The two parties have rigged the system, including outright legislation, that makes it difficult for a another camel to get his nose under the tent. I hear NY has toyed with run-off elections recently and it worked. Short answer: The people have to stand up on their hind legs and stop with the "lesser of two evils" BS. It's still evil. I was hoping Sanders and Trump would have cut ties and ruined the D and R parties, but, like they say, hope in one hand and shit in the other. Let me know what you get.

We use Hare-Clark.

The number of valid votes is divided by the number of seats; add one. This gives a quota. Those who receive a quota are elected. Excess votes are transferred to the next preference.

The result is a house that represents the distribution of political support across the community. In practice this means that parties have to negotiate policy with other parties.

It works very well.

Paraphrasing old Ben Franklin(?), "American Democracy" amounts to two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. The sheep (whether armed or not makes no difference) are us, no doubt, and the wolves are – you guessed it, lamb-chop – the two-party system. Two wings, same vulture. A 1%ers' (i.e. slaveholding, mass-murdering, settler's) "republic ... if you (wanna) keep it."

P.S. I should add that it is much cheaper to purchase two politicians than ten.

:up:

:up: Only in our (un)American dreams.

The two parties have rigged the system, including outright legislation, that makes it difficult for a another camel to get his nose under the tent. — James Riley

The fault is ours, the electorate's. There ARE third party candidates, but nobody supports them at the polls. The reason for this is that American politics is largely preventative: in a climate which has seen centrism fade from view, and the right and left become increasingly polarized, we don't vote for a candidate or a platform, we vote AGAINST a party and it's platform. Democrats won't cast their vote for a green party candidates largely because they are terrified of the Republican candidate winning. Republicans won't cast their vote for a Libertarian candidate because they are terrified that so doing will result in the Democratic candidate winning. That seems to be the nature of our politics in America, and so the conundrum in which we find ourselves.

...hope in one hand and shit in the other... — James Riley

Hahaha, now you sound like my nonna; I haven't heard that phrase used in a long time! My maternal grandma used to say that whenever I made a statement beginning with "I wish...". Riley, you must be Irish in actuality! When I'd ask her where she got that from, nonna used to say that that saying was "something that the Irish say".

The fault is ours, the electorate's. — Michael Zwingli

Blaming the sheep is little too easy. Replace the current rigged electoral gerrymandering racket with a modern parliamentary system comparable to those by which other developed nations govern themselves, then start flaying those damn bleatin' sheep.

Blaming the sheep is little too easy. Replace the current rigged electoral gerrymandering racket with a modern parliamentary system comparable to those by which other developed nations govern themselves, then start flaying the damn bleatin' sheep. — 180 Proof

:up:

Not that I am pro-parliament. But supporting one of the two parties seems the only rational choice unless you want to be a protest vote.

Not that I am pro-parliament. But supporting one of the two parties seems the only rational choice unless you want to be a protest vote. — Ennui Elucidator

That reflects and feeds the attitude towards our electoral system of which I spoke above. If the electorate believes that only the two parties are viable, then all voters are simply going to vote against the party, the one of "the two", which they percieve as threatening their vision for "America"...for what our society should be. If everybody would just overcome their fear, and vote Libertarian, we'd all be alot better off... :joke:

The parties aren’t some abstraction, but actual groups of people who work towards their common betterment and have entrenched power structures. The typical voter who identifies as a party member, though removed from the functioning of their actual party and probably not dues paying, is not in a position to change power by merely winning one election, regardless of the significance of such office. Until the third-party has broad loyalty amongst entrenched members in all levels of government, it is not a true power broker.

The typical voter who identifies as a party member, though removed from the functioning of their actual party and probably not dues paying, is not in a position to change power by merely winning one election, regardless of the significance of such office. — Ennui Elucidator

That's true, but it'd "be a start", would show the vulnerability of the two party system, and would be a breath of fresh air as well.

Because that's what suits the American elite of course. 2 parties are easy to manage and so it is.

The Americans are quick to criticise other countries for their way of governing. The fact remains that there are only two parties because Americans restrict the thoughts of their population. A dumb population is easier to manipulate.

Gore Vidal:

"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."

EXCELLENT.

As is well known, the two party system is simply a product of the first past the post voting system. Add a second round of voting to your elections, and parties may proliferate.

Two problems are more than I can handle. I don't want a third or fourth or a fifth...

