Would adding additional parties to our national scheme help?

[Lithium381]

This started off in another thread but wanted to bring it here so we didn't derail the OP there . . .


I'm proposing that if we were to get a major 3rd party candidate(or even 4th!) to break up the monotony of the R vs D and realising that you don't have to just "vote for the lesser of two evils" that there is choice out there that may better represent how you feel about issues than being locked into the old bipartisian system.

Part of the points in deliberation was that our voters are lazy and don't research the candidates nor the issues, that they simply vote party line R or D for whatever reason. Because their spouses do, or their parents did...etc we have a lot of ignorance in the voting public, a lot of "low education voters" as Rush would say. . . because of the bias of whichever media they choose to listen to or because of just wanting to not think about it.

Would a major 3rd party help us? Not only to maybe show the voters that we don't have just two choices every time around, but that we could break up the gridlock in washington that plauges the ability to get anything done. . . .less partisain hackery possibly .. . ?

 

[Screech]

I doubt it -- not in the way you mean anyway. There already are third party options but nobody really votes for them because "they have no chance" and so it is a self-fulfilling prophecy......etc.

One way IMHO to actually try to address this is to switch the house of representatives to a nationwide proportional vote system. That way, if a third party gets 10% of the national popular vote they get 43 seats. Right now chances are they get none because single-member district plurality systems tend to produce only two large parties.

 

[Craig234]

The issue isn't really about two or more parties. It's about the problems that allow the two parties to have so much influence over them by narrow interests.

The few rich interests - nutty billionares, big corporations - can give more than ever of the money that elections are so dependant on - with something like 94% of races going to the candidate who spends the most money on these attack ads and a largely uninformed citizenship. At the same time about 99% of the citizens never donate a cent.

It also has to do with most citizens getting fluffy news not informing them well, with a corporate bias, as a handful of big corporatiiojns own almost all of the media.

There is good media - but only a tiny few in the public bother to get it.

The system is set up that a third party primarily rewards the opposition by splitting the vote on the side it's on; if a third party did take off the same corruption would take over.

Look at the tea party, that started partly with rage over the too big to fail banks, and in no time is dominated by corporate agendas such as the Koch brothers' anti-EPA agenda.

 

[Lithium381]

The issue isn't really about two or more parties. It's about the problems that allow the two parties to have so much influence over them by narrow interests.

The few rich interests - nutty billionares, big corporations - can give more than ever of the money that elections are so dependant on - with something like 94% of races going to the candidate who spends the most money on these attack ads and a largely uninformed citizenship. At the same time about 99% of the citizens never donate a cent.

It also has to do with most citizens getting fluffy news not informing them well, with a corporate bias, as a handful of big corporatiiojns own almost all of the media.

There is good media - but only a tiny few in the public bother to get it.

The system is set up that a third party primarily rewards the opposition by splitting the vote on the side it's on; if a third party did take off the same corruption would take over.

Look at the tea party, that started partly with rage over the too big to fail banks, and in no time is dominated by corporate agendas such as the Koch brothers' anti-EPA agenda.

Notice how the tea party isn't its own party . . they all run as republicans....

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The two-party system persists for three main reasons.

First, our system is designed for it. There are policies and procedures that are simply predicated on there being just two parties.

Second, no matter how much the two parties claim to hate each other, they hate the idea of a third party even more, as it would pose a threat to their hegemony. By way of analogy, think about how most people from even very different religions feel about non-believers.

Third, it's a pretty classic prisoner's dilemma situation, where whichever side tries to form a third party basically gets their votes split and then slaughtered in the next election. This is the practical implediment to a third party making any headway.

BTW, the so-called "tea party" was never a real party. It may have, way back in the beginning, had its roots in a populist libertarian-tinted conservative movement, but it was never a formal entity, and it was co-opted by the lunatic fringe of the GOP rather quickly.

 

[cwjerome]

I don't know if there necessarily needs to be more parties, although it probably wouldn't hurt. The main thing is there needs to be a more centrist based voting block (what someone like Thomas Friedman calls the "radical center") that can influence and temper the Reps and the Dems. The term to use for these people isn't necessarily "moderate" because that implies no firm beliefs... this middle ground full of independent, intelligent thinkers that are not partisans can have strong beliefs but they aren't necessarily strict rightwing or leftwing ideologues.

Right now because of the nature of the two party system, the elections laws, gerrymandering, a disenfranchised and/or apathetic population, and the media, most major politicians and their policies are on the extreme of their respective party. I would argue that the partisan politics and politicians today represent the more fringe elements of the parties and not the average voter. It makes no sense for most reasonable voters to have to vote for people and deal with the policies of the two extremes. That's the definition for "the lesser of two evils."

A strong middle segment that gyrates between the two can happen, but it will take some effort. The rewards would be tremendous though.

 

[fskimospy]

It's really not so much about the knowledge level of voters, more than anything it is a flaw in how the Constitution was written. As I mentioned in another thread, any system under which 51% of the vote gets 100% of the representation will naturally gravitate towards two parties.

I believe additional parties would help to a certain extent because a lot viewpoints can't be encapsulated in one party or the other. What if you believe in social justice but are pro life? (Catholics) You have nowhere to go. What if you are a libertarian who likes free markets and the government out of your bedroom? Nowhere to go there either. Additional parties could provide the opportunity for that.

No matter how desirable they are however, until you fundamentally alter the way we elect people you will not get them.

