Would the U.S. be Better Off…
If there was more Senators and Congressmen not belonging to either of the two major parties?
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
We would be better off without two major parties, period. Thomas Jefferson was correct in stating that political parties are a necessary evil and, unfortunately, SCOTUS doubled down on that with its Citizens United decision that money has First Amendment rights. We would be much better off with a variety of smaller political parties, providing a wider array of choices, than two Big Tent Parties forcing everyone into polarized positions.
NightSkyWalker · 31-35, M
Excellent
Softandsweet2 · 36-40, F
luckranger71 · 56-60, M
Well yes, but it’s kind of impossible to have more than two parties based on the way our government was created. It’s not a parliamentary system. Plus things like the electoral college, and winner take all congressional districts make it extremely difficult to sustain a viable third party.
The constitution would have to be amended to allow for different ways of selecting the Congress and President.
The constitution would have to be amended to allow for different ways of selecting the Congress and President.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@luckranger71 Granted, the founders opted not to have a parliamentary system. But they also did not envision political parties. They came later, well into the Adams and Jefferson presidencies. It is not so much the lack of a parliamentary system that has created the two party dominance -- it has been those parties gaming the electoral processes through federal and state laws that make it extremely difficult for other parties to qualify candidates to be put on the ballot, let alone gain sufficient traction to be included in debates and be taken seriously by broader media outlets. And with SCOTUS having killed campaign financing restrictions, why should the oligarchs waste any money on smaller parties?
Thevy29 · 41-45, M
Ranked Voting would help you
Elessar · 31-35, M
Party doesn't matter if tech oligarchs and Putin can buy them.
View 10 more replies »
Elessar · 31-35, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Exactly the same evidence as Israel and Saudi Arabia.
If observational evidence isn't good for Russia it isn't good for them either.
You must be one of those who think Ruby the heartstealer was truly Mubarak's granddaughter because there's technically no actual official evidence that it was a prostitution case 😆
If observational evidence isn't good for Russia it isn't good for them either.
You must be one of those who think Ruby the heartstealer was truly Mubarak's granddaughter because there's technically no actual official evidence that it was a prostitution case 😆
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@Elessar Your feelings are not evidence of anything.
Innuendo is not evidence. But the fact you can provide nothing to support your claims speaks volumes.
I can point to Khashoggi, free luxury jets, billions in corrupt deals in the GCC and Israel through his two real estate clowns pretending to be diplomats.
All you have is "trust me bro" and "Russia bad, because feelings."
Innuendo is not evidence. But the fact you can provide nothing to support your claims speaks volumes.
I can point to Khashoggi, free luxury jets, billions in corrupt deals in the GCC and Israel through his two real estate clowns pretending to be diplomats.
All you have is "trust me bro" and "Russia bad, because feelings."
Elessar · 31-35, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Neither are yours. Using your criteria there's no evidence against Israel and Saudi Arabia, just coincidences.
"No one was convicted for colluding with Israel, therefore it's purely conspiratorial believing that Israel influences American politics" - lmao
"No one was convicted for colluding with Israel, therefore it's purely conspiratorial believing that Israel influences American politics" - lmao
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
Not really that simple. It depends on the party and the candidate.
Like withing the Democrats you have complete opposites who claim to be part of the same party.
You have the left wing of the party that represent the base.
But you have the party leadership the "establishment" who have run the party since the 80s that are basically Republicans that got lost.
And as for so called third party there are groups like the Libertarians who are objectively terrible.
Like withing the Democrats you have complete opposites who claim to be part of the same party.
You have the left wing of the party that represent the base.
But you have the party leadership the "establishment" who have run the party since the 80s that are basically Republicans that got lost.
And as for so called third party there are groups like the Libertarians who are objectively terrible.
Yes and no... the current political structure gives unbelievable power to the controlling power, and I don't mean just the voting, but who gets to be on what committee board.
And those committee boards are where the real work gets done... and things have to first get past them before anything happens.
Their control over the boards basically forces politicians to caucus with one of the major parties, even if they're an independent or a 3rd party.
So, No, because if there were more parties, based on the current system, they would still have to caucus with a major party to get a seat at the committee table, and therefore, nothing might not change even with more parties.
But also yes, because the parties do their best to control everything and keep everyone in line, which doesn't really allow for original thoughts or competition and let the best win which is the bases of capitalism.
So basic, American political arena is not a true capitalism market, as the two parties have a locked in monopoly which lock everyone but the two two out.
And those committee boards are where the real work gets done... and things have to first get past them before anything happens.
Their control over the boards basically forces politicians to caucus with one of the major parties, even if they're an independent or a 3rd party.
So, No, because if there were more parties, based on the current system, they would still have to caucus with a major party to get a seat at the committee table, and therefore, nothing might not change even with more parties.
But also yes, because the parties do their best to control everything and keep everyone in line, which doesn't really allow for original thoughts or competition and let the best win which is the bases of capitalism.
So basic, American political arena is not a true capitalism market, as the two parties have a locked in monopoly which lock everyone but the two two out.
BohoBabe · M
Yes, but that won't happen until we have rank-choice voting.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
Other countries (like my native UK) have multiple parties but then it is needed because political parties are basically members' clubs. They have wildly varying levels of internal democracy, but it's often the case that the party leadership or central bureaucracy selects the candidates for elected office.
So, for instance, if the Labour Party moves to the right of most of its voters, there is no internal correction mechanism. You can't 'primary' your local MP. You can just write them an angry letter as a voter. So other parties are needed to represent the electorate. Though the big two tend to dominate, they often change course due to pressure from outside, including the success of smaller parties eating into their vote.
In America, you have internal election in which all registered supporters can vote. It is much more responsive. So I don't think third parties are needed in the US.
So, for instance, if the Labour Party moves to the right of most of its voters, there is no internal correction mechanism. You can't 'primary' your local MP. You can just write them an angry letter as a voter. So other parties are needed to represent the electorate. Though the big two tend to dominate, they often change course due to pressure from outside, including the success of smaller parties eating into their vote.
In America, you have internal election in which all registered supporters can vote. It is much more responsive. So I don't think third parties are needed in the US.
RedBaron · M
If there *WERE more…
And it’s not going to happen.
And it’s not going to happen.
ViciDraco · 41-45, M
I think that depends. I honestly believe a socially conservative but economically progressive party would end up extremely successful in the US. But that would be bad news for various minority groups, free thinkers, and non-conformists.
In all honesty it isn't the number of parties, it is how we elect them. Winner takes all first past the post by district. Makes it very easy for politicians to choose their voters. Would be far better off with ranked choice and parliamentary systems
In all honesty it isn't the number of parties, it is how we elect them. Winner takes all first past the post by district. Makes it very easy for politicians to choose their voters. Would be far better off with ranked choice and parliamentary systems
4meAndyou · F
Unfortunately, ONLY the two major parties are on the ballot in every single state. Some states have Green Party or Communist party on the ballot and others...but if ALL 50 states do NOT carry those parties on their ballots, they can't be elected to Congress.
The Democrat party now allows both socialists and communists to enter their party as long as they, (tongue in cheek), put the word "Democrat" after their name. What will happen NOW is that the Democrat party will be torn to pieces from within.
The Democrat party now allows both socialists and communists to enter their party as long as they, (tongue in cheek), put the word "Democrat" after their name. What will happen NOW is that the Democrat party will be torn to pieces from within.