Jesus.

I'm on board.

I don't necessarily think a two party system is bad. Imagine the presidential race is open to as many candidates. So imagine its split between 5 viable candidates all on equal footing: Trump for the GOP, Biden for the Democrats, Sanders as a Socialist, Johnson as a Libertarian, Stein as a Green Party, and

All is said and done: Trump wins 25% of the vote, Biden wins 24%, Sanders wins 23% Johnson wins 14% and Stein wins 14%. Trump still wins only this time, he barely won over any people.

In my opinion the greatest weakness of multi-party systems is the lack of consensus that forms from it. Look at the UK right now and Brexit. It cannot agree on anything. While a two party system may not fix it, the votes in a two party system are not as diluted.

Aside from that, I enjoyed watching that clip and will definitely be looking into it. I already volunteer for the Democratic Party of Virginia, but anti-corruption initiatives are pretty worthwhile.

Depends on whether you'd insist on using the flawed first past the post voting system. If you held that election in Australia, then Trump would not win, although he might come close on preferences from Johnson voters.

Using first past the post heavily favours a two-party system. The one thing that mitigates it somewhat in the US is the primary system, which allows local constituencies some choice over the particular flavour of Rep or Dem on the menu.

willhud9 wrote:All is said and done: Trump wins 25% of the vote, Biden wins 24%, Sanders wins 23% Johnson wins 14% and Stein wins 14%. Trump still wins only this time, he barely won over any people.

That's why you'd have transferable or preference voting to create a majority.

willhud9 wrote:In my opinion the greatest weakness of multi-party systems is the lack of consensus that forms from it. Look at the UK right now and Brexit. It cannot agree on anything. While a two party system may not fix it, the votes in a two party system are not as diluted.

The UK has a first past the post two party system.

Thommo wrote:

willhud9 wrote:In my opinion the greatest weakness of multi-party systems is the lack of consensus that forms from it. Look at the UK right now and Brexit. It cannot agree on anything. While a two party system may not fix it, the votes in a two party system are not as diluted.

The UK has a first past the post two party system.

It is often referred to as the UK's FPTPTPS.

Two party systems have nothing to do with democracy. It was developed by the rich for the rich. it was never meant to be a system where power was given to the masses especially in America.

LucidFlight wrote:FPTPTPS.

Also the noise made by a flat tyre.

willhud9 wrote:I don't necessarily think a two party system is bad. Imagine the presidential race is open to as many candidates. So imagine its split between 5 viable candidates all on equal footing: Trump for the GOP, Biden for the Democrats, Sanders as a Socialist, Johnson as a Libertarian, Stein as a Green Party, and

All is said and done: Trump wins 25% of the vote, Biden wins 24%, Sanders wins 23% Johnson wins 14% and Stein wins 14%. Trump still wins only this time, he barely won over any people.

In my opinion the greatest weakness of multi-party systems is the lack of consensus that forms from it. Look at the UK right now and Brexit. It cannot agree on anything. While a two party system may not fix it, the votes in a two party system are not as diluted.

Aside from that, I enjoyed watching that clip and will definitely be looking into it. I already volunteer for the Democratic Party of Virginia, but anti-corruption initiatives are pretty worthwhile.

The problem with a 2 parties system, is that it leads to the current situation in the US : the entire population is extremely polarized. It also leads to the us VS them mentality. And it marginalizes other positions. I don't see how this can be avoided, in the long term, or how it is better than having "votes diluted". Brexit is an extreme example. Other democracies don't have this problem.

This is the common reason given for FPTP; it gives stronger governments which is bollocks. What is the main purpose of government? To represent the people. Your cant represent the people with two parties especially when one has all the money.

OlivierK wrote:Depends on whether you'd insist on using the flawed first past the post voting system. If you held that election in Australia, then Trump would not win, although he might come close on preferences from Johnson voters.

Using first past the post heavily favours a two-party system. The one thing that mitigates it somewhat in the US is the primary system, which allows local constituencies some choice over the particular flavour of Rep or Dem on the menu.

Preferences sound like what we call ranked choice voting in Maine? In the senate race, for instance, I voted Ringelstein as my 1st preference, Angus King as my second preference, and Eric Brakey wasn't a preference at all.
If there was no candidate with 51% of the votes, then it goes to the ranked choices. My vote for Angus King as the second preference/choice would become a vote for him if/when Ringelstein came in last place and was dropped from the race. I love this system. Republicans hate it.

That's the one. We use it for everything.

