How does one start a new political party in the US?

@TinyViolins That was a solid comment. But I disagree about a better system of governance though. We get exactly what we put in to it. It's set up that way.
Something like 30% of legal voters turn out for local elections. 40-50 percent for state. Even the Presidential election is usually around 60 percent. And of those, a WHOLE lot of people have been manipulated to vote against what's in their own best interest and the interests of others.
So I think the system is fine. PEOPLE are the problem. We get what we deserve.

@Ynotisay I'd disagree given that the two-party system is designed to maintain its power structure by deciding who gets to appear on the ballot. Remember how Bernie got shafted in 2016? That wasn't voters doing that. What's Bernie's alternative in that situation? Steal votes from Hillary in the general election by running as a third candidate or leave the DNC altogether and fail to accomplish much on his own?

Just look at how the Republican Party has been hijacked by Trump. Trump has never won the majority of the votes in any election he's been in, but still beat out other candidates simply by winning the plurality. Something like ranked-choice voting or open primaries would have lead to saner candidates rising to the top instead of a first-past-the-post approach.

I think a big reason why people don't show up to the primaries is because so many primaries are closed to only registered Republicans or registered Democrats. There are no real alternatives for the large group of centrists and independents in the middle, so we've been seeing candidates get increasingly more polarized with each election cycle. An open primary system would make it so that anybody can show up and make their voices heard instead of having to choose between two extremes

I mean, do you really think 80 million people were thrilled at the idea of Biden becoming president, or were most of them just hoping for someone other than Trump?

@TinyViolins [quote]You have to get registered at the state level .. etc.[/quote] Not from USA, I'm curious: At what level of your political, government or constitutional level are these requirements (for creating a political party) mandated?

@Really It's part of the federalist nature of our government. Whatever powers aren't explicitly stated at the national level are delegated to the states themselves, so each state has it's own election process. It can get pretty messy.

For example, most states have a winner-take-all approach in the Electoral College, where whichever presidential candidate gets the largest plurality of the votes ends up getting all of them. However in Nebraska and Maine, the votes get split proportionally for each candidate's share of the total vote.

Another example is how in 2020, the state of Georgia had to have a special run-off following the main November election because they have a system where for congressional races, run-off elections get triggered if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote

@TinyViolins Bernie didn't get shafted. Bernie lost, badly, because citizens weren't buying what he was selling. Rightfully so. He pimped a magic wand that doesn't exist. If you look at the amount of legislation he's written in his looong tenure, it's pretty clear that legislation isn't what he's about.
And there are no viable alternatives because there isn't one that resonates. Which is more proof of what I said. PEOPLE control our system of government. If there was a better alternative it would be on the table. But it's not. For a reason.
But let's say a 'third party' appears. How does that play out in Congress? It doesn't.
And people don't have to vote for one of two parties. There's plenty of options. None of which has what it takes to legislate. That's why they'll always be on the sidelines. Right now the choice is between Democracy and Fascism. That's crystal clear. And no third party can touch that battle.

@Ynotisay That's a blatant lie given how there are thousands of leaked emails showing top DNC officials conspiring in ways to make Bernie look bad. How else do you think a clown like Trump was able to beat Hillary Clinton? The DNC picked Hillary from the start and ended up alienating a large chunk of their voters by pulling the stunts that got revealed in these emails. The DNC had to shakeup nearly its entire top brass because of how much backlash they got for this

A third party in congress would force each party to try to negotiate with each other in order to get a majority of votes instead of just voting down the party line blindly. Look at how much heat Congressional Republicans got for voting to impeach Trump. They got death threats, they opted to let their terms expire, and they lost in the primary election. None of this would have been as bad if there wasn't such a massive split between the parties. A third party at the least serves to bridge a gap and cool things off for people fearing 'the other side'.

When people have choices, they tend to be less tribal. Nobody is willing to go to war for the company they work for because they know they could go to work for a similar company within the industry.

@TinyViolins Thanks; but I was curious as to whether the rules for forming a party are written in your constitution, or have been created otherwise and by what process?

