When are we all going to rise up and abolish our two party system?

[OneOfTheseDays]

I think it's pretty clear across the board, even on this forum, that neither party represents our best interests.

There are a whole swath of issues, especially those pertaining to civil liberties, that I think we all agree on here. How feasible do you guys think it would be to setup our own lobbying group powered by the Internet community? The people over at reddit had massive success in generating enough momentum to stop SOPA. I think there is really a lot of untapped potential for us to have significant influence over how policies are shaped if we can all get coordinated.

With a large enough base, I think we could easily generate enough revenue to get significant lobbying power in this country. What do you all think?

 

[dmcowen674]

When are we all going to rise up and abolish our two party system?

I think it's pretty clear across the board, even on this forum, that neither party represents our best interests.

There are a whole swath of issues, especially those pertaining to civil liberties, that I think we all agree on here. How feasible do you guys think it would be to setup our own lobbying group powered by the Internet community? The people over at reddit had massive success in generating enough momentum to stop SOPA. I think there is really a lot of untapped potential for us to have significant influence over how policies are shaped if we can all get coordinated.

With a large enough base, I think we could easily generate enough revenue to get significant lobbying power in this country. What do you all think?

Revolution is the only thing that makes such widespread change.

 

[BoberFett]

When are we all going to rise up and abolish our two party system?

If I had to venture a guess, some evening when there's nothing good on TV.

 

[ShawnD1]

When Americans figure out the glory of having just a 1 party system. It's so much simpler.

 

[Texashiker]

When are we all going to rise up and abolish our two party system?

I have been voting third party for the past 15+ years, whats your problem?

 

[Jaskalas]

When are we all going to rise up and abolish our two party system?

The day we vote a man like Ron Paul in as President.

So long as we seek the electable candidate, and 'winning' is more cherished than values, our two party system is held firmly in place.

 

[blackangst1]

The day we vote a man like Ron Paul in as President.

So long as we seek the electable candidate, and 'winning' is more cherished than values, our two party system is held firmly in place.

In case you havent noticed, Ron Paul is part of the two party system.

Also, even if he were an independant (or a member of some other party), and even if he were elected, that wont change the fact we would still have a two party system. A POTUS has no authority to get 3rd party candidates elected. Thats up to the people.

But I think you know that.

 

[Craig234]

With all due respect, the simple opposition to 'the two parties' is childish and would only bring harm as you haven't done anything to fix the problems and so whatever the 'new' situation is will likely just be worse. The fact you can't 'fix' the two parties means you can't prevent the same forces who prevent that from taking advantage of 'change'.

You already have the choices - one is the 'progressive' political faction that does represent the interests of the people generally.

The fact that they're not a large majority of votes is a good place to look at before you go 'destroying parties' and handing the power even more to the corrupt.

If 'the progressives' aren't getting strong support today in the face of the big money system, how are you going to put some 'for the people' party in charge?

Let me offer a basic political primer:

1. Only powerful/wealthy interests get representation.

Sorry, that's not in the civics books, but it's rule #1, generally. Exception? Votes do count so sometimes voters are able to pressure on a specific issue.

2. If the powerful/wealthy interest has two sides, then each side picks a party to back.

Examples: trial lawyers/those they sue (insurance, doctors, companies); employers/unions.

If the powerful/wealthy interest has one side, then its opposition is the American people, and it generally tries to get influence in both parties.

3. The politicians have to LOOK good to the people, and DO good for donors. So the people are not represented, but they are advertised to as if they were.

What does all this add up to? That the concentrated wealth in our society has the political system set up for its benefit, not the people's. We'd never have a democracy if they were creating the system today - but we do have one so we get this system filled with well-funded marketing to protect the powerful interests from voters.

You need to do something about that to fix anything, not just attack the two parties.

If you can't get a majority for progressives, you can't get a majority for any real improvement to the system, which is the same thing - beating the wealthy interests.

It can be done in theory; an FDR comes along, and has the little benefit politically of a great depression. But how often even in this forum do people change 'sides'?

Saying get rid of the two parties is like slaves demanding to get rid of the head of their crew - replacing him with another, instead of ending slavery.

Restore democracy is a good goal - eliminate the excessive lobbying, the public servants leaving to private rewards if they behaved well, the corporate donations, etc.

What could be more American than having the people in charge more?

It doesn't matter that 'the parties' change, but who they serve changes.

