USA How can we ditch the 2 party system?

[Lamb]

Do you think there is a way for the US to ditch the 2 party system? They seem to not have Americans in their best interests and can't work together anymore.

 

[vince284]

Yikes, I think China and Russia basically have one party and Venezuela is trying. :O_O:

 

[Lamb]

Yikes, I think China and Russia basically have one party and Venezuela is trying. :O_O:

The US used to have more than just Republicans and Democrats. I'd like to see the other parties emerge as victorious some day. We do have other parties it's just that they're not strong enough for people to vote for them for them to make a difference. Some people who didn't want to vote for either Hillary or Trump pretty much gave their votes away when they voted for another party...because not enough people will vote for the other party to win right now. How do we change that?

 

[Josiah]

Do you think there is a way for the US to ditch the 2 party system? They seem to not have Americans in their best interests and can't work together anymore.

Some points....


1. The VERY polemic milieu we have in the USA now is the NORM..... it is as it has been for MOST of US history. It was worse from 1780 to the mid 1800's. It's just that for brief periods: the early 1900's, the 1950's, somewhat in the 1990's, there was better working together than now. But certainly, what we have is terrible and really does hinder getting things done. It's just not unusual.


2. In the USA, parties are BIG TENTS, they are a loose collection of special interests. The whole concept of political parties (especially in the USA) is "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine," it's an agreement to mutually support and assist each other. Sometimes these special interest share the same basic political philosophy (Liberal vs. conservative) but not necessarily. These special interest struggle within the party for dominance and control so while they agree to cooperate, they also compete with each other within the party. Special interests can even switch parties (the pro-life position used to be in the Democratic party but switched to Republican in the late 70's.... the Civil rights element switched from the Republican to Democrat Party in the mid 1960's). Having the tent BIG helps all these special interests because it puts more groups in their camp, helping them. The smaller the party, the less helpful it is to be a part of one.


3. There are areas in the USA where there is, effectively, only one party (my state is one of these). And there have been times in American history when we were effectively a one-party country. IT'S NEVER GOOD (doesn't matter which party we're talking about). It's especially terrible and dangerous when that one party controls the press (as has sadly often been the case.... it is in my state). That one party quickly moves more and more radical and extreme, and in time, corrupt. It becomes a "machine." Think Chicago and Detroit.... think the state of LA in the past... Having two EFFECTUAL parties keeps both "in check" and keeps them from becoming too extreme and means corruption is more apt to be exposed. Especailly if there is an effective, non-partison press (which has never really been the case in the USA).


4. Many countries have numberous small parties - with far fewer special interests. But in order to get things done, they must form alliances and often end up with two elements, just as we have in the USA.





.

 

[MennoSota]

Do you think there is a way for the US to ditch the 2 party system? They seem to not have Americans in their best interests and can't work together anymore.

You could become a Socialist Democratic State like the Soviet Union where only one party was allowed and you had to vote within that one party. (Ironically, George Washington argued for such a one party system.)
Or you could eliminate the winner-takes-all system to make it a percentage vote. In other words, the winner must win 60% of the election with all candidates entering the pool. If a person cannot win 60%, then you wittle down the candidates with run-off voting until one gets at least 60%. That method allows for as many parties as you want and then let's competition weed out until you get the one who truly is in the majority. Since there would be so many different parties in Congress the group would have to work on concensus to get any bill passed. The elite political parties may become less useful or prevalent.

 

[tango]

The US used to have more than just Republicans and Democrats. I'd like to see the other parties emerge as victorious some day. We do have other parties it's just that they're not strong enough for people to vote for them for them to make a difference. Some people who didn't want to vote for either Hillary or Trump pretty much gave their votes away when they voted for another party...because not enough people will vote for the other party to win right now. How do we change that?

The trouble is that the system is self-perpetuating. Until there's a sufficiently large pushback against the two-party system it will continue. During the last election it seemed many Democrats hated Clinton but voted for her to keep Trump out, and many Republicans hated Trump but voted for him to keep Clinton out. Both sides insisted that a vote for a third-party candidate was a vote for the other. With the nation as divided as it is it's very easy to see why people don't want to support a third party candidate and risk their preferred party losing out.

Perhaps what is needed is a transferable vote where instead of putting an X in the box you can number candidates in order of preference. Then if your preferred candidate is eliminated your vote is transferred to your second choice and so on. So if you lean one way you might vote Castle 1, Trump 2; if you lean the other way you might vote Stein 1, Clinton 2. The chances of Castle or Stein getting elected are slim, in which case your votes would be transferred to Trump and Clinton respectively.

