The two party system

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

I think the two party system we have has served the country well for the vast majority of our countries existence.

Provided some stability as opposed to a parliamentary system until recently.

Pretty obvious it's degenerated to a point where a viable third or fourth option would be desirable to a lot of voters.

For the life of me I can't think of a way we could break this two party monopoly. The two parties have pretty much rigged the system so that a third party option is somewhat of pipe dream.

Seems more relevant this election cycle then ever.

Just created this thread to throw around options, because honestly I don't have any.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Crickets

We're pretty much stuck with the 2 party system.


Since I'm talking with myself.

The only way to get the GOP to change course is an absolute shellacking in November. By that I mean totally destroyed. D's gain 40-50 seats in the House and push their advantage in the Senate to around 60-40 (don't see that happening in the Senate)

Unfortunately if that were to happen...

D's would

1. Pack the Supreme court. Expand to 13.
2. Get rid of the electoral college
3. Add DC as a state to lock in 2 more Senators.

None of which I would be on board with....

 

[THE_DEVIL]

You are correct. I think we can tweak the 2 party thing a little at a time. My first thought is to move to rank choice voting. Yeah, nothing would fundamentally change but it would open the door a bit.

 

[IANDFAN]

Are we thinking of this because of f the 2020 and 2024 elections only?

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

Unfortunately the primary system, electoral college, gerrymandering and super PACs we have today tend to skew the two parties towards their polar end of the political spectrum. This limits choice for moderates like me. Personally, and yes I know this is a pipe dream that will never happen, I would love to see six parties. Working from the left side of the spectrum to the right:

• Off the deep end of the left - Antifa types etc.
• Socially liberal fiscally liberal (Bernie Sanders and crew)
• Socially liberal, fiscally conservative - that’s me. I want responsible government that balances the budget and very little government interference in our personal lives.
• Socially conservative, fiscally liberal - folks like @Hoosierhawkeye
• Socially conservative, fiscally conservative - the classic Mitt Romney / Bob Dole thpe party
• Off the deep end of the right - MAGA

Imagine a world where these groups have to come together and negotiate to pass legislation, where we can’t gerrymander our way into minority rule, where moderates have a stronger voice, where all Americans find a party that more closely fits their beliefs.

As I said it will never happen, but I would at least love to see a movement that embraces those of us in the middle.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

You are correct. I think we can tweak the 2 party thing a little at a time. My first thought is to move to rank choice voting. Yeah, nothing would fundamentally change but it would open the door a bit.

Rank choice voting would be an improvement IMO.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Are we thinking of this because of f the 2020 and 2024 elections only?

Definitely been exacerbated by 2020/2024 but I think this has been brewing for a while now. We've crossed the Rubicon so to speak...don't think there's any going back.

 

[alaskanseminole]

I'll admit, this is a rather simplistic and idealistic viewpoint, but I personally believe that abolishing political parties could lead to a more transparent and issue-focused electoral system. Instead of being bound by party affiliations, candidates would present their platforms directly to the voters. This would allow us, as voters, to assess each candidate based on their stance on various issues, enabling us to make more informed decisions. By eliminating the dominance of two-party politics, we could potentially reduce polarization and encourage a broader spectrum of perspectives in governance.

 

[IANDFAN]

Definitely been exacerbated by 2020/2024 but I think this has been brewing for a while now. We've crossed the Rubicon so to speak...don't think there's any going back.

You don’t think that after this cycle when both Trump and Biden are gone it won’t be better?

 

[onlyTheObvious]

A third party that was in the middle and hyper focused on a few common sense issues might work but we are a decade away yet at least.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

The problem is the money.


I wish politicians had to wear sponsorship badges.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Unfortunately the primary system, electoral college, gerrymandering and super PACs we have today tend to skew the two parties towards their polar end of the political spectrum. This limits choice for moderates like me. Personally, and yes I know this is a pipe dream that will never happen, I would love to see six parties. Working from the left side of the spectrum to the right:

• Off the deep end of the left - Antifa types etc.
• Socially liberal fiscally liberal (Bernie Sanders and crew)
• Socially liberal, fiscally conservative - that’s me. I want responsible government that balances the budget and very little government interference in our personal lives.
• Socially conservative, fiscally liberal - folks like @Hoosierhawkeye
• Socially conservative, fiscally conservative - the classic Mitt Romney / Bob Dole thpe party
• Off the deep end of the right - MAGA

Imagine a world where these groups have to come together and negotiate to pass legislation, where we can’t gerrymander our way into minority rule, where moderates have a stronger voice, where all Americans find a party that more closely fits their beliefs.

