AOC Calls For the End of the Two Party System

Mar 5, 2016
102
37
51
#1

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
4,600
317
136
#2
No.. the problem is not two parties.. its the electoral college.

Multiple parties only work in a parliament, not in our system of Electoral College government.

Look up Parliamentary systems of government.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,817
1,319
126
#3
Your subject line is a complete misrepresentation of what she actually said.
 
Oct 15, 1999
13,013
247
126
#4
Isn't it as simple as public support for a third party? Isn't the green party still around? Or the tea party?
 
Nov 8, 2012
10,385
386
126
#7
No.. the problem is not two parties.. its the electoral college.

Multiple parties only work in a parliament, not in our system of Electoral College government.

Look up Parliamentary systems of government.
Politics isn't just about the president you fucking halfwit retard. God damn you're fucking dumb.
 
Mar 25, 2001
18,001
639
126
#9
There are multiple parties it’s just nobody ever votes for them unfortunately.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
6,209
333
136
#10
There are multiple parties it’s just nobody ever votes for them unfortunately.
It doesn't help that the third parties in the US are usually relatively niche, like the Greens and Libertarians. In most truly multi-party democracies, you tend to see more than one moderate outfit. The challenge is creating those parties -- even if you have people with a distinct but non-extreme point of view, they need a ton of money and grassroots support to stand a chance in the US system.
 
Oct 6, 2009
22,226
720
126
#11
There are multiple parties it’s just nobody ever votes for them unfortunately.
It's a law as linked above. You and someonesmind need to educate yourselves. You want more parties? Fine. The first step is to change our electoral system. Until then, you are wasting your time. It's like fighting the laws of thermodynamics.
 
Nov 8, 2012
10,385
386
126
#13
It's a law as linked above. You and someonesmind need to educate yourselves. You want more parties? Fine. The first step is to change our electoral system. Until then, you are wasting your time. It's like fighting the laws of thermodynamics.
Again, why are you making this out to only be about the presidential election? Hell, there are 13 recognized political parties in the EU.

There is more to politics than just the head of the executive branch... You know.... like...everything else? Local governments, state governments, congressmen, senators, judges, the list goes on and on. But you're somehow fixated on just the president?

Arguably the tea party could have been seen as a different party and they made one hell of a difference.
 
Jan 8, 2010
13,861
133
126
#14
3 or more parties wouldn't actually fix anything. It would just mean that whoever won got even less of the majority. We already see this today with the 3 we usually get.

The problem isn't the 2 party system, it is them towing the party line at all costs rather than using their brains.
 
Jun 30, 2003
25,548
43
126
#16
Again, why are you making this out to only be about the presidential election? Hell, there are 13 recognized political parties in the EU.

There is more to politics than just the head of the executive branch... You know.... like...everything else? Local governments, state governments, congressmen, senators, judges, the list goes on and on. But you're somehow fixated on just the president?

Arguably the tea party could have been seen as a different party and they made one hell of a difference.
a winner-take-all or first-past-the-post system tends to result in two dominant parties - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

the presidential race is of course the biggest race in the country, but the rule similarly applies to reps/senators as well (not to mention a president can provide substantial political support...which means allying oneself with the party of the president can be important to winning an election).
 
Oct 6, 2009
22,226
720
126
#17
Again, why are you making this out to only be about the presidential election? Hell, there are 13 recognized political parties in the EU.

There is more to politics than just the head of the executive branch... You know.... like...everything else? Local governments, state governments, congressmen, senators, judges, the list goes on and on. But you're somehow fixated on just the president?

Arguably the tea party could have been seen as a different party and they made one hell of a difference.
I didn't say a single thing about the President.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
4,867
38
126
#19
History continually repeating itself but nobody wants to take notice because there is always someone selling us a new political system, magic pill, government, etc. to save us from ourselves.

As long as you have politicians that look at holding office as a stepping stone style job prospect no different from moving up the corporate ladder in the private sector instead of being civil servants that are there for the good of the country even if it means going against the interests of corporate America and big business, you will never fix the problem.
 
Oct 18, 2005
14,156
489
136
#20
History continually repeating itself but nobody wants to take notice because there is always someone selling us a new political system, magic pill, government, etc. to save us from ourselves.

As long as you have politicians that look at holding office as a stepping stone style job prospect no different from moving up the corporate ladder in the private sector instead of being civil servants that are there for the good of the country even if it means going against the interests of corporate America and big business, you will never fix the problem.
Can you name one person in public office today who meets your criteria?
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
4,217
75
136
#22
Politics isn't just about the president you fucking halfwit retard. God damn you're fucking dumb.
That you don't understand First-Past-The-Post, zero-sum elections, is obvious.

Calling someone else a retard because YOU don't understand it, is amazingly hilarious though, so please proceed.
 
Nov 8, 2012
10,385
386
126
#23
That you don't understand First-Past-The-Post, zero-sum elections, is obvious.

Calling someone else a retard because YOU don't understand it, is amazingly hilarious though, so please proceed.
His comment was on the electoral college - which has no bearing on any of your votes outside of the presidency. So saying that having a 3rd party isn't useful just based on the ONE of your MANY MANY MANY votes is just asinine.
 

NostaSeronx

Platinum Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,252
57
106
#24
I vote for opt-in random selection. It's clearly to much of a hassle to go vote. So, it is time for our machine overlords to select for us with true RNG!!!!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
#25
His comment was on the electoral college - which has no bearing on any of your votes outside of the presidency. So saying that having a 3rd party isn't useful just based on the ONE of your MANY MANY MANY votes is just asinine.
While the electoral college is unique to the presidency the US system is designed in a way that renders third parties almost impossible at every level.

As per Duverger’s Law any electoral system where a plurality of the votes gets you 100% of the representation will trend towards two parties because voters are strategic. As a general idea any third party will appeal more to the voters of one of the two major parties, meaning they will take more votes from them. In that case it means third party voters voting for their most favored party (the third party) actually make their least favored party more likely to win. People don’t like doing that, so third parties wither.

Ranked choice voting solves this problem and it’s being implemented in some places already. You want to see more than two parties in any election that’s the way to go.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS