Self governance is no longer possible.

[sandorski]

I think it is funny how all the Canadians want the USA to change to a fucking Parliament System.

LOL

It works.

 

[agent00f]

Can you tell me why both and independent and a libertarian right now are both above five percent? Is it because only the uber smart know about these candidates? Can you explain why an independent from Vermont was able to be elected multiple times? Can you explain why Ross Perot wasn't elected despite having just as much air time as Bush and Bill?

Your whole point is easily refuted by history. Now if you'd like to complain about the media and how you think every tom dick and Harry should be given as much air time as anyone else have at it. The point remains that if the majority of the people truly wanted a third party then a majority of the people would vote for a third party.

Btw, it's not my idea of freedom, it's simply reality, a reality you seem to want to ignore.

3rd parties are still in a very disadvantageous position in a FPTP system. Many things are up for consideration by voters, including whether their vote will "count" for anything. When there are 2 parties in FPTP, it takes overwhelming inertia for anyone else to reach the point for people who won't bother unless their guy has a decent chance.

Circumstances which lead to that inertia happen, but only in relatively uncommon situations by definition.

 

[ivwshane]

3rd parties are still in a very disadvantageous position in a FPTP system. Many things are up for consideration by voters, including whether their vote will "count" for anything. When there are 2 parties in FPTP, it takes overwhelming inertia for anyone else to reach the point for people who won't bother unless their guy has a decent chance.

Circumstances which lead to that inertia happen, but only in relatively uncommon situations by definition.

That's not a problem with democracy, that's a problem with voter turnout. Now if we started having multiple candidates from many parties starting to gain parity with the two main parties, then we could end up seeing an issue with FPTP elections, because then we'd start getting governance by minority.



And just to be clear, I'm only talking about presidential elections and senate elections, elections for hor is a totally different story.

 

[nickqt]

That's not a problem with democracy, that's a problem with voter turnout. Now if we started having multiple candidates from many parties starting to gain parity with the two main parties, then we could end up seeing an issue with FPTP elections, because then we'd start getting governance by minority.



And just to be clear, I'm only talking about presidential elections and senate elections, elections for hor is a totally different story.

Something as simple as Single Transferrable Vote, or Instant Runoff voting would allow third parties in first-past-the-post election systems be more than just spoilers.

 

[ivwshane]

Something as simple as Single Transferrable Vote, or Instant Runoff voting would allow third parties in first-past-the-post election systems be more than just spoilers.

I don't see how that changes anything. The issue isn't that people are voting for third party candidates and lose to a candidate from a major party without a significantly higher proportion of the vote.

The issue is that people don't vote.

 

[woolfe9998]

While I agree that third parties would do better if we removed the obstacles, there are two important things here: the primary obstacle is the fundamental way our constitution set up elections, the first past the post system. Until you amend the constitution to get rid of that we aren't going anywhere.

Secondly, saying the two parties are so close on the issues is crazy. In all of US history they have only been measured as farther apart immediately before the civil war. On everything from taxes to health care to social policy they are very, very far apart. I let myself be fooled into thinking the two parties were the same in 2000, and America paid a pretty heavy price for so many people thinking the same. Don't be fooled into thinking it now.

The parties are leagues apart ideologically. The reason I think some people perceive them as closer together is because in actual practice, one POTUS might achieve policies and results not diametrically opposite another POTUS of the other party, even when core beliefs and policy stances are totally opposite.

It's the system of checks and balance, which used to produce "compromise legislation" but is now made more obstructive by the abuse of the filibuster. While the comprising of the past could make them all seem closer together, I could see a future where every POTUS gets very little done, and hence, in the end they all seem quite close together for that reason instead.

 

[agent00f]

I don't see how that changes anything. The issue isn't that people are voting for third party candidates and lose to a candidate from a major party without a significantly higher proportion of the vote.

The issue is that people don't vote.

In first past the post type systems, the largest bloc takes all. Adding more candidates only dilutes your bloc size (ie losing), so party count naturally reduces to the minimum possible, 2.

In other words, it's better for sanders to join clinton and get something than run on his own and get nothing.

 

[ivwshane]

In first past the post type systems, the largest bloc takes all. Adding more candidates only dilutes your bloc size (ie losing), so party count naturally reduces to the minimum possible, 2.

In other words, it's better for sanders to join clinton and get something than run on his own and get nothing.

In other words: if Sanders ran as an independent he would lose just like he lost by not going independent.

The outcome is the same and the only thing that would have changed the outcome is if he received more votes! That sounds like democracy is working to me.

 

[agent00f]

In other words: if Sanders ran as an independent he would lose just like he lost by not going independent.

