A multiparty system is better than a two-party system

[Wilson23]

A legislative assembly should be as nearly exact a copy as possible of the people it governs, if not demographically, then at least in terms of their political views. But a two-party system is a distorting funhouse mirror -- some features exaggerated, others diminished to invisibility.

The downside of a multiparty system is instability -- Italy seems to average a new government a year since WWII. But that comes of combining a multiparty system with a parliamentary system where the legislature elects the executive -- which requires putting together COALITIONS to form a majority. The problem would not arise in a presidential or separation-of-powers system. Coalitions would be issue-specific, like the Libertarians and the Greens joining forces to legalize marijuana, even if they can agree on nothing else at all.

The best ways to facilitate the evolution of the American two-party system into a multiparty system are these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

 

[Wilson23]

If we evolved a multiparty system -- if the two major parties broke up along their natural fault-lines -- we might see in Congress:

1. A RW populist-nationalist party continuous with the Reform Party-Tea Party-Trump movement.
2. A bizcon party continuous with the old Republican mainstream.
3. A social-religious conservative Christian Nationalist party.
4. A White Nationalist party.
5. A centrist welfare-state-oriented party continuous with the old Democratic mainstream.
6. A left-progressive party.
7. A fully socialist party.
8. The Libertarian Party.
9. The Green Party,

 

[briancamdudetenger2018]

isnt that i keep saying lol

 

[Wilson23]

4. A White Nationalist party.

Now, in some countries with PR they have frozen out the most extreme radical parties by requiring a vote threshhold of 10% or something.

 

[Chernosoth]

The time to start such a system was over a century ago, maybe two centuries, before the two parties became deeply entrenched.

The nations with so many parties are much smaller. Here, the fubar orgy would be more regional parties, like Canada's Bloc Quebecois.

 

[Chernosoth]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Whether or not they intended it (I believe they did) the Founding Fathers put a system in place where a two party system was the only logical way it was going to go. Changing it requires changing the Constitution and we know how hard that is.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Whether or not they intended it (I believe they did) the Founding Fathers put a system in place where a two party system was the only logical way it was going to go. Changing it requires changing the Constitution and we know how hard that is.

We already have a multiple party system in the US. There have been many more than 2 parties in US history.

The other parties right now (Libertarian, Green, etc) just aren’t big enough to get anyone elected to Congress. But that could change with the right charismatic leader.

 

[Wilson23]

Whether or not they intended it (I believe they did) the Founding Fathers put a system in place where a two party system was the only logical way it was going to go. Changing it requires changing the Constitution and we know how hard that is.

No, the FFs did not envision any kind of party system at all. It seem obvious NOW that such are both an inevitable and desireable feature of republican government -- but that was a new thing in 1789.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, the FFs did not envision any kind of party system at all. It seem obvious NOW that such are both an inevitable and desireable feature of republican government -- but that was a new thing in 1789.

They made a system where the first person to 50%+1 wins. Its not complicated at all to know this was the ONLY way it could play out. It was so obvious that Washington was talking about it when he was leaving office. And America didn't invent democracy I'm certain if we looked back and observed other democracies (under whatever titles they chose) that we would see that factions ALWAYS form because that's the only way you accomplish anything.

 

[Sean Renaud]

We already have a multiple party system in the US. There have been many more than 2 parties in US history.

The other parties right now (Libertarian, Green, etc) just aren’t big enough to get anyone elected to Congress. But that could change with the right charismatic leader.

If they aren't big enough to even get significant seats in Congress they don't count. I think Ron Paul is a Libertarian in the same way that Sanders is an Independent but I could be wrong on that one. To be fair Libertarians ARE Republicans with different title.

It would take an unrealistic level of charisma to break in for a third party in a meaningful way. I mean so unbelievable that what would change would be we'd have a new TWO party system but still two parties because of how voting works.

 

[Wilson23]

They made a system where the first person to 50%+1 wins. Its not complicated at all to know this was the ONLY way it could play out. It was so obvious that Washington was talking about it when he was leaving office. And America didn't invent democracy I'm certain if we looked back and observed other democracies (under whatever titles they chose) that we would see that factions ALWAYS form because that's the only way you accomplish anything.

Yes, note that "The Federalist" never speaks of "parties," only as "factions" -- and treats them exclusively as a danger to be avoided, the thing that destroys republics.

 

[Chilllax]

A legislative assembly should be as nearly exact a copy as possible of the people it governs, if not demographically, then at least in terms of their political views. But a two-party system is a distorting funhouse mirror -- some features exaggerated, others diminished to invisibility.