:up: Raised in Washington, D.C. the son of a high-ranking official during FDR's first two administrations, the favorite grandson of a U.S. Senator and distant relation-by-marriage to Jacqueline Kennedy (thereby in JFK's "orbit"), such lived insights are richly explored in Gore Vidal's masterful historical novels Burr, Lincoln & Empire.

You know your American iconoclasts... :ok: I had a Vidal fixation in the 1980's and 90's. I've studied his work for decades, read most of the essays & most of the novels, some several times over and I've heard or watched almost every interview he ever did.

Yeah same: during the late 80s to early 90s I read almost all of Vidal's nonfiction and much of his best fiction. In hindsight, it even seems like I'd read nothing but him and James Baldwin for 4-5 years (though that couldn't have been the case).

Democracy and simplicity. People can vote however they wish to and most prefer an A or B option so they don’t have to think too hard.

Note: Even in European countries there are usually only two main parties in the running at any particular time. That said there are certainly others that have waxed and waned over the decades and at least have some minute impact even when far behind the others. The system in the US is puzzling to me tbh.

Overall I think the vast majority of governments have too much to deal with. Decentralising power makes the most sense and for whatever reason (probably the delusion of ‘patriotism’) the chance passed us by several decades ago. Meaning countries should’ve split up so individual votes effected individual lives rather than merely feeding into a monster they had no connection to.

Politics for the people now seems to take form in poor and weak rebellions by the uninformed and cowering intellects.

A split in the US seems to be the best possible outcome in the near future for everyone across the globe. Given that the US is so dominant right now it could still retain dominance over other bodies that are feared too whilst breaking/splitting into more manageable forms.

Either way I’m still convinced that the idea of ‘nation’ is in its death throes right now and that ‘God is dead’ will be of less interest soon enough as I’m sure the more relevant point now is ‘Nation is dead’ … when this is noticed maybe politics for the people and of the people will revive itself.

The two party system is a house of cards that seem to be laid in concrete by three ideas that Americans cherish as self evident truths:

1) The amazing idea that democracy would work through the machinations of the two political parties, inside from them in the "primaries" in Presidential elections, as the position of the president is given near mythical status.

2) The idea that any other "third" party will either not have any chance or will simply be a spoiler, which is enforced by a media that only focuses on the two parties. The parties at least tell they have a huge following, the DNC with 48 million and the GOP with 36 million members, which is quite a lot.

3) The instigation of political polarization and tribalization by the two parties has lead Americans to think that they are divided by the lines of these two parties. As the two parties are quite close to each other on many issues (as noted earlier by the quote from Gore Vidal by @Tom Storm), they cannot compete with different policy options, but simply portray the other party in the worst way and instill fear about the other. This leads to what some could say amounts to inciting political violence, but this also has the effect that it divides the opposition of the two-party system into separate camps. The divide and rule strategy has been quite successful many times. A divided opposition to the two-party system will not be threat to the two parties.

The divide and rule strategy has been quite successful many times. — ssu

And due to the geographic divide will lead to the inevitable outcome of a more literal split. In other countries the political division is generally scattered in the US you can pretty much see borders in the map.

P.S. I should add that it is much cheaper to purchase two politicians than ten. — James Riley

Exactly. We could establish term limits which would then increase the frequency with which one needs to buy off a politician, but then it would eventually be realized that purchasing the political parties themselves rather than the individuals would be more efficient.

The best solution would be to abolish political parties altogether.


:up: We don't necessarily need a Libertarian Party. I think that if you abolish political parties then most politicians would actually take more libertarian stances.

But supporting one of the two parties seems the only rational choice unless you want to be a protest vote. — Ennui Elucidator

Protest votes seem to be the majority type of vote in the U.S. as most of the commentary of politicians is demonizing their opponents rather than proposing their own ideas. Most people in America vote against the other party rather than for the another. As Obama has told his constituents, "I want you to stay angry." Is using anger as the reason for your vote a rational choice?

The problem is that the media has become mouth-pieces for the political parties and people only get their information from one source - the source that reaffirms their own cognitive biases. Abolish political parties and you abolish the team mentality (group-think).

