How about a third, fourth and fifth party. And some form of instant runoff for counting the ballots so we could BOTH send a message AND choose the least of several weevils.
“Meet the new boss Same as the old boss” (The Who)
Ranked choice is the way to go but 3rd parties find it difficult to get on ballots nationwide. For example, the cowards in the DNC machine have effectively blocked Greens from getting a name on a ballot numerous times as the DNC leadership is basically as spineless as the Repubbas. They know a Green message and alternative will expose them as frauds, essentially Repubba Lites. The DSA has faced the same BS from the establishment leaders in blue. The Libertarians face the same challenges but from the far right Repubbas who fear a siphon of votes as well. The 2 major parties spend more time suppressing challengers and gutting each other rather than accomplishing anything. My advice, vote Green or DSA and if you are an aliented right winger go libertarian instead of the status quo repubba fools or the well oiled DNC establishment machine.
I think you have 3 major parties. The Republican, and two that both calls themselves Democrats.
It’s one thing to be stuck with a two party system (as New Zealand used to be), but believing in a strictly two party system is a mental disease and prison which fortunately only Americans as a whole suffer from and are willing inmates of.
Maybe you should start a third party, Ted.
Maybe you could get help from your bosses.
Voting third party is crazy. Jill Stein, who also had a place at Putin’s table, is the main reason Hillary lost the electoral college, even though she won the election.
“Washington remained above the fray; he wanted to be a president of all the American citizens. The most important reason was he believed unity, not division, was necessary for a democratic republic to survive. Washington believed that political parties would divide and destroy the young United States .His thought, in what became known as the Farewell Address in 1796, is clear: “The spirit of party serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection." Throughout his political life, and until his death in 1799, George Washington was confident that the country could and should function without the existence of political parties.
—) I wonder if humans naturally prefer bilateral symmetry, in which case a three-party system would seem forced and unnatural. Aren’t Earth creatures above a certain level bilateral anatomically? (At least two of Larry Niven’s SF creatures are not.) The U.S. form of three-institution government may (sometimes) work because SCOTUS is (supposedly) independent of the other two. I mean, people could learn to walk on three legs but how would cultural outlook have been affected?
I know it’s a weird idea. I keep thinking how life on Earth would be if Burgess Shale creatures had persisted and developed into higher forms, even sentient forms. What if asymmetric creatures, long extinct, perhaps of initial extraterrestrial origin, were found in another, yet to be uncovered location? Or at their final stage of development would they have lacked hard body parts that are preserved in fossils?
What if trying to force human institutions into asymmetric forms is the basic source of our chafing and discomfort, that human society prefers symmetry? Multi-party political systems exist, of course. But does a three-party political system limit the ability of a country to predominate above all others?
Junk Food for thought … (—
Step 1: Get rid of the Electoral College, which guarantees a two party runoff.
I have an idea! Change the pre-requisites and VET, VET! VET!
Make it harder to attain the position….weed out the bad seeds
Now, any POS can run for office….and the end result is why we’re in this mess to begin with!
This is real life, not a reality show.
As long as there remains a religious infection in our political system, a third Party won’t make any difference.
For multiple parties to work we would have to change to a parliamentary style of government. I would like that. With a real representative house. Say 1 representative for the smallest populated state and the remaining states having their number of reps based on their population. At about 190,000 Wyoming would get 1, at 40,000,000 California would get 210 and the rest would fall in-between. And increase the House from 435 to 1000. But, parliamentary style is looked on as “Too British” by some and the early United States did a lot of things, like the Bill of Rights, as direct repudiation of what the Brits did to the colonists during their reign over here. And if you think policies swing too far back and forth here, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
You don’t need a third party, just follow this simple plan for major state and federal elections. For primaries, split registered voters into two equal pools randomly. Take all candidates who have applied and split them into the two pools randomly. Then conduct the primary, with the two winners going to the general election. Would never happen thou, as this would take much of the power from the two parties and give it back to the general electorate, oh the humanity!
Agree with Ted here. We need something different. This two party system sucks.
I think there are five parties represented in the Canadian parliament: Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic, Bloc Quebecois, and Green. Is it better to have five than just two? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
anyone who can’t see the difference between Democrats and Republicans is intentionally blind
A third or more parties and rank choice voting are both possible solutions but they will not work at the congressional level if suddenly implemented. You need to start at the local and state level not only to build the party but also to educate the voters (and politicians) about how the coalitions can govern and how rank choice voting works. So it is not an immediate solution but one that would take a number of election cycles to build steam. When rank choice voting was first used in the San Francisco Bay Area it confused a lot of voters and let some bad candidates game the system but over time it has become much more efficient and led to better elections even if all the talked about benefits have not yet been manifested. The same might happen with Third parties if they could gain some influence in some states they would gain experience and build up a stable of possible national candidates. Historically they have been mostly unsuccessful or short lived but they always seemed to start by trying to take control on Congress right off the bat. Maybe we need to learn to play the long game.
I believe there is a place for Third Parties (Libertarian, Green, etc.) and perhaps they should be able to participate in Presidential, Gubernatorial and/or Congressional debates. I also believe that all primaries should be open as opposed to closed (example: here in DC, the primaries are closed that only voters registered as Democratic, Republican and/or Statehood Green can vote). If independents were able to participate in primaries and brought more moderate Democrats and Republicans (currently the base voters of both parties are more likely to turn out at primaries), perhaps a more pragmatic candidate would have more chance than a partisan bomb thrower. But maybe that’s just me.
By all means, bring back Ralph Nader again!
There are republicans and then there are traitor Trump republicans.
A distinction without a difference.
Not only do we have to get past every republican, but just enough dollar dems to prevent ANY progressive policy. A third party has been made illegal for the same reason.
NOT REALLY OT
The Ohio SC just denied 10yo f assault victim the right to have the illegal pollution imposed on her by her unidentified victimiser removed from her body. She is on her way to Indiana now.
Why aren’t we outraged? Why aren’t we at least outraged that we’re not outraged?
[This is a shortened rewrite of a note that was refused because I used naughty words despite the fact that they only scandalise embarrassingly prudish pre-schoolers nowadays.]
October 01, 2016