We just use PR. Simple.

willhud9 wrote:I don't necessarily think a two party system is bad. Imagine the presidential race is open to as many candidates. So imagine its split between 5 viable candidates all on equal footing: Trump for the GOP, Biden for the Democrats, Sanders as a Socialist, Johnson as a Libertarian, Stein as a Green Party, and

All is said and done: Trump wins 25% of the vote, Biden wins 24%, Sanders wins 23% Johnson wins 14% and Stein wins 14%. Trump still wins only this time, he barely won over any people.

In my opinion the greatest weakness of multi-party systems is the lack of consensus that forms from it. Look at the UK right now and Brexit. It cannot agree on anything. While a two party system may not fix it, the votes in a two party system are not as diluted.

Aside from that, I enjoyed watching that clip and will definitely be looking into it. I already volunteer for the Democratic Party of Virginia, but anti-corruption initiatives are pretty worthwhile.

As said, Brexit is an extreme. Our MMP system does a fairly good job, despite what the butthurt Tories here might think after they got spanked in the last election. In saying that, our population is a tiny fraction of the US.

Yeah, but if we take the USA as a template, sparsely populated areas are conservative dominated and it's in the fleshpots of the coasts that you'll see blooms of liberals.

aban57 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:I don't necessarily think a two party system is bad. Imagine the presidential race is open to as many candidates. So imagine its split between 5 viable candidates all on equal footing: Trump for the GOP, Biden for the Democrats, Sanders as a Socialist, Johnson as a Libertarian, Stein as a Green Party, and

All is said and done: Trump wins 25% of the vote, Biden wins 24%, Sanders wins 23% Johnson wins 14% and Stein wins 14%. Trump still wins only this time, he barely won over any people.

In my opinion the greatest weakness of multi-party systems is the lack of consensus that forms from it. Look at the UK right now and Brexit. It cannot agree on anything. While a two party system may not fix it, the votes in a two party system are not as diluted.

Aside from that, I enjoyed watching that clip and will definitely be looking into it. I already volunteer for the Democratic Party of Virginia, but anti-corruption initiatives are pretty worthwhile.

The problem with a 2 parties system, is that it leads to the current situation in the US : the entire population is extremely polarized. It also leads to the us VS them mentality. And it marginalizes other positions. I don't see how this can be avoided, in the long term, or how it is better than having "votes diluted". Brexit is an extreme example. Other democracies don't have this problem.

There is nothing wrong with a polarized population. The idea that the middle ground is somehow more rational or better is antiquated.

Compromise is necessary for governing sure, but also potentially has set backs. ACA for example is a hot fucking mess of a bill. Does it do good? Sure. But it also didn't fix a main issue of healthcare as many insurers simply raised their premiums and screwed over many with preexisting conditions. ACA came from the Obama administration compromising (when they had a supermajority) because they wanted to play to both sides.

As a liberal there are times its frustrating watching the GOP obstruct progress. Things like Climate Change we have very little fucking time to compromise on. Its "fix it 10 years ago or we're fucked."

And Brexit isn't more extreme. The video says public support has a 30% chance of getting a law passed in our current system. Just looking at the political dissatisfaction in France, Spain, and other parliamentary systems with multiparties I don't see that changing just because the people have more "representation." Debates in the government at a federal level become mired and bogged down.

Then you have single issue parties that form. Can you imagine the power the Pro-life movement or gun-lobby would have if it formed its own political party and had full representation in Congress, not just by proxy to the GOP but actual single voter representation? It'd be a nightmare for women rights and sensible gun reform.

Essentially you are shifting the goalpost from lobbyists to direct representatives who can and will get elected to harp on single issue policies and form coalitions.

I don't see it as being a solution. Sorry if Im pessimistic about the idea.

willhud9 wrote:There is nothing wrong with a polarized population. The idea that the middle ground is somehow more rational or better is antiquated.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that, but it's not really on topic.

One virtue of the centre is that you don't see a centrist equivalent of the white nationalists literally fighting in the streets with antifa.

OlivierK wrote:Depends on whether you'd insist on using the flawed first past the post voting system. If you held that election in Australia, then Trump would not win, although he might come close on preferences from Johnson voters.

Using first past the post heavily favours a two-party system. The one thing that mitigates it somewhat in the US is the primary system, which allows local constituencies some choice over the particular flavour of Rep or Dem on the menu.

Exactly. The two party system is a symptom of the flawed voting process, not the cause. The US has several political parties, but the way the voting system works and the money that drives it will always prefer the two establishment parties.

willhud9 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with a polarized population.

There's nothing worse. Congress is paralyzed because of this polarization. And when Congress stops doing its job of passing legislation, the SCOTUS (via judicial activism) and the POTUS (via executive order, i.e. Trump's stupid wall emergency or DACA for example) end up picking up the slack. The whole system is broken in large part because of this insane polarization caused by the Duverger effect that naturally occurs with FPTP.

Polarized peoples are so vulnerable.