Is the two party system dead

[KrisLace]

Well...

Sorry Sean, I'm with the Real Americans on this one. The founding father's were a bunch of upper class, genocidal, slave owning, power hungry, religious zealots. That is what we stand for.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sorry Sean, I'm with the Real Americans on this one. The founding father's were a bunch of upper class, genocidal, slave owning, power hungry, religious zealots. That is what we stand for.

But we aren't that today and would not define those traits as American. We would emphatically reject that. Not that they were religious zealots or particularly power hungry.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

Sorry Sean, I'm with the Real Americans on this one. The founding father's were a bunch of upper class, genocidal, slave owning, power hungry, religious zealots. That is what we stand for.

"The founding father's..." what?! And which one? They may not have used an IPad (neither am I) or picked their own cotton, but they knew proper punctuation.

 

[KrisLace]

oh hi, that was fast

i am being a little sarcastic, sorry. I don't know, we may reject that notion but as they say, the proof is in the pudding.

 

[KrisLace]

but...

punctuation was different back then and they had better schools

 

[KrisLace]

Ok

I'm gonna go before I get beat up

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

punctuation was different back then and they had better schools

That could be permanently closed if someone in that log building decided to light & smoke some weed...

After which they had the slave that picked the weed & the cotton take the whipping they were sentenced to for destroying the school.

(Sorry; Watching a lot of "Underground".)

 

[sr71plt]

Sorry Sean, I'm with the Real Americans on this one. The founding father's were a bunch of upper class, genocidal, slave owning, power hungry, religious zealots. That is what we stand for.

Not even close. upper class for the time? Yes, in new continent terms--not by any means in European terms of the time. Genocidal? In your dreams (wiping out the native population didn't even occur to them--they just wanted them to move out of the way. Jefferson, in fact, considered native Americans fully human, which he didn't accord to blacks, and noble and he associated with them). Slave owning? Maybe fewer than half of them. Power hungry? Almost none of them--they wanted to spend as little time governing on either the state or national level as they could and that's reflected in the government they set up (which was under the Article of Confederation. The Constitution came later when the Founding Fathers hadn't given or taken enough power centrally for the country to function). Religious zealots? In your dreams. The most influential of them were secret Deists, which is just about as nonreligious as you could get in that day.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You've been a slave to long, your mind can't grasp freedom.


Local: 1,000 towns/cities... 5,000,000 candidates.
County: 200 counties... 500,000 candidates.
States: 20 states... 50,000 candidates.
National: 1 country... 50 candidates.

Each bracket could take give or take 90 days. The entire thing could be over in 1-2 years.

Modern elections already take longer than that, and all of the brackets could fit in to the normal elections for local, county, and state offices we have already.

As of 2013 there were 3000 counties.

And 50 candidates? Can you imagine those debates? The 2012 and 2015 runs (on the R side) were completely jokes because 13-20 people is WAY WAY WAY too many people to be honestly running for president.

90 days for each bracket? No chance in hell. It takes longer than that for American Idol to weed down from 16 to 1. This plan is sheer madness.

 

[Sean Renaud]

To eliminate the 2 Party system there is but a single path. We have to beat the Prisoners Dilemma and I don't believe we are anywhere CLOSE to that pissed off.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

IMO, "2-party system" is certainly dead, but only in it needs a new name.

1] Why have 2 parties (aren't there more? Green, etc.) when we also have a bicameral government with 3 branches?

2] Neither is partying. Every election I can recall has the majority trying to prove they're better than the other (party, candidate, or both), & nobody (before or after election) really acting to make the country better than it was before they ran.

 

[Sean Renaud]

1) Because a winner take all all first past the finish line system DEMANDS two parties. It can be no other way.

2) That's the party part.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

1) Because a winner take all all first past the finish line system DEMANDS two parties. It can be no other way.

2) That's the party part.

1] When did they try it any other way? Remember when I was in a social-studies/history class in school during an election year, & they showed us a newspaper naming & picturing a half-dozen-or-so candidates & naming each of their parties... We all knew/know 90% had no chance of getting the win.

2] Why don't they be honest about that then? Instead of using songs at campaign stops by REM & other groups that send them "cease & desist" (or something like that) letters, all use "I Just Wanna Celebrate" with new lyrics admitting that's all they want & will do so if they win even though the only reason they wanted to run was b/c they saw the country was in the crapper in 80 different areas?!

 

[Sean Renaud]

1) There have been third party candidates in the past. Nader in 2000, Ross Perot in 92? (Not looking it up, I was a kid ffs and remember him from Animaniacs.) It just gives the victory to the guy you hate the most. We can adjust the system if we like but the current rules make it this way.

2.) Because it wouldn't be nearly as much fun?

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

1) There have been third party candidates in the past. Nader in 2000, Ross Perot in 92? (Not looking it up, I was a kid ffs and remember him from Animaniacs.) It just gives the victory to the guy you hate the most. We can adjust the system if we like but the current rules make it this way.

2.) Because it wouldn't be nearly as much fun?

I recall Nader & Perot, & a few others if I really tried... But I see no way they gave the win to the most-hated folks. (2000, for example. I say that's the reason an elder relative moved back to Ohio after living in Florida for years.)

