Oh hey, there is a Democrat debate going on

[fskimospy]

the two party system is a result of FPTP voting.
See "Criticisms": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/27/why-are-there-only-two-parties-in-american-politics/?outputType=amp

Exactly. It’s not exactly brain surgery, when 51% of the vote gets you 100% of the representation voters will strategically gravitate towards two parties.

The founding fathers didn’t have a lot of well functioning democracies to look at so when they made our system they screwed its up.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Meh. It’s a pretty benign statement that wouldn’t even have registered in a regular primary. It’s because the Democratic primary has been so policy focused and so civil that the media is desperate for conflict and drama of any kind.

Perhaps, but I would gladly swap out Biden for Bloomberg, and it will be interesting to see what happens should Warren or Sanders drop out.

Trump has very few paths to a second term. The progressive wing turning on itself is one of those paths, surprising that Warren would fall into that trap.

You realize the election system is the reason there are only two parties, right?

I would counter that monied interests and voter apathy is the reason. Our system of government was meant to avoid the wild adjustments you tend to see with parliamentary systems. The problem now is that voter participation is low and neither of the two parties is behaving as it should, hence the need for a viable third party.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps, but I would gladly swap out Biden for Bloomberg, and it will be interesting to see what happens should Warren or Sanders drop out.

Trump has very few paths to a second term. The progressive wing turning on itself is one of those paths, surprising that Warren would fall into that trap.

I would counter that monied interests and voter apathy is the reason. Our system of government was meant to avoid the wild adjustments you tend to see with parliamentary systems. The problem now is that voter participation is low and neither of the two parties is behaving as it should, hence the need for a viable third party.

And I’m telling you our system is designed to heavily discourage third parties. In our system voting for the third party makes it most likely that your least preferred party wins. Until we change that no viable third party is likely to arise.

Our system was designed badly from the start, but things like ranked choice voting can help fix that.

 

[pmv]

Perhaps, but I would gladly swap out Biden for Bloomberg, and it will be interesting to see what happens should Warren or Sanders drop out.

Trump has very few paths to a second term. The progressive wing turning on itself is one of those paths, surprising that Warren would fall into that trap.

I would counter that monied interests and voter apathy is the reason. Our system of government was meant to avoid the wild adjustments you tend to see with parliamentary systems. The problem now is that voter participation is low and neither of the two parties is behaving as it should, hence the need for a viable third party.

No, honestly, FPTP tends to produce two-party systems everywhere that it is used. I think fundamentally you have two choices - either FPTP and end up with two coalitions that engage in varying-degrees of internal wrangling prior to elections...or you have some kind of proportional system, and end up with multiple parties that engage in negotiations and deal-making between them _after_ the election.

I only have experience of the former system, so the latter looks attractive by comparison, but I think if you honestly look at countries with PR, you can see that has its own downsides. Sometimes you can't achieve a stable government at all, or tiny special-interest parties get hugely disproportional influence. The voters can end up as helpless spectators as the various parties work out between them what government policies will actually be.

 

[Muse]

The problem now is that voter participation is low and neither of the two parties is behaving as it should, hence the need for a viable third party.

We need the 3rd party so we don't have the now us, now them, now us, now them ad infinitum cycles going forward. Right now the Democrats are infinitely more responsible than the Republicans. Not hard to do when Diogenes himself can only find a handful of Republicans who have any scruples to speak of.

 

[Brainonska511]

The problem now is that voter participation is low and neither of the two parties is behaving as it should, hence the need for a viable third party.

Until the system is upended by ranked choice or some sort of proportional voting, a viable third party will never arise on a national level, and it's kind of useless to sit around hoping for a third party to arise. The time to get party platforms changed under the current system is during primaries. Not great, but it's what we have right now.

 

[Jaskalas]

The time to get party platforms changed under the current system is during primaries.

And so we get a choice of Presidential Candidate.... between "Left" and "Center". Yet it is just the Presidency, Congress controls the legislation... actual change. Which means our choice in this primary is more symbolic than meaningful. Warren or Biden, both would support whatever Democrat controlled Congress is willing to pass. And if we don't have Congress, then it really doesn't matter.

Which swings me back from policy... and towards "who best challenges Trump?" That is as good a reason to choose a candidate as any. Right?

 

[Brainonska511]

And so we get a choice of Presidential Candidate.... between "Left" and "Center". Yet it is just the Presidency, Congress controls the legislation... actual change. Which means our choice in this primary is more symbolic than meaningful. Warren or Biden, both would support whatever Democrat controlled Congress is willing to pass. And if we don't have Congress, then it really doesn't matter.

Though Congress controls legislation, the president controls the bully pulpit which can be used to drive legislation forward. The president also controls the executive branch and all its associated regulatory powers, as well as nominations for federal courts, so it does matter who you have as president. Both branches matter, but for different reasons.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Until the system is upended by ranked choice or some sort of proportional voting, a viable third party will never arise on a national level, and it's kind of useless to sit around hoping for a third party to arise. The time to get party platforms changed under the current system is during primaries. Not great, but it's what we have right now.

Ranked voting is not without its flaws. It’s susceptible to gaming the system where you effectively end up with one party rule or the anomaly outcome of a 3rd or even 4th place candidate winning because that candidate is equally less desired to all voters.

Ranked voting would make more sense in primaries, and primaries should also be like election day. The madness of early states setting momentum makes no sense. Had we had ranked primaries all on the same day, there would be no candidate Trump.

 

[blackangst1]

And I’m telling you our system is designed to heavily discourage third parties. In our system voting for the third party makes it most likely that your least preferred party wins. Until we change that no viable third party is likely to arise.

Our system was designed badly from the start, but things like ranked choice voting can help fix that.

Heres a couple good articles about the effect of third party votes:

HISTORY

The HISTORY Channel - Geschichte erleben! The HISTORY Channel ist der deutschsprachige Pay-TV-Sender für spannende Dokumentationen und macht die Faszination von Menschen und Ereignissen täglich greifbar!

www.history.com

A Third Party Impact

Could an independent or third-party candidate make a significant impact this presidential election—especially in Florida, the closest 2012 battleground state?

graphics.wsj.com

 

[pmv]

Heres a couple good articles about the effect of third party votes:

HISTORY

The HISTORY Channel - Geschichte erleben! The HISTORY Channel ist der deutschsprachige Pay-TV-Sender für spannende Dokumentationen und macht die Faszination von Menschen und Ereignissen täglich greifbar!

www.history.com

A Third Party Impact

Could an independent or third-party candidate make a significant impact this presidential election—especially in Florida, the closest 2012 battleground state?

graphics.wsj.com

Not sure what point you are making. In a FPTP system, third-parties have almost zero hope of taking power. At most they split the vote on one side, letting the other (often the less popular) party into power. As described in those articles. That's one of the problems with FPTP. The Liberal Democrats have done that for decades here, generally benefiting the Conservatives. At the last election they effectively ensured a hard Brexit, the very thing they claimed to be opposing.

Very rarely a third party will eclipse an existing party, and create a new two party system, but that usually involves long-term social changes. It's almost impossible for a third-party to make any real impact, other than one possibly the opposite of what they are trying to achieve.

 

[pmv]

Ranked voting is not without its flaws. It’s susceptible to gaming the system where you effectively end up with one party rule or the anomaly outcome of a 3rd or even 4th place candidate winning because that candidate is equally less desired to all voters.

Can you cite any examples? From what I've seen the problem is the reverse of one party rule, it's that you get constant instability, and occasionally no government at all.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Oh god Tom Steyer... please drop out... not from just the election, but from Earth.

Thank God Bernie isn't stupid enough.