The parties aren’t some abstraction, but actual groups of people who work towards their common betterment and have entrenched power structures. The typical voter who identifies as a party member... — Ennui Elucidator

No, the typical voter is a one-issue voter and only registers as a member of the party that is on their side of their one issue, even if the other party sides on other issues the voter might take on the other issues. The typical voter isn't really interested in the other issues and allow the party they've adopted to tell them what positions to take on these other issues. These are the ones that simply regurgitate what their party is saying.

In taking a more objective view of the situation you can see that the both political parties are accurate on some issues and inaccurate on others, so being a member of one forces you into this box of contradiction. Abolishing political parties would free one's mind to seek out candidates that match more of your positions on all of the issues, and not just one.

People can vote however they wish to and most prefer an A or B option so they don’t have to think too hard. — I like sushi

Yes. So abolishing political parties would be double-good in weeding out the ones that find it difficult to think for themselves from the voting system, and endowing those that do take the time to research the candidates with more options.

Two problems are more than I can handle. I don't want a third or fourth or a fifth... — TheMadFool

Then abolishing political parties would leave you with no problems. :cool:

Then abolishing political parties would leave you with no problems — Harry Hindu

:sweat: :grin:

Yes. So abolishing political parties would be double-good in weeding out the ones that find it difficult to think for themselves from the voting system, and endowing those that do take the time to research the candidates more options. — Harry Hindu

There have been instances for governmental reform but generally they are sidelined as much as possible by those in power because it doesn't suit them.

In this instance the US when in splits (assuming it is still a powerhouse when it does) may open up a door to change. Either way I think the 'nation' is on its way out and I've little idea what will come next but technology will undoubtedly play a major role.

There have been instances for governmental reform but generally they are sidelined as much as possible by those in power because it doesn't suit them. — I like sushi

The U.S. govt. is an elitist oligarchy after all.

In this instance the US when in splits (assuming it is still a powerhouse when it does) may open up a door to change. Either way I think the 'nation' is on its way out and I've little idea what will come next but technology will undoubtedly play a major role. — I like sushi

I'm still not sure. I think the two parties need each other and will try to hold the country together under the status quo for as long as possible. One party has no one else to blame when things go south, so the only way one party stays in power is by becoming more authoritarian - by taking away your right to complain and be angry at them.

I'm still not sure. I think the two parties need each other and will try to hold the country together under the status quo for as long as possible. — Harry Hindu

The population has/is outgrowing the need for the idea of 'country'. I'm not making prediction about what will/might happen but I cannot see a way past the dissolution of the 'nation state' this century (and see it happening already).

To unite across the globe religious doctrine was used. This spread out from one place to another. Then the religious attitude declined and we're seeing a clinging to nationhood instead (as has been happening for the last century or two). Whatever remains of the nation idea after the public loses interested will basically form the next social epoch I'd say and I think we're living through the transition right now.

Simply because it is better, at least against “proportional representation”, in my opinion.

The repression of other parties is not the repression of flexibility. As Karl Popper argued, when suffering electoral losses the parties in a two-party system must seek ideological reform or they continue to lose.

As things stand, an inclination to self-criticism after an electoral defeat is far more pronounced in countries with a two-party system than in those where there are several parties. In practice, then, a two-party system is likely to be more flexible than a multi-party system, contrary to first impressions.

https://amp.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2016/01/31/from-the-archives-the-open-society-and-its-enemies-revisited

In the United States, the two main parties have gone through significant reforms during their lifetimes, and continue to this day.

Further, politicians in a system of proportional representation are beholden to their party before their constituents. Often, the party chooses who will lead it, and thus, who will lead the country should they win. Also, coalition governments are ass.

In today's political world, many people still hold onto the American apple pie concepts of the country, through self-serving self-generated mythologies of we the virtuous. These beliefs depend upon information, as anything in debate does, but one must allow the voices of the world to be heard over the clamor of national mythological propaganda. Your neighbours know you better than you know yourself, they have been subject to your power for a long time, take a consensus for Christ's sake!

Everyone in the world knows you are an empire, accept most of the American population, do wake up, living in delusion is detrimental to the health of the world, not to mention your own well-being. You believe you live in a democracy, that your elected president is the supreme leader, all power within presidential hands----- wake up!! cut the strings of your puppet dance, and start to listen to the world at large. If your president trys to cut his strings in this elite puppet dance he will be delt with, the powers that be don't really care who is president, its their puppet show. Listen to the world, they are not all wearing black hats, many of their hats are whiter than yours. Two parties, a basic uncluttered delusion of a democracy.