Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Flying Dice]

I just wish we could have like five or seven parties. More viewpoints can be represented that way, at least. Doesn't have to be 'you either support all of this or none of it'. :/

I feel like having absolutely no parties would put more emphasis on the candidates' policies. There would be no voting for a candidate just because the candidate is that party's nominee. No "I vote republican so I'll vote for the republican candidate" or "I vote democrat so I'll vote for the democrat candidate". Also maybe there'd be less stalemates in Congress. Maybe.

Campaigning is expensive though, so chances are it would only be open to those who can afford it in the first place. Not sure how likely it is to get a wide range of stances in that instance.

That's why you need campaign finance reform. Political advertising and campaign activities funded wholly publicly with a sane cap (possibly including things like equal airtime on public broadcasting networks &c. in place of more funding) which requires a certain threshold of voter signatures (variable depending on office). Alternatively, continuing to allow private donations in parallel to that sort of public funding, with the same relatively low cap but denial of access to public funds if the candidate opts to go for private funding. Obviously indirect support and funding via superPACs &c., especially forms which allow for uncapped spending, need to go.

[Strife26]

I just wish we could have like five or seven parties. More viewpoints can be represented that way, at least. Doesn't have to be 'you either support all of this or none of it'. :/

Then there's elections followed by internal debate to hammer out coalitions. The election cycle is annoying enough already.

[Willfor]

I just wish we could have like five or seven parties. More viewpoints can be represented that way, at least. Doesn't have to be 'you either support all of this or none of it'. :/

Then there's elections followed by internal debate to hammer out coalitions. The election cycle is annoying enough already.

That's because you literally start your election cycle a year before the one you're in is over. Most countries don't actually have that problem because their governments are too busy trying to fight several parties in the legislature instead of the media cycle. The two party system causes longer elections because you know who your opponent is likely going to be.

[Rolepgeek]

I just wish we could have like five or seven parties. More viewpoints can be represented that way, at least. Doesn't have to be 'you either support all of this or none of it'. :/

Then there's elections followed by internal debate to hammer out coalitions. The election cycle is annoying enough already.

Coalitions? Working together?

Sounds a lot better than filibustering stalemates in order to prove you can.

[TheBiggerFish]

Working...together...?

* TheBiggerFish has gone stark raving mad!

[Sheb]

Yeah, the fun part of the US system is how powerless parties are. In most Western countries, parties by and large define their candidates platform. It's no wonder the US doesn't have more than two parties: it's easier to run with your agenda on one of the party's tickets rather than to create your own party.

[mainiac]

Parties became powerless very very recently.  The reason why parties accepted so much hetero-orthodoxy was because it was good for winning elections.  Of course the hard right is really ruining that by backing candidates like Trump that aren't good for winning elections.

[Wolfhunter107]

Yeah, the fun part of the US system is how powerless parties are. In most Western countries, parties by and large define their candidates platform. It's no wonder the US doesn't have more than two parties: it's easier to run with your agenda on one of the party's tickets rather than to create your own party.

Political parties only became powerless in the early 1900s, during the Reform Era, when parties switched to the primary system. (Before this, the party leaders selected candidates.) The two-party system has been around since a decade or so after the adoption of the Constitution (thus predating the powerlessness of the parties by about 120 years), and is caused by the election system used in the US.

[mainiac]

Are you talking about parties being powerless or are you talking about parties no longer being run by a dozen men in a room full of cigar smoke?  I dont think the one necessitates the other.

[Sheb]

Parties became powerless very very recently.  The reason why parties accepted so much hetero-orthodoxy was because it was good for winning elections.  Of course the hard right is really ruining that by backing candidates like Trump that aren't good for winning elections.

That's interesting, I though that had been the case pretty much forever... Or at least since stuff like political machine enforcing their wills on candidate stopped being a thing. Could you link and/or expand?

P.S. Glad to see you back mainiac!

[EnigmaticHat]

Yeah, the fun part of the US system is how powerless parties are. In most Western countries, parties by and large define their candidates platform. It's no wonder the US doesn't have more than two parties: it's easier to run with your agenda on one of the party's tickets rather than to create your own party.

The US does technically have more than two parties.  Third party candidates even hold some official positions; not many tho.  The electoral system discourages them heavily; in the rare occasions where one has "made it big" they replace one of the main two.

[Reelya]

It's hard to link either of those things to the two party system either.

Most places do not have primary elections, yet they are still mostly "two party systems". Places with first-past-the-post voting are two party systems, but so are places with voting systems that don't have the spoiler effect, such as Australia. So while different things could contribute to the formation of two large voting blocs, they are not the root cause

Mainly, the advantage of the instant-runoff voting method is that it allows small parties to form alongside the "big two", they can influence policy, and they might just get enough candidates into congress to hold the balance of power. That's happened in Australia a few times with the Greens. Then, you find both major parties (Labor and Liberal, where liberal is in the classical sense) trying to add in pro-green elements to their bills to win the support of the minority party. Because they can technically vote either way, they have much more sway than if they were e.g. a pro-green faction within the Labor party. If that was the case they'd be under party pressure to o.k. all Labor initiatives and vote against all Liberal initiatives.

[Sheb]

It's hard to link either of those things to the two party system either.

Most places do not have primary elections, yet they are still mostly "two party systems". Places with first-past-the-post voting are two party systems, but so are places with voting systems that don't have the spoiler effect, such as Australia. So while different things could contribute to the formation of two large voting blocs, they are not the root cause

Mainly, the advantage of the instant-runoff voting method is that it allows small parties to form alongside the "big two", they can influence policy, and they might just get enough candidates into congress to hold the balance of power. That's happened in Australia a few times with the Greens. Then, you find both major parties trying to add in pro-green elements to their bills to win the support of the minority party.

Two major parties seems to be by and large the norm, but most place have third parties with some representation in the local legislative assembly. The US has third parties, but not one of them got even a single congressman.

[Reelya]

That's correct that there's not much third-party representation in the USA, but people are looking for a simplistic answer.

Many people are going "look - the spoiler effect dissuades third parties. Therefore that's the cause of America's two party system". But most countries use the same voting method as the USA - first past the post. So clearly people aren't focusing on the root cause.

[Sheb]

Did you read my argument? No one was bringing up FPTP here ^^.