 

[Lithium381]

Is it the way we elect people, eskimo, or the lack of knowledge of your options? Growing up as a child at least until high school I was completely unaware that other political parties even existed. I remember about a year ago taking an online quiz to find out who i align with on the presidential election. I got gary johnson. I had never heard of him nor the libertarian party. After first discounting it as an online scam of some sort i researched the party platform and found out it suits my beliefs better than either R or D. I voted Gary Johnson in the end. Many say i threw my vote away... but if more people wake up to the realization that we're not stuck with only two parties, then we'll eventually see better representation.

The media doesn't help either since it seems most "news" sources are beholden to one of our two major players.

Gridlock and partisainship are ruining things, IMO..

 

[cwjerome]

Is it the way we elect people, eskimo, or the lack of knowledge of your options? Growing up as a child at least until high school I was completely unaware that other political parties even existed. I remember about a year ago taking an online quiz to find out who i align with on the presidential election. I got gary johnson. I had never heard of him nor the libertarian party. After first discounting it as an online scam of some sort i researched the party platform and found out it suits my beliefs better than either R or D. I voted Gary Johnson in the end. Many say i threw my vote away... but if more people wake up to the realization that we're not stuck with only two parties, then we'll eventually see better representation.

The media doesn't help either since it seems most "news" sources are beholden to one of our two major players.

Gridlock and partisainship are ruining things, IMO..

Tradition and history does play a role in the dominance of Reps and Dems, but it can be broken with some legal reform and minor changes in values/thinking.

The winner takes all voting results, the districting, the primary process and election laws (just to name a few) need to be adjusted. These are some of the things that would help against the partisan fringe deciding on who gets nominated and elected, allowing more freedom of choice, and making the Reps and Dems more mindful of the masses and not a very narrow, vocal, and powerful minority.

Some finance tweaks would help a lot too.

 

[stormkroe]

As the two 'opposing' factions slowly blimp together into the same corporate-driven entity (with enough fringe differences to keep the sheeple fighting each other), I think that parties should be done away with all together, and people should be voted for based on their history of ideology.

 

[Craig234]

As the two 'opposing' factions slowly blimp together into the same corporate-driven entity (with enough fringe differences to keep the sheeple fighting each other), I think that parties should be done away with all together, and people should be voted for based on their history of ideology.

I don't know what to make of that. I don't think it's a solution though. Again the problem is the power of the interests who stand to make money by buying laws.

 

[jackstar7]

Step 1: Change campaign finance.
Step 2: Get additional parties.
Step 3: See what happens.

 

[fskimospy]

Is it the way we elect people, eskimo, or the lack of knowledge of your options? Growing up as a child at least until high school I was completely unaware that other political parties even existed. I remember about a year ago taking an online quiz to find out who i align with on the presidential election. I got gary johnson. I had never heard of him nor the libertarian party. After first discounting it as an online scam of some sort i researched the party platform and found out it suits my beliefs better than either R or D. I voted Gary Johnson in the end. Many say i threw my vote away... but if more people wake up to the realization that we're not stuck with only two parties, then we'll eventually see better representation.

The media doesn't help either since it seems most "news" sources are beholden to one of our two major players.

Gridlock and partisainship are ruining things, IMO..

It is really the way we elect people. For a good example, look at Ralph Nader. By voting for their most favored candidate, liberals got their least favorite. Any third party will split one of the two parties vote, thereby guaranteeing the victory of the unsplit party.

It is a flaw in our system of elections. Three viable parties is highly unlikely for systemic reasons, not educational ones.

 

[Murloc]

the winner-becomes-king government election system leads to bipartitism. Drop the presidential system or you can't "create" more parties.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It is really the way we elect people. For a good example, look at Ralph Nader. By voting for their most favored candidate, liberals got their least favorite. Any third party will split one of the two parties vote, thereby guaranteeing the victory of the unsplit party.

Exactly, that was my point #3 above.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Here is a good explanation why our current system generates only two parties, and voting for a 3rd party really is wasting your vote.

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained

 

[Lithium381]

Here is a good explanation why our current system generates only two parties, and voting for a 3rd party really is wasting your vote.

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained

Hmmm, scary! So by voting for who best represents me rather than one of the two main parties who marginally represents me, i end up with the major party that least represents me. Bah Humbug!

 

[Craig234]

Hmmm, scary! So by voting for who best represents me rather than one of the two main parties who marginally represents me, i end up with the major party that least represents me. Bah Humbug!

This is why I advocate 'ranked voting' so that you vote for your favorite candidate and don't waste your vote by doing so.

I advocate that even though it's against my political preferences - it'd help third parties I disagree with very much do better, but I support it because it's better for democracy.

Let me know if you need an explanation of ranked voting.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Also known as instant runoff voting -- used in Australia (which also has mandatory voting).

Tbis systemis fair, sensible and could lead to real change -- which means it will never happen.

 

[werepossum]

Also known as instant runoff voting -- used in Australia (which also has mandatory voting).

Tbis systemis fair, sensible and could lead to real change -- which means it will never happen.

Probably an accurate summation all the way around. Same reason the FairTax is a useless exercise; those in power are never going to legislate away their greatest powers, the power to reward and punish via tax code and the power of assuring they have the maximum chance to remain in power. It would be a great thing though; not since Reagan has my candidate in a contested primary been the candidate before Romney - but if we had ranked voting, my guy would have been Johnson, probably with Huntsman #2 and Mitt, much as I love him, as #3.

You know - this COULD be implemented at the state or party level, if enough people got involved.