2] Parties are usually fun, but having idiots ruin a country that's already in bad shape, & 1 I was forced to be born in & still forced to live in? Yeah, not so much.

 

[Sean Renaud]

1) The most hated is relative. Take this election for example. If Bernie ran a third party he would draw Hillary's supporters but probably not Trump. Trump wins. If Trump ran third party then Hillary wins and he sinks Cruz.

Or worst case scenario nobody wins and Congress coronates Cruz (I think, I'd have to go back and check the rules to see if they could crown whomever they please. It hasn't come up in forever.

2) The country isn't really in bad shape that's really the problem.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

1) The most hated is relative. Take this election for example. If Bernie ran a third party he would draw Hillary's supporters but probably not Trump. Trump wins. If Trump ran third party then Hillary wins and he sinks Cruz.

Or worst case scenario nobody wins and Congress coronates Cruz (I think, I'd have to go back and check the rules to see if they could crown whomever they please. It hasn't come up in forever.

2) The country isn't really in bad shape that's really the problem.

1] Trump doesn't win that way... Bernie himself said on "Seth" around the time he & Hilary were discussing each other's respective qualifications that "On her worst day, Hilary is 100x better than" any GOP candidate. Also, a Rolling Stone article on the road with the GOP (Sanders on the cover) opened with a sentence saying none of them deserve to win (the nomination), but 1 must.

2] It "isn't really in bad shape"? I agree... We need a new word bad enough to describe it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

2] It "isn't really in bad shape"? I agree... We need a new word bad enough to describe it.

There are plenty yet you can't pick one.

Since it's so bad can you name a better place?

 

[phrodeau]

1) The most hated is relative. Take this election for example. If Bernie ran a third party he would draw Hillary's supporters but probably not Trump. Trump wins. If Trump ran third party then Hillary wins and he sinks Cruz.

Or worst case scenario nobody wins and Congress coronates Cruz (I think, I'd have to go back and check the rules to see if they could crown whomever they please. It hasn't come up in forever.

2) The country isn't really in bad shape that's really the problem.

Congress could no more coronate Cruz than they could confirm Obama's SCOTUS nomination.

 

[Sean Renaud]

1] Trump doesn't win that way... Bernie himself said on "Seth" around the time he & Hilary were discussing each other's respective qualifications that "On her worst day, Hilary is 100x better than" any GOP candidate. Also, a Rolling Stone article on the road with the GOP (Sanders on the cover) opened with a sentence saying none of them deserve to win (the nomination), but 1 must.

2] It "isn't really in bad shape"? I agree... We need a new word bad enough to describe it.

1) What Bernie says means absolutely nothing nore does anything he said about the GOP nominees. If he ran third party the Republican wins. It's math not opinion.

2) No we don't. The country is fine by most standards. What exactly are you worried about? Chinese invasions? Food riots? Plague? Roving bands of thieves. What in your life is so bad?

Congress could no more coronate Cruz than they could confirm Obama's SCOTUS nomination.

They would have to do something I'm simply not 100% certain on what the process is.

 

[sr71plt]

I'll bet if you check back here in a year, you'll find the parties, albeit scratched, cooking along and still as the only two major parties in the country.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Barring something currently unforseen happening I'm not sure the Democrats will even get dinged. Whatever you think of Bernie and whomever his successors turn out to be they are AT WORST going to form a liberal coalition that is equivalent to the Paul family. They disagree with the group on some issues but they'll generally play play just fine.

The Republicans are a little dicier but Trump is ultimately no Tea Party so they might be scratched but I expect the party leaders to be able to wrangle this shit show in the aftermath.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

1) What Bernie says means absolutely nothing nore does anything he said about the GOP nominees. If he ran third party the Republican wins. It's math not opinion.

2) No we don't. The country is fine by most standards. What exactly are you worried about? Chinese invasions? Food riots? Plague? Roving bands of thieves. What in your life is so bad.

I'm not worried about anything you list happening... Bad enough as is.

If he ran third party, they may each get a third. I'd choose Bern over Hil, but the GOP only wins if they're the GOLF & the lowest % or IQ gets it.

 

[sr71plt]

Bernie is (and always has been) mostly talk. He hasn't even organized a single wet dream the whole time he's been in Congress. If he can't usurp somebody else's party, I don't see him doing any leading or party formation after this. And Elizabeth Warren is going to steal leadership on all of his positions if he has to fade back into the Congress. Agreed that the Democrats aren't in any danger as a party.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'll bet if you check back here in a year, you'll find the parties, albeit scratched, cooking along and still as the only two major parties in the country.

For sure.

Barring something currently unforseen happening I'm not sure the Democrats will even get dinged. Whatever you think of Bernie and whomever his successors turn out to be they are AT WORST going to form a liberal coalition that is equivalent to the Paul family. They disagree with the group on some issues but they'll generally play play just fine.

The Republicans are a little dicier but Trump is ultimately no Tea Party so they might be scratched but I expect the party leaders to be able to wrangle this shit show in the aftermath.

Might even come back bigger and better than ever....find some super dick to rally behind.

A super dick that encompases all aspects of assholeism.

The captain planet of shit bags.