AOC Calls For the End of the Two Party System

[UglyCasanova]

I like the ranked choice voting mechanism. Would support this for all elections.

 

[darkswordsman17]

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.

They're niche because they tend to be even crazier than the two dominant parties. Which shouldn't surprise people as if you want to win a majority you should be going for mass appeal and thus compromising on your insanity to be more palatable. And as we found out, the two minority parties were both being bankrolled by right wingers (although anyone that knew much of anything about them knew that the Libertarians were just a sham attempt at trying to live up to the independent self-reliant badass that right wingers fantasize about being, which means they'd claim to be independent and Libertarian, but would vote GOP all the way), so that was largely a sham anyway.

And forming more parties won't fix the underlying issues in the US, and especially short term it will if anything, fracture and divide things even more. But that's exactly what conservatives who keep spouting this type of stuff want. They want the left permanently broken so that it will consistently splinter voters on that side and preventing them from winning office. Because they know the insane single issue voters on their side will fall in line and pledge undying support for the GOP regardless of how much they ruin their lives or even shit all over their single issue. And we're seeing exactly that now. But they can also see that people are starting to see through their bullshit, and so they're trying to prevent people from wising up and staying that way. Its why they've been trying to push this narrative about the DNC screwing Sanders over, and that being some critical breaking point for Democrats. Same with how they talk about AOC and other young Democrats. I believe they said the same about Obama (and then were so mad when he not only won over Democrats but won over right wingers enough that he streamrolled Romney even as the Rubs won control of Congress). I'm sure if I spent a few minutes I'd be able to find plenty of other examples of them doing that kind of thing (oh, can't forget the "walkaway" bullshit where right wingers tried to claim to have been liberals).

 

[Commodus]

They're niche because they tend to be even crazier than the two dominant parties. Which shouldn't surprise people as if you want to win a majority you should be going for mass appeal and thus compromising on your insanity to be more palatable. And as we found out, the two minority parties were both being bankrolled by right wingers (although anyone that knew much of anything about them knew that the Libertarians were just a sham attempt at trying to live up to the independent self-reliant badass that right wingers fantasize about being, which means they'd claim to be independent and Libertarian, but would vote GOP all the way), so that was largely a sham anyway.

And forming more parties won't fix the underlying issues in the US, and especially short term it will if anything, fracture and divide things even more. But that's exactly what conservatives who keep spouting this type of stuff want. They want the left permanently broken so that it will consistently splinter voters on that side and preventing them from winning office. Because they know the insane single issue voters on their side will fall in line and pledge undying support for the GOP regardless of how much they ruin their lives or even shit all over their single issue. And we're seeing exactly that now. But they can also see that people are starting to see through their bullshit, and so they're trying to prevent people from wising up and staying that way. Its why they've been trying to push this narrative about the DNC screwing Sanders over, and that being some critical breaking point for Democrats. Same with how they talk about AOC and other young Democrats. I believe they said the same about Obama (and then were so mad when he not only won over Democrats but won over right wingers enough that he streamrolled Romney even as the Rubs won control of Congress). I'm sure if I spent a few minutes I'd be able to find plenty of other examples of them doing that kind of thing (oh, can't forget the "walkaway" bullshit where right wingers tried to claim to have been liberals).

There are definitely moderate parties out there. Take Canada, for example. It has the Liberals (who are more like center-left than anything) and Conservatives, but it also has the New Democratic Party, which is more solidly left but not really arguing for radical changes. Even the Quebec independence parties are usually moderate outside of their obvious main issue.

I do agree that the US has a problematic situation that would make additional parties unrealistic, at least for now. Having more than two parties works when there's a diversity of ideas on both the left and the right, but that's not really the case in the US and won't be unless the Republican party drops its current mindset.

 

[darkswordsman17]

There are definitely moderate parties out there. Take Canada, for example. It has the Liberals (who are more like center-left than anything) and Conservatives, but it also has the New Democratic Party, which is more solidly left but not really arguing for radical changes. Even the Quebec independence parties are usually moderate outside of their obvious main issue.