Save234

 

[Thump553]

Both parties' leadership have a vested interest in preserving the two party system and will fight tooth and nail to preserve it.

I'm a party official for a local (very successful) third party and it constantly amazes me how much my state's election laws are biased towards the dominant two parties, clearly designed to discourage third parties and make it as hard as possible for them to get on the ballots.

Nationally, the solution is simple-abolish the electoral college and go to a simple majority system. Given that the electoral college is one of the principal components of our founding documents and you would need a constitutional amendment to do so. Again, I say, good luck with that.

 

[blackangst1]

With all due respect, the simple opposition to 'the two parties' is childish and would only bring harm as you haven't done anything to fix the problems and so whatever the 'new' situation is will likely just be worse. The fact you can't 'fix' the two parties means you can't prevent the same forces who prevent that from taking advantage of 'change'.

You already have the choices - one is the 'progressive' political faction that does represent the interests of the people generally.

The fact that they're not a large majority of votes is a good place to look at before you go 'destroying parties' and handing the power even more to the corrupt.

If 'the progressives' aren't getting strong support today in the face of the big money system, how are you going to put some 'for the people' party in charge?

It's called a vote. Despite all the money in campaigning, despite all the favors done once elected, no one is going to get a viable 3rd party elected without convincing voters.

And there are much better alternatives in the minority other than progressives.

 

[Atreus21]

As soon as we get rid of a plurality rule system of elections.

Craig, if it weren't for you, my scrollie wheel on my mouse would see a lot less action.

 

[fskimospy]

As soon as we decide to amend the Constitution. So long as winner take all electoral institutions dominate, we will almost certainly have a 2 party system.

This amending can take place through two vehicles:

1.) Passage of an amendment by a 2/3rds majority in both houses of Congress. Those houses of course being dominated by the two parties that would effectively be voting themselves out of power. Then it must be approved by 3/4ths of the state legislatures... that are also dominated by the two parties that would effectively be voting themselves out of power.

2.) 2/3rds of those same two party state legislatures pass bills calling for a convention, then 3/4ths of them vote for it, once again having the people in power vote themselves out.

You might be able to less effectively break the stranglehold of the two parties with instant runoff voting, but...well... that faces the same problem as the amendment.

Let me know how likely you think any of these are. That is when we will break the two party system.

 

[BoberFett]

You already have the choices - one is the 'progressive' political faction that does represent the interests of the people generally.

You don't represent me, so piss off.

 

[Siddhartha]

I think it's pretty clear across the board, even on this forum, that neither party represents our best interests.

There are a whole swath of issues, especially those pertaining to civil liberties, that I think we all agree on here. How feasible do you guys think it would be to setup our own lobbying group powered by the Internet community? The people over at reddit had massive success in generating enough momentum to stop SOPA. I think there is really a lot of untapped potential for us to have significant influence over how policies are shaped if we can all get coordinated.

With a large enough base, I think we could easily generate enough revenue to get significant lobbying power in this country. What do you all think?

Get involved in the political system. Support someone who agrees with you financially and with your time. Even better run for office. Get your truth out there and work to improve the system.

The US has a two year election cycle. I know a guy who has run for Mayor, State and Federal Congressman. You can do no less.

 

[Jaskalas]

In case you havent noticed, Ron Paul is part of the two party system.

Also, even if he were an independant (or a member of some other party), and even if he were elected, that wont change the fact we would still have a two party system. A POTUS has no authority to get 3rd party candidates elected. Thats up to the people.

But I think you know that.

First of all, I was relying to the topic title 'When are we?' which is nicely summed up by stating the impossible.

Second, we get a third party when we, as Republicans, are willing to see Barrack Obama reelected. When we pay a price and stand up for what we believe in instead of selling ourselves to the highest bidder. Romney is a continued success of the two party system. We have to vote against him no matter what.

So long as we get taken for granted and make ourselves irrelevant, we can keep 'winning' with candidates who play for the other team the way Bush and McCain did. The GOP speaks to win favor with the small government crowd, then takes action to ensure big government candidates. We might as well not exist for the consequence is the same. They step over us to achieve their goals.

Once you've reached that point, what do you do?

My answer is split the vote. Punish the big gov Republicans who work with the Democrats. Right now they're riding high, happy as heck that the entire concept of electability, of reason and of moderation revolves around them. We cannot let them continue to do harm in our name, they depend on our votes and we can take that away from them. The electable men can be made unelectable. We can destroy them by a simple vote.

