Some people may disagree with the idea that the traditional left/right, this or that, chocolate vs vanilla Democrat vs Republican political system in the U.S. is broken. But from what I've seen, it's polarized the country, and made people think in a box that closes their minds to other solutions beyond what their party line preaches.
President Obama has talked about reforms of course before but I think true reform would be to allow multi party elections in the congress, senate and Presidential races. I'm aware that voters can cast their ballots for a third party if they put it on the paper but it seems like there is no official support or encouragement for a third party or multi party system and maybe in a time like this it's just what the U.S. needs, which are ideas to solving issues that are not part of a worn out system that doesn't seem to be working.
It's the classics debate between FPTP and forms of PR in the electoral system.
Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and what you say about the seeming redundancy in casting your vote for someone outside of the typical two parties is certainly an issue that FPTP suffers from.
Unfortunately the perception (often reality) of a system of PR, whereby a multitude if parties are vying for people's vote (depending on the system in place) is one of things not being done at the governmental level thanks to constantly squabbling and disagreement over the sorts of policies that needs to be implemented.
There's greater accountability, sure, as people's votes tend to 'mean' more in the system of election. But for examples of PR can go drastically wrong, look up Belgium and Italy, where just forming a government can take months, if not longer, when no policy is being drafted or implemented.
It's a self perpetuating system. I've seen the exact same arguments against voting for a third party made by those on the left and on the right. I've seen these arguments made here on this forum from the left and on a outdoor forum with a bunch of right wingers. It goes like this: "A vote for (insert 3rd party here) is wasted or will help elect an evil republican who'll rape your puppies and force all women to stay home and have babies" or "If you vote for (insert 3rd party here) it's just the same as voting for that commie pinko who wants to take yer guns and make you gay".
It's the political version of mutually assured destruction. The lesser of two evils may still be evil but not very many are willing to take a chance on another party because of the fear that it will help elect the "worse" party depending on your point of view. We'll probably get some version of that argument here on this thread.
Quote from: "frosty"Some people may disagree with the idea that the traditional left/right, this or that, chocolate vs vanilla Democrat vs Republican political system in the U.S. is broken. But from what I've seen, it's polarized the country, and made people think in a box that closes their minds to other solutions beyond what their party line preaches.
Many people vote strategically for the perceived lesser of two evils when a third party offers a better choice. This makes sense until the two most powerful parties become indistinguishable from each other. In our system, the motives of the two major parties are becoming so aligned that strategic voting accomplishes little more than solidifying the status quo protecting the interests of a few rather than the many.
The two major parties succeed by distinguishing themselves with rhetoric that misdirects the attention of potential supporters away from the most important issues. During elections, voters are offered promises by the major parties that are eventually broken and justified in the name of compromise, the compromise being beneficial to the powers of the status quo.
Two recent third party challenges have helped solidify the status quo. Ross Perot fractured the Republican vote back in the 80s and Ralph Nader did the same to the Democrats in the 90s. The response from the two parties has been to disallow third party participation in national debates. While third parties can offer a change in direction, they pose threats to the common goals of the major parties. The end result is that we are given only two different choices, which are basically the same, except for their rhetoric.
My brother-in-law was involved with an independent voter's organization that successfully installed a third party mayor in a local election, which of course posed a threat to the goals common to the Republicans and the Democrats, who in turn, teamed up and worked to destroy every initiative of the independent party. Clearly third parties are a threat to goals of the major two.
The end result in the US is a continued spectacle, much like a football game, where the players work their hearts out to destroy the other team, but do nothing to actually better the lives of those watching the spectacle. The game, be it football or protecting the status quo, is preserved, and the spectators serve no purpose but to preserve the respective games.
We are encouraged to pick team to root for. A flip of the coin would be as effective as a choice. The game remains the same. We get to watch, and the only personal reward is an occasional hollow victory that means nothing on a practical level.
A big part of it is because of the media. The continual conservative/liberal bias has polarized our thinking to the point we tend to exclude anything resembling middle of the road or separatist viewpoints. The media has become an extension of the political parties, not a counterpoint to them.
Having run as a third party candidate, I knew I wasn't going to win. I did hope to get some ideas out there, and to get the ear of the candidate who would win. But, like Stromboli suggested, the press practically works for the parties in power. The candidate who did win, quickly toed the party line. While agreeing with me on some points I had made during the campaign, he discarded them once he was in office.
