed, didn't even know about him.

And it need not be the House right away, there are 50 state legislatures. My point is, you have to build from below, not just go for the brass ring of the White House.

It would be more reasonable, yes. But apparently, so far, on state level people still seem to support their party (out of the two) rather than independent candidates. Maybe, like I said, out of a fear of losing their vote altogether.

ASB doesn't address the FPTP system because there's very little chance of that being done away with. Of course, if you want to concentrate on that issue instead of getting people elected, that's your right but I doubt it will be very satisfying.

Indeed, those in power don't like to remove any system that keeps them in power. But I'd just love to see a US government that has to form a coalition and compromise on its issues, that way taking quite some heat out of debates, instead of the direct clashing of just two parties... ohwell.

[Socialist Republic of Andrew]

Simple:
-They all lie.
-They care more about themselves and their political parties then they actually do with their own people.
-And they let only 2 parties rule over America for centuries.

There is much more wrong with it, but these are just a few of the main ones.

[Farnhamia]

Bernie Sanders of Vermont was elected to the House as an independent in 1988, the year that Ronald Reagan ate Walter Mondale's lunch.

And is still in office in the Senate. I'm impressed, didn't even know about him.

And it need not be the House right away, there are 50 state legislatures. My point is, you have to build from below, not just go for the brass ring of the White House.

It would be more reasonable, yes. But apparently, so far, on state level people still seem to support their party (out of the two) rather than independent candidates. Maybe, like I said, out of a fear of losing their vote altogether.

ASB doesn't address the FPTP system because there's very little chance of that being done away with. Of course, if you want to concentrate on that issue instead of getting people elected, that's your right but I doubt it will be very satisfying.

Indeed, those in power don't like to remove any system that keeps them in power. But I'd just love to see a US government that has to form a coalition and compromise on its issues, that way taking quite some heat out of debates, instead of the direct clashing of just two parties... ohwell.

That's the thing, though, we don't need a coalition, the government exists outside of Congress. Members of Congress don't run the Department of the Interior or Agriculture or Labor. Granted that Congress has to fund it but a lot of funding is mandated by previous laws and cannot (easily) be cancelled.

[The Electoral College]

The two-party system and the electoral college.

I don't see a problem with either of them. Perhaps you could elaborate?

[Nervium]

Simple:
-They all lie.
-They care more about themselves and their political parties then they actually do with their own people.
-And they let only 2 parties rule over America for centuries.

There is much more wrong with it, but these are just a few of the main ones.

I think all three statements are false, while it's true that politicians have a hard time keeping promises, there are those that really want to adress issues that really touch their voter base.
No, the two parties are institutionalized but they are not all powerful, it's still possible to either get voted in as indepedent (and caucus with one of the major parties) or, the harder one, getting elected as a third party, but it's not impossible.

[Shilya]

That's the thing, though, we don't need a coalition, the government exists outside of Congress. Members of Congress don't run the Department of the Interior or Agriculture or Labor. Granted that Congress has to fund it but a lot of funding is mandated by previous laws and cannot (easily) be cancelled.

Not for the government, for the legislature. Heated debates usually don't creep up over the government continuing what is has been doing all along, exept for cases where it has been doing this in secret, see NSA. They come up when someone wants to change how things are done.

[Ordysius]

Voter apathy, problematic campaign finance legislation, gerrymandering, the existence electoral college, the two party system, poor political education, heavily biased political media, and the legacy of the Cold War.

Precisely.
Although what legacy of the Cold War do you mean?

[Alien Space Bats]

But I'd just love to see a US government that has to form a coalition and compromise on its issues, that way taking quite some heat out of debates, instead of the direct clashing of just two parties... ohwell.

<sigh>

Please go read up on the political history of the 1850's. Then come back here and tell me how much having multiple political Parties helped moderate the debate over slavery.

[Nervium]

Voter apathy, problematic campaign finance legislation, gerrymandering, the existence electoral college, the two party system, poor political education, heavily biased political media, and the legacy of the Cold War.

Precisely.
Although what legacy of the Cold War do you mean?

McCarthyism, the fear of everything on the left of the political spectrum, I assume.

[Shilya]

But I'd just love to see a US government that has to form a coalition and compromise on its issues, that way taking quite some heat out of debates, instead of the direct clashing of just two parties... ohwell.

<sigh>

Please go read up on the political history of the 1850's.

"Read up <broad topic>" is the best discussion killer I know. What I saw after a few looks is that for a short term during an instable period more parties emerged.

Then come back here and tell me how much having multiple political Parties helped moderate the debate over slavery.

So, uhm, you want to say that an incident over 150 years ago invalidates the possibility of multiple parties doing good forever?

[Luveria]

The Republican Party.

