How do we destroy the two-party system?

[Politruk]

And replace it with a multiparty system? Which is better.

The most important thing is proportional representation.

If, in the next election to your state legislature, 20% of the voters vote Green (or Socialist, Libertarian, Constitution, Reform -- substitute your own favorite third party), how many Greens get elected? Under our present single-member district, winner-take-all system, none, because there are not enough Green voters in any one district the elect a member. The present system just mathematically tends to produce a two-party system -- you have to find a place under one big tent or the other if you want to participate at all.

Under PR, if the Greens get 20% of the votes, they get 20% of the seats.

With respect to proportional representation, the problem is EXPLAINING it. Most Americans do not even know what it is. I have asked actual candidates for public office for their opinion on PR and they never know what I’m talking about – they always think the term has something to do with race-based redistricting.

It’s a publicity problem. PR would be a hot issue in America if the people only understood it is an option.

Check out FairVote.

 

[AceDesSpades]

It ain't broke. It is self-correcting.

 

[Politruk]

It ain't broke. It is self-correcting.

No broke, just sub-optimal. A multiparty system would be better, at providing effectual political expression for the will of all the people.

 

[Saint_Ann]

There aren't enough decent candidates available to stock 2 parties.

 

[AceDesSpades]

Murphy's law: never throw out the good for the sake of the perfect.

I think now is a day, a time of realities and not theoretical.

We should save those for a boring day,
not interesting times...

 

[Politruk]

Murphy's law: never throw out the good for the sake of the perfect.

That is not Murphy's law.

 

[SimonDoom]

There's no prospect of this happening, whatever one thinks of its merits.

 

[Rebel5soul]

The OP is a veritable fountain of idiocy.

 

[AceDesSpades]

There aren't enough decent candidates available to stock 2 parties.

That is a misnomer.
Most communities draft their best to maximize their vote.
Parties can choose hacks and wonks, but at the local level, the vote works where people know you.

We do not really know our candidates unless we have experienced them, or even read them.
See a lot of built-in, automatic antipathy towards JD Vance and a lot of ignorance about him,
proving that they have not read his book, seen the movie or researched him. That's weird.
They have an entire information/news/social bubble that tells them who he is for them.

 

[AceDesSpades]

That is not Murphy's law.

Oh good lord.

Good time to pretend that Pat Paulson is running for President from the grave, "Picky Picky Picky."

 

[Rebel5soul]

That is a misnomer.
Most communities draft their best to maximize their vote.
Parties can choose hacks and wonks, but at the local level, the vote works where people know you.

We do not really know our candidates unless we have experienced them, or even read them.
See a lot of built-in, automatic antipathy towards JD Vance and a lot of ignorance about him,
proving that they have not read his book, seen the movie or researched him. That's weird.
They have an entire information/news/social bubble that tells them who he is for them.

You presume they were even remotely interested in the truth.

 

[Saint_Ann]

That is a misnomer.
Most communities draft their best to maximize their vote.
Parties can choose hacks and wonks, but at the local level, the vote works where people know you.

We do not really know our candidates unless we have experienced them, or even read them.
See a lot of built-in, automatic antipathy towards JD Vance and a lot of ignorance about him,
proving that they have not read his book, seen the movie or researched him. That's weird.
They have an entire information/news/social bubble that tells them who he is for them.

Had plenty of time to experience Harris and Trump but that is who they gave us.

 

[AceDesSpades]

And they are being judged accordingly. Were...

Full jury of their peers in the only poll that matters. Finally.

 

[Politruk]

If we had PR, we might expect to see in Congress or a typical state legislature:

A white nationalist party such as the American Freedom Party.
The Libertarian Party.
A religious-right/paleoconservative/right-populist-nationalist party such as the Constitution Party or a revived Reform Party.
A center-right pro-biz party such as the Republicans (that is, a remnant of the GOP, after the above have split off).
A center-left pro-biz party such as the Democrats (again, a remnant).
A social-democratic/left-populist party such as the Working Families Party or the Socialist Party USA.
The Green Party.

 

[Rainblow]

And replace it with a multiparty system? Which is better.

The most important thing is proportional representation.

If, in the next election to your state legislature, 20% of the voters vote Green (or Socialist, Libertarian, Constitution, Reform -- substitute your own favorite third party), how many Greens get elected? Under our present single-member district, winner-take-all system, none, because there are not enough Green voters in any one district the elect a member. The present system just mathematically tends to produce a two-party system -- you have to find a place under one big tent or the other if you want to participate at all.