The one thing I found that the two parties could agree on, was keeping third parties out of the running. They do this in ways which most of the public don't know about. They do this with subtleties in getting on the ballot, and in so-called campaign finance reform. Under the table, rich contributors can and do lose government contracts because they supported a third party. While a contributor can give to both of the parties with impunity, because it is allowed in current system.
The mainstream press has become the two parties lapdogs. They ignore or denigrate third party ideals and candidates. While the press pretends to be "fair and unbiased," everyone knows they take sides in the game, as SGOS pointed out. The press are against anyone other than the "two parties" playing in the game. I no longer trust the press, because of the many times I was misquoted and in how they edited what I said. Sometimes they even made stuff up about me and my beliefs.
Anyway, I would like to see third, fourth, fifth parties being serious contenders in the politics in this country. If for no other reason then to make the "two parties" answer the tough questions the other parties demand answers to. But, as it is now, I don't see anything short of a revolution changing the way things are done.
I always want to encourage the free flow of ideas. In my view I think that the way things are going is simply a circular cycle of left, right, left, right.... and so on. In a way I have to respect partisan political citizens for being so dedicated to what they believe in. But then on the other hand I then lose my respect for that when I see how divided and polarized they are and how they are trying to force themselves and everybody else into a boxed in, "this or that" paradigm of thinking.
And the guy above me is once again talking about a revolution, but it seems these days that a "revolution" would rip the U.S. apart. People may be opening their minds to other ways of thinking (as the replies in this thread suggest), but it seems perhaps even a majority of citizens are entrenched in their ways of thinking and a so called "revolution" would be split upon partisan lines. It would not be a pleasant thing to watch.
Introducing a multi party system would perhaps be one of many ways to get people past thinking in only 2 ways. But of course as always it would also have it's issues, the question here is if it would have less issues than a 2 party system?
What do you mean by introducing a multi party system? We already have a multi party system in the US. There are several parties but most people vote for the Democrats or Republicans.
Quote from: "frosty"Introducing a multi party system would perhaps be one of many ways to get people past thinking in only 2 ways. But of course as always it would also have it's issues, the question here is if it would have less issues than a 2 party system?
No, because First Past the Post (the way elections are run in this country) virtually guarantees a 2 party system. So whatever multiparty system we introduce, it'll quickly devolve back to a 2 party system.
Quote from: "billhilly"What do you mean by introducing a multi party system? We already have a multi party system in the US. There are several parties but most people vote for the Democrats or Republicans.
It's just an idea to get people thinking in ways other than "this vs that". It has been proven that the existing system is very divisive. Perhaps a multi party system would inject new ideas of how to solve certain issues into the public mind. Yes most people vote Democrat or Republican, and that's exactly my point. People run to the ballot box, vote for chocolate or vanilla and then the career politicians that are "voted" in continue on the old path and don't seem to change much. I just think it would be good for the system and the public, but then as other people have suggested there will always be certain people that for their own gain wish for things to remain as they are.
What part of "we already have a multi party system" are you not understanding?
Quote from: "billhilly"What part of "we already have a multi party system" are you not understanding?
No, we don't. Not at the national level. What we have is a two-party system that claims to be a multi-party system and does everything in it's power to keep the independents out.
the problem is that Hitler Aids McDouchebag can obtain 20% of the vote while say 7 other parties take the rest each getting no more than 11% of the vote, but all those parties are good people, and yet because of the way our current winner take all system is set up, Mcdouchebag wins.
so unless we change our electoral system we're kinda stuck with two parties.
the teabaggers actually have the right idea here.
primaries.
work the primaries to get good progressives into the democratic party. then they can help win general elections.
Quote from: "billhilly"What part of "we already have a multi party system" are you not understanding?
I understood your words precisely, but if you read my last post I stated that as others have said there are efforts to not have a multi party... or even third party process be taken seriously. It may be possible to put an alternate party candidate on the ballot but it is cosmetic and meaningless if the two party system in practicality doesn't budge. Of course this issue also depends on the popular will, but on an official level it seems discouraged and the idea of only voting for one party or the other, Democrat or Republican is endlessly promoted by career politicians and the mainstream media.
What I think is meant by "multi party" system is more like closely akin to a ranked voting system possibly with proportional representation. Voters can chose more than one candidate for an election and if their first choice doesn't receive enough votes, their vote ends up being cast for their second choice which could be the "lesser of two evils" choice. This could give 3rd party candidates more of a shot and remove the spoiler effect of FPTP voting.