[Alien Space Bats]

So, uhm, you want to say that an incident over 150 years ago invalidates the possibility of multiple parties doing good forever?

No.

However, during that particular decade America saw the rise of multiple Parties, some small and some large; it saw the replacement of one large Party (the Whigs) by another (the Republicans), and it saw a large number of independent Congressmen elected to the House of Representatives.

The funny thing is that the large number of political Parties did nothing to temper or moderate the debate, nor did it do anything to stabilize the system. If anything, it probably increased the paralysis and instability of the Federal government in the face of the growing National crisis over slavery and its place within American society.

Today's levels of political polarization are as sharp as any since the 1850's. Your tone suggests that you see no historical parallel or lesson to be drawn from our previous experience with having multiple Parties in play at a time of grave National division. Instead, you seem to believe as a matter of faith (for you really have no historical evidence whatsoever to support your position, when push comes to shove) that having more Parties will make compromise and governance easier.

I don't believe this is so.

I think part of the reason so many people here on NSG feel that having multiple Parties would make things better is because so many here subscribe to hipster thinking and think that the lack of cooperation in Washington is a consequence of MUTUAL stubbornness. I don't agree, and neither do neutral political scientists like Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein (who are not, BTW, political liberals); Mann, Ornstein, and neutral observers see clearly that it's the Republican Party that absolutely refuses to cut ANY deal with Democrats, no matter how far Democrats bend. If you're a hipster, the natural response to gridlock is to curse both Parties and wish that we could send two different ones in there to replace them; but if you're looking at things objectively, it's clear that the problem lies with a GOP whose philosophy is that if THEY can't get their way, NO ONE can.

The other attraction that multiple Parties hold for NSG is the notion that if there were more Parties, they'd necessarily be left-wing Parties and the current balance of power would be overthrown. I think this is wishful thinking: While the current House does have more conservatives than it should based on the relative popular strength of the various political factions out there (the reverse being true in the Senate), the relative political strengths of the various factions out there is not a lot different from those factions' popular strength. There is not, as some NSG'ers suppose, some vast untapped reservoir of liberalism that would, if represented in Washington, move the Nation so far to the left as to render the Tea Party irrelevant. No, there are a LOT of conservatives out there, and under ANY properly representative system, they would have a powerful voice.

Indeed, this is the biggest problem with the notion that it's "the two Parties" that are screwing things up, whichever way you cut it: The two Parties pretty faithfully represent the collective opinion of the American People. It's not the Parties that are deeply divided and unable to agree on anything; it's the American People who are deeply divided and unable to agree on anything.

And so now it should be clear why I'm highly skeptical of the idea that we can "fix" our system with electoral reform: You can't expect any political system based on popular representation to produce consensus if there is no consensus among the People. Until we as Americans find common ground, there's no way our politicians will.

[Freiheit Reich]

The big tent politics of both parties comes to mind, corporate lobbying and nepotism, God in the goverment (well, it's kinda dangerous), some other things, Ron Paul, Tea Party.

Ron Paul represented an ignored solution to the problem of American politics. He is a man with a vision to improve American politics but he is dismissed as foolish and dangerous. Ironic that in 'The Land of the Free', the man that wants more freedoms is viewed as foolish.

What is wrong with wanting to fix the debt crisis and decrease the size of the govt.?

[Maurepas]

The country is just bloated in every sense of the word. Most of the populace is too complacent to vote, and the shit that really pisses it off to vote are things that don't really matter(So what if Gays get married, what does restricting their rights do for you?), because their needs are largely met, and the people whose needs aren't met are either too apathetic to vote, or too completely stupid to vote for their own interests(or too stupid/greedy to care that meeting their interests hurts the country as a whole, and therefore themselves, i.e. banks and corporate lobbyists).

And so you have a government that isn't really in it for any of the things it was supposed to be(Protecting Life, Liberty, and Property), and is just in it to make money and keep itself in power.

There's no doubt in my mind that if the US Populace was both Intelligent, Non-Complacent, and Informed there wouldn't just be an end to gridlock, but an end to the two party system.

[Avenio]

But I'd just love to see a US government that has to form a coalition and compromise on its issues, that way taking quite some heat out of debates, instead of the direct clashing of just two parties... ohwell.

Speaking from the experience of someone who lives in a Westminster parliamentary democracy, coalitions don't mean that political parties stop bickering and cooperate. It just means that the horse trading and invective gets shunted behind closed doors in favour of presenting a united front.

After all, governing coalitions aren't some grand exercise in reaching across the isle; they're brought into being by two parties that need each other in order to form a majority, and are defined by literal contract-style agreements that formulate power sharing based upon very partisan, very tactical lines.

[Maurepas]

But I'd just love to see a US government that has to form a coalition and compromise on its issues, that way taking quite some heat out of debates, instead of the direct clashing of just two parties... ohwell.