I do agree that the US has a problematic situation that would make additional parties unrealistic, at least for now. Having more than two parties works when there's a diversity of ideas on both the left and the right, but that's not really the case in the US and won't be unless the Republican party drops its current mindset.

Yeah, I was speaking with regards to the US. In other countries, minority parties actually tend to have to become more moderate as they try to form coalitions to govern in order to have a say. That used to work on the major parties in the US, where they both had to compromise and become moderate/centrist and actually represent their consituents, or else they'd lose out having much say. But with conservatives believing they can ignore reality, we've lost too much moderation and so things won't work either which way. They know that, but they're trying to get their solid 1/3 to be able to consistently gain majority control of the government.

 

[zinfamous]

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.

Those are parliamentary systems, and each party gets representation based on percentage of votes. It's like you don't even understand our model of government, at all. Our system, from local to state to federal, is really the same. It simply will not work unless we overhaul our system from the bottom up. ...and even in those parliamentary systems, representation can be divided across so many parties, that not one can claim a majority to be the primary governing party after any given election (which is how all parliamentary systems work). Closely-strung parties tend to form tenuous coalitions to try and form a slim majority....so in the end you basically end up with a similar situation.

You guys like to bitch about "all it takes is votes!" but the math is hilariously simple and outright defeats your 3rd grade claim. If you cared to learn about how the US government works, perhaps lean over your 5th grade kid's shoulder when they start to learn about it in school.

I think the closest strategy that we can institute to make multiple parties viable in our current winner-take-all system, is to allow ranked-choice voting in local and state elections (it won't work at the federal level, until we abolish the EC). Even so, that would still most likely dilute enough of the vote across the parties to generally insure that the slightly-more popular major party consistently wins.

And of course, Citizen's United was a colossal FU to any kind of person that claims to want 3rd party representation. I mean, if you happen to support CU for some reason, it would absolutely be hilarious that you also think that 3rd parties could ever happen in the same country. I mean, it's almost the definition of illiteracy.

 

[Bitek]

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.

As long as the system is a winner-take-all, the system will naturally aggregate to two parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

Politics isn't just about the president you fucking halfwit retard. God damn you're fucking dumb.

Well that was a reasonable, rational, informative response by a well-respected member of the community....

For clarity, when you say "half-witted retard", do you mean a relatively smart retard, presuming half-wit means someone with half the median level of intelligence, whereas clinical mental retardation is found in less than 0.5% of the population, and thus represent several standard deviations below the mean. To reach that level of function would be a good diagnosis relative to the range of conditions commonly found within that population, and you would wonder whether a clinical diagnosis of retardation it's actually even appropriate, unless there are some other contributing factors.

Or, do you mean half below the median within the range associated with mental retardation?
Of course at this level of cognitive function communication is likely severely impaired in the first place, and your assessment not able to be understood.

 

[Bitek]

Those are parliamentary systems, and each party gets representation based on percentage of votes. It's like you don't even understand our model of government, at all. Our system, from local to state to federal, is really the same. It simply will not work unless we overhaul our system from the bottom up. ...and even in those parliamentary systems, representation can be divided across so many parties, that not one can claim a majority to be the primary governing party after any given election (which is how all parliamentary systems work). Closely-strung parties tend to form tenuous coalitions to try and form a slim majority....so in the end you basically end up with a similar situation.

You guys like to bitch about "all it takes is votes!" but the math is hilariously simple and outright defeats your 3rd grade claim. If you cared to learn about how the US government works, perhaps lean over your 5th grade kid's shoulder when they start to learn about it in school.

I think the closest strategy that we can institute to make multiple parties viable in our current winner-take-all system, is to allow ranked-choice voting in local and state elections (it won't work at the federal level, until we abolish the EC). Even so, that would still most likely dilute enough of the vote across the parties to generally insure that the slightly-more popular major party consistently wins.