Quote from: "NeoLogic26"What I think is meant by "multi party" system is more like closely akin to a ranked voting system possibly with proportional representation. Voters can chose more than one candidate for an election and if their first choice doesn't receive enough votes, their vote ends up being cast for their second choice which could be the "lesser of two evils" choice. This could give 3rd party candidates more of a shot and remove the spoiler effect of FPTP voting.
yep! this would be awesome and I fully support this.
until such a system is in place voting third party is a futile endeavor. see my post above.
so for now, work the primaries and focus on true progressives and people who would support changing our electoral system for the better.
we must be pragmatic. the reason the bad guys win is because they know how to work the system and manipulate people, and they ruthlessly pursue the most effective strategy.
meanwhile the good guys often just focus on ideals and how things should be instead of as they are, instead of what works.
so you see teabaggers working republican primaries, while occupy just camps out in front of buildings protesting. you see tea party types getting their guys in office by getting republicans they don't like "primaried" and having influence, you see our guys voting green party and basically accomplishing jack shit instead of following the tea party's example ahd working within the system and getting bad democrats out using the primaries, and then working for the general election to beat the republicans.
until our side can be as calculating and pragmatic as our opponents we won't win.
[youtube:3gb272rj]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/youtube:3gb272rj]
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"the problem is that Hitler Aids McDouchebag can obtain 20% of the vote while say 7 other parties take the rest each getting no more than 11% of the vote, but all those parties are good people, and yet because of the way our current winner take all system is set up, Mcdouchebag wins.
so unless we change our electoral system we're kinda stuck with two parties.
the teabaggers actually have the right idea here.
primaries.
work the primaries to get good progressives into the democratic party. then they can help win general elections.
You're creating a false dichotomy. We don't have to go with a two-party system or a multi-party "person with most votes out of x people wins" type situation.
I've always liked the idea of each state advancing two candidates. The fifty state winners move on to the next round. Set it up like a sports playoff bracket. In the end, you're still voting between just two guys in the end and if "Hitler Aids McDouchebag" can get through all that then the people truly are getting what they deserve.
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"I've always liked the idea of each state advancing two candidates. The fifty state winners move on to the next round. Set it up like a sports playoff bracket. In the end, you're still voting between just two guys in the end and if "Hitler Aids McDouchebag" can get through all that then the people truly are getting what they deserve.
All you have to do is get a supermajority of Congress to pass the bill and the legislatures of 3/4 of the states (38 as of now) to vote for it. It would probably be easier to get Congress to outlaw religion.
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"Quote from: "billhilly"What part of "we already have a multi party system" are you not understanding?
No, we don't. Not at the national level. What we have is a two-party system that claims to be a multi-party system and does everything in it's power to keep the independents out.
I'm pretty sure I voted for Gary Johnson last year. What party ticket did he run on again?
I get that it doesn't work and they conspire against it but by that logic, if my car doesn't run then I don't have a car.
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"the problem is that Hitler Aids McDouchebag can obtain 20% of the vote while say 7 other parties take the rest each getting no more than 11% of the vote, but all those parties are good people, and yet because of the way our current winner take all system is set up, Mcdouchebag wins.
so unless we change our electoral system we're kinda stuck with two parties.
the teabaggers actually have the right idea here.
primaries.
work the primaries to get good progressives into the democratic party. then they can help win general elections.
You're creating a false dichotomy. We don't have to go with a two-party system or a multi-party "person with most votes out of x people wins" type situation.
under our current system we do. watch that youtube video about the animal kingdom voting. its in this thread. I like it. it explains it better than I did.
QuoteI've always liked the idea of each state advancing two candidates. The fifty state winners move on to the next round. Set it up like a sports playoff bracket. In the end, you're still voting between just two guys in the end and if "Hitler Aids McDouchebag" can get through all that then the people truly are getting what they deserve.
yeah but you're recommending we modify the system. on that we agree. until then though we're stuck with the democrats or republicans.
Quote from: "billhilly"Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"Quote from: "billhilly"What part of "we already have a multi party system" are you not understanding?
No, we don't. Not at the national level. What we have is a two-party system that claims to be a multi-party system and does everything in it's power to keep the independents out.
I'm pretty sure I voted for Gary Johnson last year. What party ticket did he run on again?
Good for you, but unless a candidate gets on enough ballots to enable an electoral college win, said candidate
cannot win no matter how many people vote for them.
Quote from: "billhilly"I get that it doesn't work and they conspire against it but by that logic, if my car doesn't run then I don't have a car.
For all intent and purpose, you don't.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"the problem is that Hitler Aids McDouchebag can obtain 20% of the vote while say 7 other parties take the rest each getting no more than 11% of the vote, but all those parties are good people, and yet because of the way our current winner take all system is set up, Mcdouchebag wins.
so unless we change our electoral system we're kinda stuck with two parties.
the teabaggers actually have the right idea here.
primaries.
work the primaries to get good progressives into the democratic party. then they can help win general elections.
You're creating a false dichotomy. We don't have to go with a two-party system or a multi-party "person with most votes out of x people wins" type situation.
under our current system we do. watch that youtube video about the animal kingdom voting. its in this thread. I like it. it explains it better than I did.
QuoteI've always liked the idea of each state advancing two candidates. The fifty state winners move on to the next round. Set it up like a sports playoff bracket. In the end, you're still voting between just two guys in the end and if "Hitler Aids McDouchebag" can get through all that then the people truly are getting what they deserve.
yeah but you're recommending we modify the system. on that we agree. until then though we're stuck with the democrats or republicans.
I am absolutely advocating a change to the system. I'd much rather work to change the system than continue as we are. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil and working within the system never works once the system is rigged.
Our system is too broke to fix. We have two parties pretending to be different, working towards the same goals while keeping the fresh ideas silenced. Electing another "progressive" like Obama will only produce Bush IV at this point. Wall Street owns the system. Until that changes the status quo will rule. Hopefully Wall Street never sees a profit margin in a Theocracy.
Our two-party system is a product of our first past the post election system. Proportional representation, instant-runoff voting or some other alternative to winner-takes-all elections (which all have their own drawbacks, I'm sure, though due to my lack of experience with them I can't comment) would result in political power becoming less concentrated in two parties.
Quote from: "Valigarmander"Our two-party system is a product of our first past the post election system. Proportional representation, instant-runoff voting or some other alternative to winner-takes-all elections (which all have their own drawbacks, I'm sure, though due to my lack of experience with them I can't comment) would result in political power becoming less concentrated in two parties.
Which is why neither party would ever vote for it.
The video explains it really well.
Quote from: "frosty"Some people may disagree with the idea that the traditional left/right, this or that, chocolate vs vanilla Democrat vs Republican political system in the U.S. is broken. But from what I've seen, it's polarized the country, and made people think in a box that closes their minds to other solutions beyond what their party line preaches.
Polarised? Really? You've got a choice between a bunch of corporate fascists. The american political system isn't a bar magnet. It's a monopole.
If you vote "strategically", it only makes sense if you see significant differences between the two major parties.
How about a no party system? Every individual has their own unique platform. Any politicians can get together and write a bill if they agree on the framework, but they are under no mandate to agree on the next bill. There would have to be rules in place preventing parties from forming (as they naturally would).
Special B asked:
QuoteHow about a no party system?
The state of California doesn't allow party affiliation in local (city, county) elections. There are people with third party affiliations other than the bi-partisan party getting elected. Mostly though, it is the candidate who spends the most money who gets elected.
I think he's talking about direct legislation. IOW, if you want a bill passed, you write it and everyone else in that jurisdiction (city, state, federal) votes on it. No elected officials, except maybe a chief executive at each level.
If computers were just a bit more ubiquitous, it would be technically feasible. (No politician currently in office would vote for it, though.)
It would be madness, though. Nobody would actually read all those, which means you'd need to rely on what few people actually have the time to read all of it to tell you which things you consider important enough to vote for, and people would have in some part an option to secretly push jurisdiction through if they can get what few people actually read this stuff to not spread it.
Still, it would probably be possible to build something better than what most countries have now. But there's a bunch of things you'd have to be really careful about.
I didn't say that it's a practical idea, just that it's technically feasible. In 1776 it wasn't possible to count all the votes and get them to one central place in a week, let alone in a day. Today it's just about possible to get everyone's vote on everything Congress votes on - votes can be placed and tallied in moments.
It's not even practical for Congress to vote on the number of bills they vote on now. Most congresspeople have aids who analyze bills and tell their bosses what the bills mean - in one sentence. The congresspeople don't know enough about most of the subjects to understand the bill itself (which is usually written by the industry the bill affects) - which is why we have votes for bills that make global warming worse, and other atrocities.