Drive them out and a third party is born.

 

[JS80]

You don't represent me, so piss off.

Yes he does. He represents all of us. We're all just too stupid to know it.

 

[nobodyknows]

Meet your new boss, same as the old boss.... probably worse.

 

[blackangst1]

First of all, I was relying to the topic title 'When are we?' which is nicely summed up by stating the impossible.

Second, we get a third party when we, as Republicans, are willing to see Barrack Obama reelected. When we pay a price and stand up for what we believe in instead of selling ourselves to the highest bidder. Romney is a continued success of the two party system. We have to vote against him no matter what.

So long as we get taken for granted and make ourselves irrelevant, we can keep 'winning' with candidates who play for the other team the way Bush and McCain did. The GOP speaks to win favor with the small government crowd, then takes action to ensure big government candidates. We might as well not exist for the consequence is the same. They step over us to achieve their goals.

Once you've reached that point, what do you do?

My answer is split the vote. Punish the big gov Republicans who work with the Democrats. Right now they're riding high, happy as heck that the entire concept of electability, of reason and of moderation revolves around them. We cannot let them continue to do harm in our name, they depend on our votes and we can take that away from them. The electable men can be made unelectable. We can destroy them by a simple vote.

Drive them out and a third party is born.

Interesting points. I get where you're coming from now.

 

[fskimospy]

First of all, I was relying to the topic title 'When are we?' which is nicely summed up by stating the impossible.

Second, we get a third party when we, as Republicans, are willing to see Barrack Obama reelected. When we pay a price and stand up for what we believe in instead of selling ourselves to the highest bidder. Romney is a continued success of the two party system. We have to vote against him no matter what.

So long as we get taken for granted and make ourselves irrelevant, we can keep 'winning' with candidates who play for the other team the way Bush and McCain did. The GOP speaks to win favor with the small government crowd, then takes action to ensure big government candidates. We might as well not exist for the consequence is the same. They step over us to achieve their goals.

Once you've reached that point, what do you do?

My answer is split the vote. Punish the big gov Republicans who work with the Democrats. Right now they're riding high, happy as heck that the entire concept of electability, of reason and of moderation revolves around them. We cannot let them continue to do harm in our name, they depend on our votes and we can take that away from them. The electable men can be made unelectable. We can destroy them by a simple vote.

Drive them out and a third party is born.

I highly endorse this plan. It is a plan for an unrelenting string of Democratic victories until the newly created third party is reabsorbed. Enjoy!

 

[Atreus21]

I highly endorse this plan. It is a plan for an unrelenting string of Democratic victories until the newly created third party is reabsorbed. Enjoy!

Frankly, I'd be willing to accept that if it brings the Republican party under the heel of its constituents.

Jaskalas, you've given me the best reason I've heard so far to vote for a democrat.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

divide and conquer.

 

[fskimospy]

Frankly, I'd be willing to accept that if it brings the Republican party under the heel of its constituents.

Jaskalas, you've given me the best reason I've heard so far to vote for a democrat.

It won't, because a lot of Republican constituents don't want anywhere close to what the people on here want. This is why Mitt Romney is winning.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm sure it's soon. After all political concerns are secondary and they have our best interests at heart.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

As soon as we decide to amend the Constitution. So long as winner take all electoral institutions dominate, we will almost certainly have a 2 party system.

This amending can take place through two vehicles:

1.) Passage of an amendment by a 2/3rds majority in both houses of Congress. Those houses of course being dominated by the two parties that would effectively be voting themselves out of power. Then it must be approved by 3/4ths of the state legislatures... that are also dominated by the two parties that would effectively be voting themselves out of power.

2.) 2/3rds of those same two party state legislatures pass bills calling for a convention, then 3/4ths of them vote for it, once again having the people in power vote themselves out.

You might be able to less effectively break the stranglehold of the two parties with instant runoff voting, but...well... that faces the same problem as the amendment.

Let me know how likely you think any of these are. That is when we will break the two party system.

This, we would need to have a parliamentary type system to break the two party stranglehold.

 

[Atreus21]

It won't, because a lot of Republican constituents don't want anywhere close to what the people on here want. This is why Mitt Romney is winning.

I don't think I understand. P&N leans left, and therefore Romney is winning?