And of course, Citizen's United was a colossal FU to any kind of person that claims to want 3rd party representation. I mean, if you happen to support CU for some reason, it would absolutely be hilarious that you also think that 3rd parties could ever happen in the same country. I mean, it's almost the definition of illiteracy.

Two thoughts:

1. The fact that we've never had a stable, significant, and persistent three+ party system in any level of gov (local to national) in the nation's history indication that there are strong mechanisms working against it. I'm sure a game theory mathematician could work it out in a paper.

2. I'd prefer to see a parliamentary system in order to:
-2.a: get better representation of distinct views and policies via focused parties building coalitions
-2.b: have a mechanism to call for new elections when some lying, treasonous oaf manages to blunder his way into office, rather than spend years investigating high crimes and hope for impeachment before the term expires or the democracy is destroyed.

 

[blackangst1]

This is the stupidest thing ever. If America wants to end the two party system, they need to vote that way.

 

[Muse]

But how do you do this? There already are other parties in the USA. Green Party, Libertarian Party, Peace and Freedom Party come to mind. The thing is, they are marginalized by the two dominant parties. That's entrenched in the American ethos. The problem is the lack of willingness of Americans to think outside the box. They cotton to one of the two dominant parties, are unwilling to vote for those not aligned with them, or else they register Independent. They are also addicted to their cars, their TV, their religion.

 

[Atreus21]

I don't see the point. What do multi-party systems do after elections? They coalesce into two opposing sides.

 

[zinfamous]

This is the stupidest thing ever. If America wants to end the two party system, they need to vote that way.

lulz at this guy.

please explain how America votes in the "3rd party way." seriously, do it.

 

[blackangst1]

lulz at this guy.

please explain how America votes in the "3rd party way." seriously, do it.

Uh, you go into a polling station, and you vote for a 3rd party candidate

 

[zinfamous]

Uh, you go into a polling station, and you vote for a 3rd party candidate

the difference between "votes in" and "votes." Maybe do some thinking and edit your response. Or, just tell me how votes translate to wins in your fantasy, because that's the goal, right?

 

[blackangst1]

the difference between "votes in" and "votes." Maybe do some thinking and edit your response. Or, just tell me how votes translate to wins in your fantasy, because that's the goal, right?

Why would I bother explaining myself when no matter what I say youll think I'm an idiot and pick it apart? Why not focus on the fact I would support more than a 2 party system?

 

[Ken g6]

I think the closest strategy that we can institute to make multiple parties viable in our current winner-take-all system, is to allow ranked-choice voting in local and state elections (it won't work at the federal level, until we abolish the EC).

I think it could be arranged otherwise. All we'd need is for all the major parties to agree to an instant runoff (top two) jungle primary. Minor parties should love it because it gives their candidates more votes. (Even if those votes don't add up in the end.) Major parties might go for it if it gives them more moderate candidates who are more likely to win in the general election.

 

[zinfamous]

Why would I bother explaining myself when no matter what I say youll think I'm an idiot and pick it apart? Why not focus on the fact I would support more than a 2 party system?

It's not me, man. Plenty posters here have already explained how our actual system, mathematically, eliminates the possibility of any anything more than a 2 party system. The issue isn't whether or not you go out and vote 3rd party--yes, I'm perfectly fine with this and, like you would like to see it--but that is pure fantasy. Voting for them isn't the issue. Our constitutionally-designed winner-take-all election model, at ever level, mathematically eliminates 3rd parties.

Because I think what is confusing you is the difference between a small, 3rd party candidate winning an individual election--which is certainly possible--and the stated desire for continual governance by 3 or more parties, at any given time. That is wholly impossible, regardless of what you vote for. And of course if enough candidates from said upstart 3rd party start winning elections everywhere, they will do nothing but replace one of the current 2 major parties. It will always be a 2 party system. Because math.

I don't think you're an idiot because we disagree about something (You and I both actually want to see 3+ parties become relevant). I just think you don't understand the structure in place that fundamentally prohibits this goal from being reality. Going out and voting isn't the issue. It isn't this simple.

