What would it take for the U.S. to abandon the two-party system?

uafan4life · Dec 13, 2016

Looking for legitimate, logical, feasible answers here...

While I appreciate the simplicity of a meteor strike on Washington D.C., it isn't really a feasible solution.

Personally, I would prefer a five or seven party system but, really, any number greater than two would be an improvement.

So, what do you guys think? What would it realistically take for the U.S. to abandon the two-party system - at least at the Federal level?

Bamaro · Dec 13, 2016

This past election was a golden opportunity for a third party candidate since both Clinton and Trump both had such unfavorable numbers. Unfortunately the alternatives were weak also. Unfortunately I dont see anything changing anytime soon.

theballguy · Dec 13, 2016

Honestly... higher individual intelligence and more involvement in our system than our citizens currently show. After 200+ years our country has been able to compact the issues down into two camps. You either fit into a "conservative" mold or a "liberal" mold though almost everyone has an issue here and there they don't follow according to each camp's lines. It's simply too easy for a person to pick one or the other. Giving people too many choices is effectively not a good idea. If you've ever dealt directly with American customers, it's pretty much apparent. Wish it weren't that way but that's how it is. On top of all that, I personally don't give too many hoots about politics. Too many other things to keep me busy.

MattinBama · Dec 13, 2016

theballguy said:
Honestly... higher individual intelligence

That was going to be my first and only point. Better education and stopping the dumbing down of America.

CharminTide · Dec 13, 2016

MattinBama said:
That was going to be my first and only point. Better education and stopping the dumbing down of America.

It's good that you still have dreams.

MattinBama · Dec 13, 2016

CharminTide said:
It's good that you still have dreams.

I'm under no illusion that it will ever change. At least not until we're made up of 12 different countries and then only some of them will be doing better.

92tide · Dec 13, 2016

i don't think that more than two parties would significantly change anything.

JBama_in_PCOLA · Dec 13, 2016

Total destruction. That's the only way.

[emoji208]Sent from my iPhone [emoji336]using Tapatalk Pro

theballguy · Dec 13, 2016

The average IQ for an American is somewhere between 95 and 105. Let's face it, if you give someone more than a 15 second soundbyte, the eyes glaze over because the listener has always started working on a response that usually is ... "well, thanks for that, but I'm not interested." Frankly, I feel like we are simply too busy and apathetic. Some of that's good but not mostly.

Wilson Monroe · Dec 13, 2016

Would have to retool the entire election process. There would need to be limits on campaign finance, political advertisement time (limit it to one quarter of the election year), and offer a larger set number of podium spots during debates. Kind of like a four team playoff! :biggrin: Then the laws would have to actually be enforced. Best of luck with that!

Tide1986 · Dec 13, 2016

Duverger's Law

Here's a simple Wiki explanation:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

In political science, Duverger's law holds that plurality-rule elections (such as first past the post) structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system and that "the double ballot majority system and proportional representation tend to favor multipartism".[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] The discovery of this tendency is attributed to Maurice Duverger, a French sociologist who observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other political scientists began calling the effect a "law" or principle.

NationalTitles18 · Dec 13, 2016

I don't know, but I do know the rent is too damn high!

Bamaro · Dec 13, 2016

Maybe we just need two better parties.

Tidewater · Dec 13, 2016

Tide1986 said:
Duverger's Law

Here's a simple Wiki explanation:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

Ding, ding. Here's your answer. The system is the way it is because of the structure of the system. First past the post means two party. Third parties always hurt the major party closest to the third party position.

Alternatively, proportional representation (Greens get 5% of the vote, so they get 5% of the members of Congress) enables political extremes. For example, the proportional representation system of Weimar Germany gave Germany the National Socialists and the German Communist party.
In other words, no thanks.

NationalTitles18 · Dec 13, 2016

Tidewater said:
Ding, ding. Here's your answer. The system is the way it is because of the structure of the system. First past the post means two party. Third parties always hurt the major party closest to the third party position.

Alternatively, proportional representation (Greens get 5% of the vote, so they get 5% of the members of Congress) enables political extremes. For example, the proportional representation system of Weimar Germany gave Germany the National Socialists and the German Communist party.
In other words, no thanks.

Might the ranked voting system be a viable alternative to either extreme?

CrimsonRuss · Dec 13, 2016

Until we take corporate money out of American politics it's a moot point. Both parties are addicted to Wall Street/Corporate money and are completely out of touch with 99% of its constituents.

Tidewater · Dec 13, 2016

NationalTitles16 said:
Might the ranked voting system be a viable alternative to either extreme?

Maybe. How in your view would that work?

Tidewater · Dec 13, 2016

CrimsonRuss said:
Until we take corporate money out of American politics it's a moot point. Both parties are addicted to Wall Street/Corporate money and are completely out of touch with 99% of its constituents.

Term limit of one (1) per Federal office would go a long way to fix that (with the Roman republic's five years off between terms in office). No re-election, not need for re-election campaign money.

NationalTitles18 · Dec 13, 2016

Tidewater said:
Maybe. How in your view would that work?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/maine-ranked-choice-voting_us_581e49bee4b0aac62484dfb8

Huffington Post there, but Reason had an article a while back as well, as have others.

Basically, you indicate your primary choice. That may be a third party candidate. Assume none gets a majority. The current system already has a winner without a majority. Ranked voting would allow you pick a # 2 and #3 and so on choice and as candidates with the lowest vote total are eliminated the candidate remaining highest on your ranking list receives your vote (similar to an automated runoff) until one candidate has a majority of votes. You may choose to vote for one person and not rank your vote. In that case, if your #1 is eliminated then that's it for your vote.

CrimsonRuss · Dec 13, 2016

Tidewater said:
Term limit of one (1) per Federal office would go a long way to fix that (with the Roman republic's five years off between terms in office). No re-election, not need for re-election campaign money.

I think that would be a great start, but you still have to address the elephant in the room. Unless we take Wall Street/Corporate money out of politics. What you would more than likely see would be a change in the their tactics. Instead of buying politicians on both sides of the isle they would simple lease them and then back/finance their successors campaigns to ensure that their policies keep moving ahead unchanged.

What would it take for the U.S. to abandon the two-party system?

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

1st Team

Suspended

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

1st Team

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

1st Team

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!