The fact such a system could encourage people to get rid of the duopoly is probably the reason it will never happen. For as long as both sides can divide the people while feathering their own nests it's unlikely anything will change.

 

[Albion]

The US used to have more than just Republicans and Democrats. I'd like to see the other parties emerge as victorious some day. We do have other parties it's just that they're not strong enough for people to vote for them for them to make a difference. Some people who didn't want to vote for either Hillary or Trump pretty much gave their votes away when they voted for another party...because not enough people will vote for the other party to win right now. How do we change that?

We could work for reform of the electoral system which essentially prevents third parties from being competitive. Those laws represent one thing on which the two major parties always have cooperated with each other!

 

[tango]

We could work for reform of the electoral system which essentially prevents third parties from being competitive. Those laws represent one thing on which the two major parties always have cooperated with each other!

Yes, the two major parties allowing anyone else to get a look in really would be like Turkeys voting for Thanksgiving.

Funny how the two parties can't cooperate in the interests of the people but can get along perfectly fine when their own self-interest is at stake, no?

 

[MennoSota]

We could work for reform of the electoral system which essentially prevents third parties from being competitive. Those laws represent one thing on which the two major parties always have cooperated with each other!

Proportional voting rather than winner-takes-all voting would encourage more parties. What would happen is that parties would have to build coalitions. However, the potential of no coalitions or compromise would still be there and radicals could still be in the representation.
I am reading a book by Senator Ben Sasse, entitled: THEM, Why We Hate Each Other and How to Heal, which ultimately calls for us to view one one another as image bearers of the Creator. Senator Sasse is a Reformed Christian who helped produce the podcast called, The White Horse Inn.

 

[Albion]

Proportional voting rather than winner-takes-all voting would encourage more parties. [/quote
You mean what it usually called Ranked Voting, I assume. Yes, it probably would make minor parties more relevant, and that is what some other proponents have argued.

[quote I am reading a book by Senator Ben Sasse, entitled: THEM, Why We Hate Each Other and How to Heal, which ultimately calls for us to view one one another as image bearers of the Creator. Senator Sasse is a Reformed Christian who helped produce the podcast called, The White Horse Inn.

I think Senator Ben Sasse would be further along if he put some of those Christian ideals into his professional life and stopped talking like the typical NeverTrumper all the time.





.

 

[tango]

Proportional voting rather than winner-takes-all voting would encourage more parties. What would happen is that parties would have to build coalitions. However, the potential of no coalitions or compromise would still be there and radicals could still be in the representation.
I am reading a book by Senator Ben Sasse, entitled: THEM, Why We Hate Each Other and How to Heal, which ultimately calls for us to view one one another as image bearers of the Creator. Senator Sasse is a Reformed Christian who helped produce the podcast called, The White Horse Inn.

Were you thinking of something countrywide, or at a state level? A state with a lot of representatives in Congress could probably work with some form of proportional voting (although I'd be inclined to remove the option to simply vote a straight party ticket as part of a reform). As soon as you cross state lines to measure the proportions you run into other issues.

One other thing I can't help thinking about, particularly with the candidacies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, is that each voter should be required to correctly identify some major policies of the candidate they have selected. During Obama's candidacy I remember hearing and reading comments that were nothing about his race, and a vote based on nothing more than "it's time we had a black president" or "I don't want no (expletive) (racial slur) in the White House" is useless. Likewise when Hillary Clinton stood recently any voting based purely on her gender is useless.

I sometimes wonder how many of what might be called the tribal voters (the one who have always voted a certain way, their parents always voted the same way, their grandparents always voted the same way, who don't even look at the sheet but tick the "R" or "D" box to just select every candidate from that party) actually know what the parties stand for, or whether they are the equivalent of the Animal Farm sheep bleating "this party good, that party bad".

I'm not sure you even need a particularly Christian perspective on things to try and heal the partisan divides that seem to be getting ever-worse. If we can just figure that each of us are reasonable people who don't do things that we know are stupid just to annoy other people, it isn't a huge leap of faith to figure that others are similar. The fact you and I drew different conclusions regarding the priority of national issues, the best way to solve them, and who should pick up the tab, doesn't mean either of us is inherently unreasonable.