The downside of a multiparty system is instability -- Italy seems to average a new government a year since WWII. But that comes of combining a multiparty system with a parliamentary system where the legislature elects the executive -- which requires putting together COALITIONS to form a majority. The problem would not arise in a presidential or separation-of-powers system. Coalitions would be issue-specific, like the Libertarians and the Greens joining forces to legalize marijuana, even if they can agree on nothing else at all.

The best ways to facilitate the evolution of the American two-party system into a multiparty system are these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

Fascinating topic but... umm.. no. I can tell from experience that coalition governments are the worst. You think the government moves slow now? Wait till you get a coalition government of competing agendas, time spent on mollifying your coalition on power share, slower than molasses decision making..
Democracy is messy, coalition governments make it messier.

 

[Wilson23]

If they aren't big enough to even get significant seats in Congress they don't count. I think Ron Paul is a Libertarian in the same way that Sanders is an Independent but I could be wrong on that one. To be fair Libertarians ARE Republicans with different title.

Libertarians are Republicans who smoke pot.

 

[Wilson23]

Fascinating topic but... umm.. no. I can tell from experience that coalition governments are the worst. You think the government moves slow now? Wait till you get a coalition government of competing agendas, time spent on mollifying your coalition on power share, slower than molasses decision making..
Democracy is messy, coalition governments make it messier.

FINALLY! Finally somebody sees fit to discuss the real RELEVANT ISSUES here!

 

[SebastianHolt]

A legislative assembly should be as nearly exact a copy as possible of the people it governs, if not demographically, then at least in terms of their political views. But a two-party system is a distorting funhouse mirror -- some features exaggerated, others diminished to invisibility.

The downside of a multiparty system is instability -- Italy seems to average a new government a year since WWII. But that comes of combining a multiparty system with a parliamentary system where the legislature elects the executive -- which requires putting together COALITIONS to form a majority. The problem would not arise in a presidential or separation-of-powers system. Coalitions would be issue-specific, like the Libertarians and the Greens joining forces to legalize marijuana, even if they can agree on nothing else at all.

The best ways to facilitate the evolution of the American two-party system into a multiparty system are these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

who's alt is this?

 

[SebastianHolt]

If they aren't big enough to even get significant seats in Congress they don't count. I think Ron Paul is a Libertarian in the same way that Sanders is an Independent but I could be wrong on that one. To be fair Libertarians ARE Republicans with different title.

It would take an unrealistic level of charisma to break in for a third party in a meaningful way. I mean so unbelievable that what would change would be we'd have a new TWO party system but still two parties because of how voting works.

yep, you nailed it

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Fascinating topic but... umm.. no. I can tell from experience that coalition governments are the worst. You think the government moves slow now? Wait till you get a coalition government of competing agendas, time spent on mollifying your coalition on power share, slower than molasses decision making..
Democracy is messy, coalition governments make it messier.

The Democratic Party is perpetually in disarray precisely because it is the American coalition. A lot of competing interests jockey for power inside it, which makes it hard for the Democrats to get anything done even when they’re in power.

The GOP has it easy. All their base cares about is white supremacy and tax cuts.

 

[SebastianHolt]

The Democratic Party is perpetually in disarray precisely because it is the American coalition. A lot of competing interests jockey for power inside it, which makes it hard for the Democrats to get anything done even when they’re in power.

The GOP has it easy. All their base cares about is white supremacy and tax cuts.

that's kind of B.S.

 

[rgraham666]

All forms of democracy suffer from the same problem. George Carlin put it best.

Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: "The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.”

One of the main reasons so many people are opposed to education is because they know it will go against their selfishness and ignorance. The massive drug dealing operation known as 'the internet' isn't helping much either.

 

[Sign54]

The Democratic Party is perpetually in disarray precisely because it is the American coalition. A lot of competing interests jockey for power inside it, which makes it hard for the Democrats to get anything done even when they’re in power.

The GOP has it easy. All their base cares about is white supremacy and tax cuts.

They also have the illusion of "better run states" that have few real advantages other than cheap housing, lower taxes(for the rich) and of course, warm weather.

 

[Chilllax]

The GOP has it easy. All their base cares about is white supremacy and tax cuts

Your comment on the Democrats are spot on. They seem to be a rudderless ship and therefore a toothless opposition, which is dangerous for democracy.
As a non-white person, i agree a little less about the Republicans. I bet there are some decent souls in there but the way they all seem to be toeing the President's line is very shocking. They are toothless too in that way.

 

[briancamdudetenger2018]

the us of a should have had a multi political parties system