As I said it will never happen, but I would at least love to see a movement that embraces those of us in the middle.

That's why you need proportional representation so each group can sort of vote for the people they like to represent it and all those groups can get together and negotiate bills based on what the majority of the country wants.

 

[mthawkeyes]

A third party that was in the middle and hyper focused on a few common sense issues might work but we are a decade away yet at least.

Agree. There should be a party that wants to make healthcare more affordable, invest in infrastructure and education, and reduce/mitigate the impacts of environmental problems on people and society.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

A third party that was in the middle and hyper focused on a few common sense issues might work but we are a decade away yet at least.

A single third party that is in the magic middle doesn't exist. Getting to the middle is more or less a process of people voting for their own political views and allowing their representatives of those views to negotiate. The biggest problem is that the spectrum of political opinions is far more varied than just 2 parties. So those 2 parties are going to only going to play to their most hardcore supporters (who are the ones that vote the most in primaries). Combine that with Gerrymandering and all the incentives are towards extremism.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

You don’t think that after this cycle when both Trump and Biden are gone it won’t be better?

Nope.

One can hope though.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

A single third party that is in the magic middle doesn't exist. Getting to the middle is more or less a process of people voting for their own political views and allowing their representatives of those views to negotiate. The biggest problem is that the spectrum of political opinions is far more varied than just 2 parties. So those 2 parties are going to only going to play to their most hardcore supporters (who are the ones that vote the most in primaries). Combine that with Gerrymandering and all the incentives are towards extremism.

This is exactly right. That said, I think there are a whole bunch of people like you and a separate large group like me. If we just added those two moderate parties we would bring American politics closer to mainstream viewpoints as these groups would have to negotiate to get things done.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

A single third party that is in the magic middle doesn't exist.

Are you saying I'm not real?.............

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

I think the two party system we have has served the country well for the vast majority of our countries existence.

Provided some stability as opposed to a parliamentary system until recently.

Pretty obvious it's degenerated to a point where a viable third or fourth option would be desirable to a lot of voters.

For the life of me I can't think of a way we could break this two party monopoly. The two parties have pretty much rigged the system so that a third party option is somewhat of pipe dream.

Seems more relevant this election cycle then ever.

Just created this thread to throw around options, because honestly I don't have any.

The answer is simple.

You make the third party, not just the enemy, but a legitimate threat to the sanctity and safety of the American public. A threat too great for either other side to ignore, forcing them to put aside their differences and come together to defeat this threat.

But in order for that third party to become a true threat, they first have to give them something to be truly threatened by............

 

[ButtersHawk]

I think the first step needs to be every election cycle you need to have a Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Libertarian on that debate stage.

If someone is viable and it's logical that they could obtain 500,000 votes they should be allowed to debate. People need to hear other values and ideas.

 

[jonesy5960]

Crickets

We're pretty much stuck with the 2 party system.


Since I'm talking with myself.

The only way to get the GOP to change course is an absolute shellacking in November. By that I mean totally destroyed. D's gain 40-50 seats in the House and push their advantage in the Senate to around 60-40 (don't see that happening in the Senate)

Unfortunately if that were to happen...

D's would

1. Pack the Supreme court. Expand to 13.
2. Get rid of the electoral college
3. Add DC as a state to lock in 2 more Senators.

None of which I would be on board with....

As some have already suggested, the quickest end to the 2 party system that we are stuck with is in fact the demise of the electoral college as it exists today. It would completely open up the field by breaking the stranglehold that the 2 parties have on the system. Candidates would be forced to appeal to a broader range of voters in order to be successful. The electoral college has become one of the world's least democratic institutions. Think about it. There are more Republicans in California than Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Kentucky put together and yet they have no voice in presidential politics and they know it. They've become completely disenfranchised. You can say the exact same thing about Dems in red states. There is no incentive for candidates to do anything other than appeal to the margins around the country. At a minimum, the electoral college should allocate votes proportionally vs this arcane winner-take-all system that serves only to further divide the country.

 

[DPUboiler]

Rank choice voting, ending of gerrymandering, and curtailing of foreign government interference via social media, and you don't really need more than the 2 parties as they will return to the middle so to speak. Of course, you have one party that is not serious about making the above changes.