Under PR, if the Greens get 20% of the votes, they get 20% of the seats.

With respect to proportional representation, the problem is EXPLAINING it. Most Americans do not even know what it is. I have asked actual candidates for public office for their opinion on PR and they never know what I’m talking about – they always think the term has something to do with race-based redistricting.

It’s a publicity problem. PR would be a hot issue in America if the people only understood it is an option.

Check out FairVote.

It helps if you have a parliamentary monarchy.

 

[Politruk]

It helps if you have a parliamentary monarchy.

Weeellll . . . problem is, in a parliamentary system you have to "form a government" after the election, which is a lot harder if there is no one majority party in the legislature. Italy averages a government a year.

 

[Rainblow]

Weeellll . . . problem is, in a parliamentary system you have to "form a government" after the election, which is a lot harder if there is no one majority party in the legislature. Italy averages a government a year.

Most gov't are formed after an election, that's how elections work. Our parliamentary gov't is first past the post but proportional representation is always lurking in the background. The Liberals would have gone for it if it served them in future elections, it doesn't. At least with a minority parliamentary gov't the the minority party that forms the gov't has to kow tow to the other parties hence the roll out of a universal dental plan under Trudeau. We're on step closer to pr but you have miles to go.

 

[Politruk]

Most gov't are formed after an election, that's how elections work. Our parliamentary gov't is first past the post but proportional representation is always lurking in the background. The Liberals would have gone for it if it served them in future elections, it doesn't. At least with a minority parliamentary gov't the the minority party that forms the gov't has to kow tow to the other parties hence the roll out of a universal dental plan under Trudeau. We're on step closer to pr but you have miles to go.

I guess if Canada had PR, the New Democrats would be a much bigger deal than they are now. But, would that make it harder to form a government?

 

[Rightguide]

And replace it with a multiparty system? Which is better.

The most important thing is proportional representation.

If, in the next election to your state legislature, 20% of the voters vote Green (or Socialist, Libertarian, Constitution, Reform -- substitute your own favorite third party), how many Greens get elected? Under our present single-member district, winner-take-all system, none, because there are not enough Green voters in any one district the elect a member. The present system just mathematically tends to produce a two-party system -- you have to find a place under one big tent or the other if you want to participate at all.

Under PR, if the Greens get 20% of the votes, they get 20% of the seats.

With respect to proportional representation, the problem is EXPLAINING it. Most Americans do not even know what it is. I have asked actual candidates for public office for their opinion on PR and they never know what I’m talking about – they always think the term has something to do with race-based redistricting.

It’s a publicity problem. PR would be a hot issue in America if the people only understood it is an option.

Check out FairVote.

We already have a multi party system, but only two are popular writ large.

 

[Politruk]

We already have a multi party system, but only two are popular writ large.

That is not because only two political viewpoints are popular.

 

[Rightguide]

That is not because only two political viewpoints are popular.

The rest are too few to matter.

 

[Rainblow]

I guess if Canada had PR, the New Democrats would be a much bigger deal than they are now. But, would that make it harder to form a government?

Got that right, New Dems and the Green Party. As to forming a gov't it wouldn't be any different than it is now just people would have their views more accurately represented in parliament. Neo Cons are not so big on the idea, as their gov't represent big business always have always will. The Liberals as well but they throw people a bone every now and then.

 

[Politruk]

Neo Cons

In the U.S., neocons = warhawks. You have those in Canuckistan? We hardly have them down here any more.

 

[Rainblow]

In the U.S., neocons = warhawks. You have those in Canuckistan? We hardly have them down here any more.

They're a little different here, conservatives who became aligned with the religious right. They started gaining popularity during the Harper administration and have found more of a foot hold through right wing media. Neo- conservatives strongly support traditional family structures, opposition to abortion and family planning, and getting tough on crime. They are also notoriously anti immigration and pro oil and big business. Cons anti immigration sentiments play a big part in the rise of white supremacy. And Trump, he gave them a voice up here as well.

 

[Politruk]

They're a little different here, conservatives who became aligned with the religious right.

Didn't think there was much of a RR in Canada. But it's not surprising, you're so culturally similar to the U.S, in other ways.

The U.S. and Canada are probably the only countries in the world with a significant number of people who seriously expect to be Raptured.