Speaking from the experience of someone who lives in a Westminster parliamentary democracy, coalitions don't mean that political parties stop bickering and cooperate. It just means that the horse trading and invective gets shunted behind closed doors in favour of presenting a united front.

After all, governing coalitions aren't some grand exercise in reaching across the isle; they're brought into being by two parties that need each other in order to form a majority, and are defined by literal contract-style agreements that formulate power sharing based upon very partisan, very tactical lines.

I, personally, would simply like a greater diversity in my options to vote for. More nuanced views that don't conform to the "big-tent" politics that permeate US Governance.

I also think part of the problem is that there is too much entrenchment in US Politics, which stems from complacency on the part of the populace. Partisan/Tactical lines aren't a problem, not redrawing them every few years is.

[Arumdaum]

too right-wing

too religious

military industrial complex

legalizing bribing

[Arumdaum]

Locally is always much easier to pull off - the more local, the less the party matter and the focus switches to the individual. There, a staunch republican might vote for a democrat simply because he knows that the guy is alright.

Here's the problem. On federal level, parties matter. A lot. Both parties have their core voters that ALWAYS vote for them. What matters in elections are the people between them, the switching voters, and usually they aren't enough to win the vote. If any incumbent is unliked, then the general voter consensus is to vote him out, not another one in, and that works by uniting on the biggest challenging candidate.

Very good points... for close calls. But doesn't adress the inherent problems of a winner-takes-all system.

Bernie Sanders of Vermont was elected to the House as an independent in 1988, the year that Ronald Reagan ate Walter Mondale's lunch. And it need not be the House right away, there are 50 state legislatures. My point is, you have to build from below, not just go for the brass ring of the White House.

ASB doesn't address the FPTP system because there's very little chance of that being done away with. Of course, if you want to concentrate on that issue instead of getting people elected, that's your right but I doubt it will be very satisfying.

Wasn't that 1984?

Or did he actually eat his lunch in 1988 in some historical trivia thing I don't know about?

[Avenio]

I, personally, would simply like a greater diversity in my options to vote for. More nuanced views that don't conform to the "big-tent" politics that permeate US Governance.

And it doesn't permeate elsewhere? Take Canada for instance; you get a choice between the centre-centre-left or the centre-centre-right. Anyone outside of that gets increasingly unelectable, and any party that wants to break the duopoly has to bite the bullet and go for the centre.

I also think part of the problem is that there is too much entrenchment in US Politics, which stems from complacency on the part of the populace. Partisan/Tactical lines aren't a problem, not redrawing them every few years is.

Canada's Liberal Party ran the country for 70 of the last 100 years. That's entrenchment.

[Regenburg]

Mostly the last option.

[Maurepas]

I also think part of the problem is that there is too much entrenchment in US Politics, which stems from complacency on the part of the populace. Partisan/Tactical lines aren't a problem, not redrawing them every few years is.

Canada's Liberal Party ran the country for 70 of the last 100 years. That's entrenchment.

We haven't had anybody but either a Democrat or a Republican in over 150 years. We're at that level and more.

Not to mention, I was mainly talking about individual congressmen, very few are not reelected. While overall levels for either party wax and wane, they both have groups of hard entrenched politicians that need to be broken up.

[Luveria]

I also think part of the problem is that there is too much entrenchment in US Politics, which stems from complacency on the part of the populace. Partisan/Tactical lines aren't a problem, not redrawing them every few years is.

Canada's Liberal Party ran the country for 70 of the last 100 years. That's entrenchment.

That is one of the reasons I am in favour of abolishing term limits. Better the Liberals for 70 years than the Conservatives for 70 years...

[Shilya]

Ron Paul represented an ignored solution to the problem of American politics.

Abolish the welfare state. The incentive to take a job at whatever wage available must prevail.
Illegal aliens already receive de-facto free health care. Why can’t poor Americans have the same… not as a right, but as a charitable benefit provided by doctors who feel a personal responsibility for their fellow citizens?
No one has a right to medical care.
We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care.
I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade.
The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.
I just know that there is a better way — through local laws, communities, churches, and families — to combat the very serious problem of drug abuse
But we’re already in such a mess that the only way to have a real impact on the money supply is to increase interest rates so that people pay back their loans and borrow less money from the banks, which decreases the amount of money in circulation. However, higher interest rates might very well crash the economy.
Ron Paul has been an advocate of the gold standard and open competition in currencies for many years.

I dunno, all in all that just doesn't make for very convincing policies to me. His fiscal policy is "gold standard" and "the free market will fix it" and the rest of his platform is a mixture of "just have faith and follow the bible" and "just get a job, you lazy unemployed people".