 

[blackangst1]

It's not me, man. Plenty posters here have already explained how our actual system, mathematically, eliminates the possibility of any anything more than a 2 party system. The issue isn't whether or not you go out and vote 3rd party--yes, I'm perfectly fine with this and, like you would like to see it--but that is pure fantasy. Voting for them isn't the issue. Our constitutionally-designed winner-take-all election model, at ever level, mathematically eliminates 3rd parties.

Because I think what is confusing you is the difference between a small, 3rd party candidate winning an individual election--which is certainly possible--and the stated desire for continual governance by 3 or more parties, at any given time. That is wholly impossible, regardless of what you vote for. And of course if enough candidates from said upstart 3rd party start winning elections everywhere, they will do nothing but replace one of the current 2 major parties. It will always be a 2 party system. Because math.

I don't think you're an idiot because we disagree about something (You and I both actually want to see 3+ parties become relevant). I just think you don't understand the structure in place that fundamentally prohibits this goal from being reality. Going out and voting isn't the issue. It isn't this simple.

Thanks. I'll do some more reading

And thank you for the civil reply.

 

[Sunburn74]

There are multiple parties it’s just nobody ever votes for them unfortunately.

It's more complex than that. In many ways even within the two major parties there are many smaller factions which could be considered parties in their own right. The problem is these smaller factions really have not been able to have much sway on landmark legislation.

Really what Americans need to answer is why have parties at all? There are ways for businesses and government to operate without parties.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's more complex than that. In many ways even within the two major parties there are many smaller factions which could be considered parties in their own right. The problem is these smaller factions really have not been able to have much sway on landmark legislation.

Really what Americans need to answer is why have parties at all? There are ways for businesses and government to operate without parties.

Heh. The Teahadis had Boehner & Ryan right by the short & curlies.

 

[Muse]

I think there's nothing wrong with what AOC said there. I totally agree with her. But AFAIK there's nothing institutionally to be done. AFAIK there's nothing that tamps down a 3rd party (or 4th or 5th) on paper, in the books, in the constitution, federal or on a local level. Correct me if I'm wrong. She said she thought it a good idea to "have the conversation." Absolutely, and I've been thinking this a lot for a few years now. The question is how can it be achieved.

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.

OK, I guess this is the right answer. We need ranked choice voting implemented across the board.

 

[Muse]

It's not me, man. Plenty posters here have already explained how our actual system, mathematically, eliminates the possibility of any anything more than a 2 party system. The issue isn't whether or not you go out and vote 3rd party--yes, I'm perfectly fine with this and, like you would like to see it--but that is pure fantasy. Voting for them isn't the issue. Our constitutionally-designed winner-take-all election model, at ever level, mathematically eliminates 3rd parties.

Because I think what is confusing you is the difference between a small, 3rd party candidate winning an individual election--which is certainly possible--and the stated desire for continual governance by 3 or more parties, at any given time. That is wholly impossible, regardless of what you vote for. And of course if enough candidates from said upstart 3rd party start winning elections everywhere, they will do nothing but replace one of the current 2 major parties. It will always be a 2 party system. Because math.

I don't think you're an idiot because we disagree about something (You and I both actually want to see 3+ parties become relevant). I just think you don't understand the structure in place that fundamentally prohibits this goal from being reality. Going out and voting isn't the issue. It isn't this simple.

OK, what's "the math?" Fskimospy declares rank-choice voting WILL make 3rd parties relevant. How say you? I quote:

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.

It dawned on me this morning (literally at the cusp of dawn) that the dominance of 2 parties is part and parcel of the problem, at the center of what's wrong with America. You're either mainstream or a goddamn outcast, on the periphery, marginalized, a voice maybe heard, maybe not, but not taken particularly seriously. Thus the beatniks of the 50's, the beaten down hippies of the 60's, the cooptation of the 70's, the downright abdication of responsibility of the 80's, the collapse of civility that we've seen since. INSTITUTE RANKED CHOICE VOTING, GODDAMMIT!