Multi party system

[hillbillyatheist]

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.

[the_antithesis]

[youtube:3gb272rj]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/youtube:3gb272rj]

[GalacticBusDriver]

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.

[Colanth]

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

yeah but you're recommending we modify the system. on that we agree. until then though we're stuck with the democrats or republicans.

[GalacticBusDriver]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Colanth]

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.

[Plu]

The video explains it really well.

[Jason78]

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.

[SGOS]

If you vote "strategically", it only makes sense if you see significant differences between the two major parties.

[Special B]

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).

[LikelyToBreak]

Special B asked:

How 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.

[Colanth]

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.)