The outcome is the same and the only thing that would have changed the outcome is if he received more votes! That sounds like democracy is working to me.

Running and losing is not the same as bartering for something from clinton.

 

[ivwshane]

Running and losing is not the same as bartering for something from clinton.

From the stand point of gaining influence, sure. But in terms of getting elected it is the same.

 

[agent00f]

From the stand point of gaining influence, sure. But I'm terms of getting elected it is the same.

Sure, but the point is FPTP systems make an internal party run-off necessary, then for the loser to support the winner, and sanders lost.

 

[ivwshane]

Sure, but the point is FPTP systems make an internal party run-off necessary, then for the loser to support the winner, and sanders lost.

You've lost me. The discussion was about third parties not being viable because of the system we have and I countered that third parties aren't viable because most people don't want them. Some do want them but most don't.

 

[agent00f]

You've lost me. The discussion was about third parties not being viable because of the system we have and I countered that third parties aren't viable because most people don't want them. Some do want them but most don't.

They're "viable" in the sense that it's not illegal and they can always get some votes. They're not viable in the sense that intelligent politicians who care about winning will strategically avoid them. Sander for example is smart to run within the D party knowing that Clinton is similarly obligated to support him had he won, thus enabling him to win against R. Had he run independent from the start, they would both lose.

 

[soulcougher73]

I don't see how that changes anything. The issue isn't that people are voting for third party candidates and lose to a candidate from a major party without a significantly higher proportion of the vote.

The issue is that people don't vote.

I think that is part of the problem, but the bigger millions of people have no idea there are more than 2 options. Our masses are REALLY that stupid. And a lot of the smart ones know the EC does no one any favors and lowers peoples want to go vote at all.

There are lots of issues. EC, voter turn out, retards....

 

[soulcougher73]

In first past the post type systems, the largest bloc takes all. Adding more candidates only dilutes your bloc size (ie losing), so party count naturally reduces to the minimum possible, 2.

In other words, it's better for sanders to join clinton and get something than run on his own and get nothing.

I actually think Sanders would destroy Clinton and Trump if he ran indepedent. Both sides are not 100% in love with their candidates.

 

[Jhhnn]

I actually think Sanders would destroy Clinton and Trump if he ran indepedent. Both sides are not 100% in love with their candidates.

If no candidate receives 270 electoral college votes the election is settled by the HOR.

Bernie obviously wants to avoid that as does anybody of the progressive persuasion. That's if they're thinking more than wishing, anyway.

 

[dullard]

If no candidate receives 270 electoral college votes the election is settled by the HOR.

Bernie obviously wants to avoid that as does anybody of the progressive persuasion. That's if they're thinking more than wishing, anyway.

While it is likely the GOP will retain the house, it isn't a forgone conclusion. If Bernie and Clinton were both running, that may be enough to switch the house to the democrats. Likely? No. But possible.

Remember, it is the NEXT house that votes, not the current house which is up for reelection.

 

[Jhhnn]

While it is likely the GOP will retain the house, it isn't a forgone conclusion. If Bernie and Clinton were both running, that may be enough to switch the house to the democrats. Likely? No. But possible.

Remember, it is the NEXT house that votes, not the current house which is up for reelection.

More fantasy, huh? Repubs currently enjoy a 60 seat majority, much of it due to ruthless computer driven gerrymandering in the wake of the 2010 census & election. The only way to change that is to win Statehouses in 2020 & redistricting.

 

[dullard]

More fantasy, huh? Repubs currently enjoy a 60 seat majority, much of it due to ruthless computer driven gerrymandering in the wake of the 2010 census & election. The only way to change that is to win Statehouses in 2020 & redistricting.

Yes, they have a 60 seat majority, and yes much of that lead is due to gerrymandering (the rest is due to the fact that democrats tend not to vote in non-presidential elections). But, there are a lot more GOP seats up for grabs due to retirements and running for other offices than Democrat seats.

But, redistricting isn't the only way for the house to swing to the democrats. I fully admit that it isn't likely this time around. But, you can't count it out either.

There are 202 GOP seats that are almost entirely safe. There are 177 Democrat seats that are almost entirely safe. There are 56 competitive house races (here I define competitive races as anything that isn't marked as solid in this link: http://cookpolitical.com/house/charts/race-ratings ).

If those competitive races split evenly (unlikely, but it can happen) then the final tally would be a 25 seat lead by the GOP (230 to 205). A more likely situation is that those competitive races will go about 75% to the GOP and 25% to the Democrats; resulting in a 53 seat lead to the GOP (244 to 191).