@TinyViolins A blatant lie? I stopped reading there.
You're free to choose a world of make believe and emotion if you want. But don't throw that bullshit back at me. A lie? Nah.
Side note bud. What party is Sanders from? He tried to use Democrats, didn't he? So cute though how the emotional ALWAYS need an enemy to blame for their own failures and horseshit. Never fails. I'm done with this one dude. Have a good one.

@Ynotisay https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html

Even your gods at the NYT pointed it out. You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but attempting to change the facts when they don't suit your narrative is the surest sign of a total dumbass

@TinyViolins [quote]the surest sign of a total dumbass ....[/quote] .... is to fail to identify the person he's talking to/about, on an open forum; either by hitting 'reply' or by providing their name.

@Really Side note, this is why elderly candidates should be banned from holding office

@TinyViolins I thought you were in the 31-35 age bracket. That's not elderly. But thanks for using 'reply'.

@Really Been using it this whole time, Magoo

@TinyViolins Not true. If you'd used 'reply' your reply would display the name of the user you're responding to.

@Really All of my replies display the user's name. Christ, someone really needs to put you out to pasture

@TinyViolins None of these 3 recent posts identified the person they refer or respond to:

[quote]TinyViolins · 31-35, M
I'd disagree given that the two-party system ....[/quote]

[quote]TinyViolins · 31-35, M
That's a blatant lie[/quote]

[quote]TinyViolins · 31-35, M
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html

Even your gods at the NYT pointed it out[/quote]

Maybe you're just too young to understand 😁.

@Really That's probably because that user blocked you or you blocked him, in which case it blocks out their username. Nothing I can do about that

@TinyViolins That's an interesting possibility but I don't know all the details of what blocking does. Can you give me any of the names in question and I'll see if I've blocked them? Apologies if I've maligned you :).

@TinyViolins The Forward Party is a joke. Even the Libertarian party is bigger and they’ve even had candidates elected to office.

@LeopoldBloom The Forward Party has stated that they're not running any candidates. Libertarians waste their money and resources every election cycle by nominating candidates with no chance of winning. The Forward Party right now is focused on election reforms to make third party candidates viable. They can do so through ballot initiatives

@TinyViolins Ballot initiatives aren't an option in many states, and don't exist at the federal level. The only election reforms we need are abolishing the Electoral College and making every election ranked choice.

@LeopoldBloom States tend to copy other states when something works for its citizens. It's a longer-term goal, not a sudden 2024 Hail Mary.

Good luck trying to convince politicians to eliminate the Electoral College. The GOP will never support it because they know they'll lose, and the Democrats will forever alienate rural voters since they'll be sold constant rhetoric about how they've been disenfranchised

@TinyViolins The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will eliminate the EC without a constitutional amendment. But the reason politicians won't support it is because it will force them to campaign in every state, since every vote will count equally. The EC makes it easier because they only have to campaign in a few swing states. There's no reason to campaign in the expensive media markets of CA, NY, IL, or TX because those states are in the bag for one party or the other. So it comes down to a handful of voters in a few states.

It remains to be seen if Yang can gather enough support to do anything without running any candidates. The way to build a political party is to start at the bottom. Put people on school boards and city hall, work up to state legislatures, then Congress.

@LeopoldBloom The problem with that is that so far only 15 states - all of them Democratic - have signed on to the agreement in the 15 years since it's been proposed. The likelihood of getting over the finish line anytime soon is basically nil.

The problem with getting other states to sign on is that the top 4 states have as many popular votes as the bottom 35. In this future, a candidate would have every incentive to focus their campaigning in mostly the popular states and basically exclude 2/3rds of the country. As much as I hate the Electoral College, this compact is never going to happen.

@TinyViolins I agree, that's a problem. Another problem is enforcement - making sure each member state sends its EVs to the national vote winner even if that candidate lost in that state. Also, once the compact is in effect, it will be challenged in court, and the Supreme Court could rule that while it doesn't violate the Constitution (since each state decides how to cast its EVs) it goes against the intention. Or whatever. The current court will never approve a system that will result in Democrats winning.