Print

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

[Andir]

I think we might see some serious third-party emergance soon, given the high level of dissatisfaction with both the Republican and Democratic Parties.

We could only hope.  The only way we are going to get out of the tug of war we are in is to get someone pulling another way.  As it is now, we get drug through the mud as the power shifts from one side ot the next and neither side is willing to take a few steps to either side of the mud pit.

Hmm, I can't quote Aqizzar now.

Anyway.  You can't.  EO is a failed proposal.  It's like treating a runny nose instead of the underlying cold.  The problem will still exist no matter how many tissues you throw at it.

[mainiac]

It's not goddamn election season yet.  I'm still emotionally healing from volunteering in the last election.  Americans are huge fucking morons politically (and that includes the half that agree with me for moronic reasons) and I am not ready to deal with those fuckwads again.  I've got at least another six months off thank you very much.

[Bdthemag]

Don't worry everyone! We can sway the public opinion to Liberal by shooting up some conservative hotspots! If only it could work this way...

[scriver]

USA needs a right wing green party, I think. Like the Swedish Centerparty, or "the Farmer's Party" as they used to be known. Though they're mostly the "Innerst-city-spoiled-upper-class-brat's Party" nowadays, so more like what they once were.

Moving on to a question of mine: Since, from what I understand, your (American) government is built mostly for a two party system, wouldn't it be enough with just one more big party to rough things up? In a good way, I mean. Making the D's and the R's take their positions less granted. It would also give way for better nuanciation, you know, on the classical spectrum Socialism - Liberalism (or Libertarianism as I suppose you would call.it) - Conservatism as well, if that is what you want.

[Tilla]

Moving on to a question of mine: Since, from what I understand, your (American) government is built mostly for a two party system, wouldn't it be enough with just one more big party to rough things up? In a good way, I mean. Making the D's and the R's take their positions less granted. It would also give way for better nuanciation, you know, on the classical spectrum Socialism - Liberalism (or Libertarianism as I suppose you would call.it) - Conservatism as well, if that is what you want.

That's kind of how Canada works (though we actually have 5 official parties now) and frankly I like it a lot. The parliamentary system has it's problems but there is a lot more representation. Right now the second largest party in parliament is the socialist-formed New Democratic Party, surpassing the previous opposition of the Liberal Party which fell into third.

[jester]

Agreed, Australia keeps drifting towards a 2 party system and it does nothing but screw up the country.  5 sounds like a better number

[Max White]

Agreed, Australia keeps drifting towards a 1 party system and it does nothing but screw up the country.  5 sounds like a better number

That damn liberal party is going to clean up next election, leaving us with a vast majority in both houses, and labour unable to do anything, even with greens and independent support. Scary stuff, when you take into account just how much state power they al ready hold. Were basically going to be a dictatorship for four years, like back in the Howard times, then everybody will remember that they hate liberal's evil nature even more than labour's incompetence, and the cycle will start again.
For all you outsiders, our liberal party are the right wing ones. Yea, out entire country is sooo left wing that our liberal crime squad is seen as being the conservatives. You should see our greens party, they get the hammer and sickle stitched onto their polo shirts!

[scriver]

Nah, liberal is rightwing originally, it's the Americans and the British (or I've heard) that has gotten it backwards. They associate liberalism with "social" liberty, while we do it with economical liberty. The original liberals weren't very keen on social liberties, though.

[Max White]

Oh, so we are the only sane country! And it only took several boatloads of convicts too... Who would of thunk?

[Lord Shonus]

USA needs a right wing green party, I think. Like the Swedish Centerparty, or "the Farmer's Party" as they used to be known. Though they're mostly the "Innerst-city-spoiled-upper-class-brat's Party" nowadays, so more like what they once were.

Moving on to a question of mine: Since, from what I understand, your (American) government is built mostly for a two party system, wouldn't it be enough with just one more big party to rough things up? In a good way, I mean. Making the D's and the R's take their positions less granted. It would also give way for better nuanciation, you know, on the classical spectrum Socialism - Liberalism (or Libertarianism as I suppose you would call.it) - Conservatism as well, if that is what you want.

It's not so much that the system is built for two parties, is that the two major parties are older and more powerful than any current third party, and the way in which they got that way wrecked the Whigs and other parties that preceeded them. The only ways that the two party system could seriously change are:

1. Both parties suffer a serious ideological split similar to that of the 1860 Democrats in the same election. That would effectively create a four-party election and the existing third parties would have enough of a chance to gain ground.

2. One party suffers a similar split, and the two halves are close enough ideologically to merge with existing third parties (For example, the Democrats splittting with half absorbing the Libertarian Party and the other half absorbing the Genn Party)

3.  A single issue ignored by the major parties unexpectedly becomes a massive pubic interest, and whatever party with that as a plank gets huge support

[PTTG??]

The fact of the matter is the current system forces a two-party system. There is a very simple system that would resolve this- the alternate voting system- but it would have to be approved by the people who might not get elected if it was used.

Also, voting districts need to be changed to a mandatory grid. Gerrymandering is one of the most disgusting perversions of the political system, and something used as much by democrats as by republicans.

[Leafsnail]

Under a grid system, basically the less populated your area is, the more say you get, right?

[PTTG??]

Only if each grid square has an equal vote. That is not necessarily the case.

Speaking of which, the Electoral college should be eliminated.

[GlyphGryph]

The electoral college system holds some great potential that has been utterly squandered by everyone involved, so at this point I don't see why we keep it.

The problem is, the basis of the electoral college is a pretty great system, and the states are perfectly capable of quite a number of cool things with it, but that fact that all 50 have gotten it persistantly wrong in the same way means we are clearly to stupid to figure out, so we might as well go with a direct vote over what we have now. I still think direct popular vote is a stupid-ass way to elect the president though, and I have for a long while. At least we probably won't ever have one of those stupid mandatory voting systems.

[Leafsnail]

Only if each grid square has an equal vote. That is not necessarily the case.

So... each grid square would get a certain number of representatives?  This would be ridiculously hard to balance (either less populated squares are massively overrepresented or you need a ridiculously humongous amount of representatives for a highly populated square).