 

[MichaelKeller99]

If everyone stopped voting (and donating) the two-party system would collapse. There’s no other way to send a message, imo.

 

[l.todd]

I read an article awhile ago stating that we might be better off as a country now had we not fought the revolutionary war when we did. We would likely have had a much cleaner abolition of slavery than the horrible, bloody civil war we fought and we might very well have ended up with a parliamentary system instead of what we have now, which would allow the existence of multiple parties and forced compromise. Food for thought.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I think the first step needs to be every election cycle you need to have a Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Libertarian on that debate stage.

If someone is viable and it's logical that they could obtain 500,000 votes they should be allowed to debate. People need to hear other values and ideas.

I meant this would be a start but ultimately the way we do elections makes people feel that you have to vote for one of the 2 established candidates otherwise you are throwing away your vote.

We have to make it even plausible to vote for a non established party/candidate and not feel as though you are wasting your vote.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Crickets

We're pretty much stuck with the 2 party system.


Since I'm talking with myself.

The only way to get the GOP to change course is an absolute shellacking in November. By that I mean totally destroyed. D's gain 40-50 seats in the House and push their advantage in the Senate to around 60-40 (don't see that happening in the Senate)

Unfortunately if that were to happen...

D's would

1. Pack the Supreme court. Expand to 13.
2. Get rid of the electoral college
3. Add DC as a state to lock in 2 more Senators.

None of which I would be on board with....

Two of those three would require an amendment to the constitution

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

I'll admit, this is a rather simplistic and idealistic viewpoint, but I personally believe that abolishing political parties could lead to a more transparent and issue-focused electoral system. Instead of being bound by party affiliations, candidates would present their platforms directly to the voters. This would allow us, as voters, to assess each candidate based on their stance on various issues, enabling us to make more informed decisions. By eliminating the dominance of two-party politics, we could potentially reduce polarization and encourage a broader spectrum of perspectives in governance.

The problem with not having these umbrellas is that despite any differences people may have within their parties, they still come back to the idea that their party, as a whole > everyone else, particularly come election time.

Republicans may hate Donald Trump, and rightfully so........but many will still vote for him in November.

So let's say you remove people from the restrictions of a two-party system and those people who hate Donald Trump no longer feel obligated to vote for him.

But instead of two sides, you now have 20, 30, 100. And everybody has an opinion and nobody can agree with anybody.

How would you organize a political election with that many dissenting voices across the spectrum? (Oh and yes there would be many....................)

As tempting as it would be to blow up the two-party system and just let it be a free-for-all of ideas and opinions and "pol-i-tics".................

"You kill this and you don't just have two devils.....you have an infinite amount"

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

I meant this would be a start but ultimately the way we do elections makes people feel that you have to vote for one of the 2 established candidates otherwise you are throwing away your vote.

We have to make it even plausible to vote for a non established party/candidate and not feel as though you are wasting your vote.

Just convince people they're wasting their votes on Biden AND Trump.......

 

[JustSayOV]

I think the first step needs to be every election cycle you need to have a Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Libertarian on that debate stage.

If someone is viable and it's logical that they could obtain 500,000 votes they should be allowed to debate. People need to hear other values and ideas.

I always said (kind of half joking....kind of not) we would better off doing the election like American Idol.....start with like a group of 20 candidates and have televised debates and taking points for weeks and weeks with no political affiliations attached to the candidates and then get them whittled down to your bottom 4 through weekly voting and then do the "hometown visit" for the finalists and vote your winner....

I fully realize this is not real or plausible.....but the thought of no political affiliations is nice to think about.....and with how our society watches TV, you would probably have the best "voter turnout" you could hope for....

*****but as others have said, its nothing but Money plain and simple.....a true centrist candidate that is liberal on personal rights and all that stuff, but conservative in all things finance & business would never even come close to sniffing either parties nomination because that candidate wouldn't align with enough of the top donor power players interests to benefit them enough to warrant an endorsement, so they just go to the next "yes man"

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Two of those three would require an amendment to the constitution

Only getting rid of the electoral college definitely requires it.

Statehood is up for debate. But pack the court and the Dems clear the path for statehood.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

If I remember correctly back at either the end of Clinton or first of Bush both repubs and dems got together and did a big election campaign reform that ****ed everything up.