Presidential Election Question

[cbrunny]

For fuck sake now you're just making shit up. That exact situation happened with the Ontario Liberal government between 1985 and 1987. NDP made formal agreement to support Libs for two years in return for legislative compromises.

As for the bigger point, you're making an argument without a distinction. Call it alignment, call it acquiescence, whatever you want to call it a minority government without the support of enough minority parties to pass legislation and avoid a no-confidence vote is not stable by definition.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/when-the-majority-doesn-t-rule-1.728726

You specifically said

multiple parties are a distinction without a difference since the secondary parties are going to align with one of the main parties anyway.

which is complete and undisputable utter bullshit. Minority governments, even when they are successful in passing legislation, never align interests with other parties save for the specific interest that passes said legislation. There hasn't been a formal coalition government in Canada in almost 100 years.

 

[cbrunny]

A formal coalition government has multiple parties represented in cabinet, while what happened in Ontario in 1985 did not see NDP representation in cabinet. It is not a coalition, it was merely an exchange of temporary confidence for legislative priorities. There is a tremendously large distinction between this and a formal coalition government.

 

[glenn1]

You specifically said

which is complete and undisputable utter bullshit. Minority governments, even when they are successful in passing legislation, never align interests with other parties save for the specific interest that passes said legislation. There hasn't been a formal coalition government in Canada in almost 100 years.

Believe it or not, many would argue that an unstable hung Parliament minority government is not a model to emulate. I'll take at face value that alt parties add to the national discourse (agree with you on the Bloc being bananas) but it's not like more exotic views don't get expressed here in the U.S., it just happens within party intramural discussions and primaries rather than the general election. Plus it's not like the U.S. doesn't have alt parties like the Greens, they just don't win seats like they do in Canada (as if their 2 whole ridings make a whit of difference anyway).

 

[nickqt]

Even if the U.S. moved to your preferred method, we would still wind up with two primary parties which perhaps have to form a coalition government with smaller parties who could play kingmaker roles. While as in Canada which two parties they were might change from time to time, it still basically always comes down to which wing can capture more of the centrist vote. It makes precious little difference whether a coalition is formed after an election as typical in places like Europe, Israel, etc. or beforehand as typical in the U.S. via a primary process which determines which wing of a primary party will be dominant and have its preferred candidate run in the general election.

If you or anyone else can show an exa

My method wouldn't decrease the strength of the two party system, but it would allow people to at least vote their conscience first and then vote second based on who you want if your ideal candidate doesn't win.

It is a system that solves many issues that many Americans bitch and complain about:

1. That third parties are nothing but spoilers. Well, have a Single Transferable Vote, and no longer are third parties spoilers, since the voter still has the option for voting for the major party candidate they like.

2. That third parties are never going to be able to break into the current system. Well, allow third parties to be voted for by every single citizen without them being simply a possible spoiler, and you might get Party X and Party Y voters actually voting for a third party candidate as their first choice, altering the election itself, because third parties are no longer simply spoiler parties.

In essence, "my method" isn't just theory, but is in actual use in real life countries around the world.

And again, my answer puts the OPs question to rest.

In a first-past-the-post election system, there will likely be two candidates from two parties, because in any election, the least amount of competition anyone can have is exactly 1 other candidate. When the only thing that matters is having 1 more vote than the second-place candidate (first-past-the-post) then you're going to have two major parties and third party spoiler parties that rarely win elective office. And any function major party is not going to split its own vote by running two candidate from the same party.

 

[drebo]

The idea of a two or any number of party system is ridiculous. It implies that politics is as simple as a coin toss.

Indeed. Except in the US, the two sides of the coin are the same, so it doesn't even really matter anyway.

 

[nickqt]

Indeed. Except in the US, the two sides of the coin are the same, so it doesn't even really matter anyway.

BothSides™

Take a shot!

 

[fskimospy]

Indeed. Except in the US, the two sides of the coin are the same, so it doesn't even really matter anyway.

So you think if Al Gore had been elected instead of GWB things would have been the same from 2000-2008? And if McCain had been elected instead of Obama things would have been the same from 2008-present?

Are you joking?

 

[drebo]

So you think if Al Gore had been elected instead of GWB things would have been the same from 2000-2008? And if McCain had been elected instead of Obama things would have been the same from 2008-present?

Are you joking?

Yes to your first question and no to your second question.

If you believe otherwise, you're being intentionally blind, ignorant, or worse.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes to your first question and no to your second question.

If you believe otherwise, you're being intentionally blind, ignorant, or worse.

There is simply no way someone with a working understanding of US politics would make that claim, absent being intentionally blind or ignorant. (or joking! You still have that out)

It is quite unlikely the US would have invaded Iraq, absent the GWB administration. It is also extremely unlikely that John McCain would have pursued a universal health care plan. Right there those are two enormous differences.

People who say 'both sides are the same' are clueless.

 

[glenn1]

So you think if Al Gore had been elected instead of GWB things would have been the same from 2000-2008? And if McCain had been elected instead of Obama things would have been the same from 2008-present?

Are you joking?

Some of the major contours would still be the same, for example I don't see how anything the hypothetical Gore Admin would have done could have prevented 9/11 since all we had were general warnings not very actionable. After that, it's just a matter of picking which problem you'd rather have - beligerent dictator who gladly drops nerve gas on his ethic minorities and would seek WMDs, or a weak central government that can't defend its own sovereignty and allows ad hoc terror groups a space to operate? Even in places where things aren't reaching crisis status doesn't mean it's not a major problem - for example, pretty much all of Africa is a basket case and future disaster waiting to happen, but we calmly ignore it until some tribe attempts to genocide another or a refugee crisis can't be ignored.

 

[cbrunny]

There is simply no way someone with a working understanding of US politics would make that claim, absent being intentionally blind or ignorant. (or joking! You still have that out)

It is quite unlikely the US would have invaded Iraq, absent the GWB administration. It is also extremely unlikely that John McCain would have pursued a universal health care plan. Right there those are two enormous differences.

People who say 'both sides are the same' are clueless.

In retrospect, I think Iraq would have been invaded but it would have taken much longer and would have been done for different reasons.

McCain would not have pursued universal health care. But then again, neither did Obama.

 

[fskimospy]

Some of the major contours would still be the same, for example I don't see how anything the hypothetical Gore Admin would have done could have prevented 9/11 since all we had were general warnings not very actionable. After that, it's just a matter of picking which problem you'd rather have - beligerent dictator who gladly drops nerve gas on his ethic minorities and would seek WMDs, or a weak central government that can't defend its own sovereignty and allows ad hoc terror groups a space to operate? Even in places where things aren't reaching crisis status doesn't mean it's not a major problem - for example, pretty much all of Africa is a basket case and future disaster waiting to happen, but we calmly ignore it until some tribe attempts to genocide another or a refugee crisis can't be ignored.

I don't think Gore would have prevented 9/11, but I think it's quite unlikely he would have invaded Iraq. The question isn't really who would have made things better, but would things have been different. I think it's pretty hard to argue they wouldn't have been substantially different.

 

[cbrunny]

We'd probably be driving a lot more electric cars now if Gore won. Tesla would be booming.