Lobbing this out there for folks that are more in tune with the intricacies of the political parties.

Is the predominately 2 party system hurting the US more than it is helping at this time? The saying, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, keeps coming to mind.

Fringe groups that are more radical on both sides of the political spectrum are pigeon holed as either liberal (Democrat) or conservative (Republican) and then supported by the funding of the larger organization to help defeat their common enemy.

Would breaking the larger groups down allow for greater visibility of the different sub-organizations positions and intentions? Would this allow an opportunity to work through and actually resolve issues when folks are able to separate peripheral noise from the problem?

Rookie on Political board - naive questions - I get it - fire away.

Yes

We only have a two party system because people are stubborn, and ignorant of history. This football team-esque political crap has produced a monolithic uni-party that pits on different faces to appeal to different people..... same corrupt crap in charge

Our system naturally resolves to the formation of Interest coalitions required to Achieve a majority for any elective office, which usually means two dominant opposing parties kowtowing to as many marginal special interest categories as they can bring into the fold each election cycle. It's sort of adversarial and tribal in nature, but that is consistent with human behavioral tendencies. To join a third party and actually vote that way is to marginalize ones-self effectively, as the winning party won't care.

so you want the govt picking the number of parties?

Not sure how you could force a 3rd party with how much it costs to run a winning campaign.

Dismantle party systems altogether?
Federally funded campaigns only?
How would state elections be affected and paid for?

I'm all for it, but the logistics of getting there make my head hurt.

It's time for the tribal nature of Republicans and Democrats alike to stop infecting them to the point that they'll hold their nose at the ballot box or keep voting 'against' candidates instead of FOR candidates.

So yes, a major fracture of both national parties would be one of the more welcome political eras in our nation's history. And it's needed more than ever right now. But it has to happen by the people.

The problem with breaking up the two party system is that once you break it up, the Democrats will coalesce under one of the new "smaller" parties and dominate politics.

Conservatives will be forced to then consolidate their power into a new large party as well in order to battle the cheating liberals. All other fringe parties that popped up that didn't consolidate on both sides would become irrelevant.

Thus would go back to a two party system again.

Alternative political movements and parties are considered, evaluated , and even created continuously and perpetually but it will only happen to the point of being an effective alternative to R's & D's organically. The cards are seriously stacked against it.

I would start with local and state elections, trying to go full national with unsupported parties isn't gonna work

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Our system naturally resolves to the formation of Interest coalitions required Achieve a majority for any elective office, which usually means two dominant opposing parties kowtowing to as many marginal special interest categories as they can bring into the fold each election cycle. It's sort of adversarial and tribal in nature, but that is consistent with human behavioral tendencies. To join a third party and actually vote that way is to marginalize ones-self effectively, as the winning party won't care.

---

This. Unless you change the electoral system to one of proportionate representation (which I do not favor), or you have regional issues which don't run across the country, you're going to end up with two dominant parties.

Our system will always resolve to two dominant political groups over time, though those coalitions might change in makeup or identity.

No.

Can we try Ranked Voting first?

Its worth a look for a few reasons.

1. The two parties frequently conspire to prevent other parties and ideas from getting air time. There are many instances of this that are spectacularly egregious. Its a level and practice of corruption that is so longstanding and prevalent, we have normalized it.

2. In 2020 and foreseeable future there isn't much to Republican or Democrat. It is hard-left vs. everyone else. The two parties literally don't mean anything.

3. The two parties can't really address issues effectively. A given issue can't be addressed because a portion of the voting base might be offended. So it gets ignored. Conversely, an issue is willed into place of being important and it forces people to take sides.

It would take reforming the legislator to a parliamentary type system, which just aint going to happen.

When the head executive is a president separate from the legislator, game theory dictates that the political competition will eventually evolve into 2 parties. That's an unavoidable attribute of our system of government.

Rgag is correct. Sure, it would be great to align myself into a party that I support on every issue/concern, but that party would only have a base for those exactly like me (aka not enough to win elections)

The answer to the question is YES, but we must be patient and make the enemy of this nation break their party first. We saw how the enemy feels about splitting (Biden handed the primary) and I would bet the house that Sanders does not run outside the party.

I like how things currently look as the DNC is going to Socialism. We need to extend a hand to those who disagree with the change and welcome them into our house of political tolerance. We need to actively pursue these individuals. I truly believe the individual over the collective is politically winning based on the drastic measures the enemy of this nation are taking.

Thanks for the informative replies. Been reading on multiparty systems and in the end, as several pointed out, they end up being 2 party.

Yes. Americans have less choice over who controls their politics than most any of free developed country because of it.

I don't really see a problem w the 2 party system.... candidates are never perfect, but you go with who you align closer with....


The problem in this country is the politicization of the media... it's an absolute ****show & the narratives drive fake news...

Quote:

---

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

. . .

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

---

George Washington, 1796

As soon as the most evil organization in our country's history (Democrat Party 1828-Now) no longer exists as a dominant voting bloc then we can entertain breaking up the resistance. Otherwise we are just enabling evil to win.

Cgp grey has a very informative video clearly showing the problems.

Want more parties with power? You need to change the way we count votes.

silverleaf said:

---

Cgp grey has a very informative video clearly showing the problems.

Want more parties with power? You need to change the way we count votes.

---

This.

A first past the post system naturally trends to two and eventually one party systems

It's time to destroy them both, one definitely needs to go but; both should.

Blow it all up, no parties, no more professional politicians, no more lobbyist. Federal representation - condos for the reps, townhomes for the senators. Provide them with a budget to upkeep their living quarters and the states can pitch in and help pay the tab.

Representation should not be a ticket to wealth. It should be an act of service to give back to the country and the society that gave, provided or took away so much from those desiring to serve that they feel strongly compelled to serve and represent the people of their stipulated, district or state.

Nearly as severe a problem is the unelected and unaccountable with any kind of removal edifice of the partisan national media that can practically set policy, and as we saw both last year and this one, seek to direct the economic fortunes.

When you add it being thoroughly wedded more to one of the parties than the other, and content to be activist rather than report, its a huge un-elected force as bad as the proverbial long entrenched `un-elected bureacracy'

Breaking the two party system and term limits are things that go hand in hand. We get a chance to vote on them every election, and we keep voting for stupid.

Burdizzo said:

---

Breaking the two party system and term limits are things that go hand in hand. We get a chance to vote on them every election, and we keep voting for stupid.

---

Nah, that's an illusion. You need term limits period, so you are not limited by stupid. The 22nd Amendment has been a success. And in computer terms -- you can't leave whether it is ever re-booted to the user. They never would. Inertia sets in.

titan said:

---

Nearly as severe a problem is the unelected and unaccountable with any kind of removal edifice of the partisan national media that can practically set policy, and as we saw both last year and this one, seek to direct the economic fortunes.

When you add it being thoroughly wedded more to one of the parties than the other, and content to be activist rather than report, its a huge un-elected force as bad as the proverbial long entrenched `un-elected bureacracy'

---

I would say that is honestly just as severe or moreso.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Can we try Ranked Voting first?

---

this

The problem with the 3rd party coalitions we've had is they are either far left or far right. Tea party or Democratic Socialists are two examples.

We need a 3rd party that sits in the middle between Democrats and Republicans. Really only needs to be able to elect a few senators and representatives that are willing to compromise with the right or left depending on the issue. They can't be just another coalition that always votes with the left or right.

Sounds simple enough but I don't see it ever happening.