But, there is a chance with a wave of support on the democratic side that the democrats can win a majority of the house seats that are competitive. If, somehow the democrats can be inspired to go to the polls, and they win 75% of the competitive house seats, then the final tally would be a slim 3-seat lead for the democrats (219 to 216).

The tougher thing to determine how it breaks down by state though, since each state gets just one vote. I haven't done that math. Also, it hasn't been challenged in court so it could be a messy process (think of a state with equal GOP house members and Democrat house members how do they divvy their one vote?). If it is messy, then the vice president becomes the acting president until it is resolved.

Unlikely, yes. Fantasy, no. A fantasy is something that has virtually 0% chance of happening. I'd give this more of a 10% chance of happening at this point.

 

[agent00f]

I think that is part of the problem, but the bigger millions of people have no idea there are more than 2 options. Our masses are REALLY that stupid. And a lot of the smart ones know the EC does no one any favors and lowers peoples want to go vote at all.

There are lots of issues. EC, voter turn out, retards....

To the contrary, individual voters who don't want to throw their vote away within the existing system are acting rationally.

What you're asking for is mass coordinated collective action which is rather difficult and pretty unfair to call people stupid if they fail to do.

 

[agent00f]

While it is likely the GOP will retain the house, it isn't a forgone conclusion. If Bernie and Clinton were both running, that may be enough to switch the house to the democrats. Likely? No. But possible.

Remember, it is the NEXT house that votes, not the current house which is up for reelection.

I actually think Sanders would destroy Clinton and Trump if he ran indepedent. Both sides are not 100% in love with their candidates.

You're both advocating for a pretty optimistic plan with low expected value of success, and basically infinite downside in this particular case. Sanders is smart to stick to a more rational strategy.

 

[dullard]

You're both advocating for a pretty optimistic plan with low expected value of success, and basically infinite downside in this particular case. Sanders is smart to stick to a more rational strategy.

I don't think that reads like I'm advocating for any particular strategy. I certainly didn't try to write it that way. Sanders is smart to stick to a more rational strategy.

But, I was merely commenting on what could certainly happen if there was a strong 3rd party candidate. The NEXT house will have the power. If that strong 3rd party candidate is someone like Cruz or Bush who would bring in GOP voters who don't like Trump, then the house and senate will likely go strongly to the GOP (I've argued that in other threads). If that strong 3rd party candidate is someone like Sanders who will bring in democrat voters who don't like Clinton, the house and senate will likely shift strongly towards the Democrats. It is just a matter of how MUCH they shift.

 

[soulcougher73]

To the contrary, individual voters who don't want to throw their vote away within the existing system are acting rationally.

What you're asking for is mass coordinated collective action which is rather difficult and pretty unfair to call people stupid if they fail to do.

You know who wants you to think "you're throwing your vote away"? DEM & GOP

If people would stop thinking like that we might actually see some change. But they want to you think your are throwing it away and they both back that game plan.

 

[nickqt]

You've lost me. The discussion was about third parties not being viable because of the system we have and I countered that third parties aren't viable because most people don't want them. Some do want them but most don't.

It's not that most people don't want third parties - see this year's approval numbers for either Presidential candidate.

It is that in a First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system, you don't just cast your vote and walk away oblivious to the world.

You cast your vote in anticipation to what other people are going to do with their vote.

I don't particularly care for Hillary Clinton. But I sure as shit am not going to let Strongman Trump walk into the White House because my conscience would be better assuaged by voting for the Zombie Washington/Zombie Jesus ticket.

In a FPTP voting system, people vote strategically because they have one single vote, and for me I'd rather have a classic technocrat in charge of the government than a Strongman, so I literally cannot in good conscience vote for Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson, or Mr. Whiskers, or whomever I think would make a better President.

If you change it to an alternative format, where I can label the candidates 1 2 and 3, then I can vote for Sanders, Stein, and Clinton. Assuming Sanders and Stein aren't in contention, my vote then defaults to Clinton. I got to vote my conscience, and I was allowed to make sure my vote didn't essentially go to Strongman Trump.

So, you've got it backwards. It isn't that people don't want more parties, it is that our voting system, by default, favors two parties because a third party is almost nothing more than a spoiler for the candidate that would have received a majority of the vote and won the election.

 

[agent00f]

You know who wants you to think "you're throwing your vote away"? DEM & GOP

If people would stop thinking like that we might actually see some change. But they want to you think your are throwing it away and they both back that game plan.

They aren't wrong. It's a matter of straight logic/math that FPTP style systems result in folks who don't back the absolutely strongest parties to throw their vote away.