4 ms·
First, the two major parties are so incredibly established that third parties barely exist. So, starting a third party that can compete with the other two is ne
by barsonme 10y ago
First, the two major parties are so incredibly established that third parties barely exist. So, starting a third party that can compete with the other two is near impossible.
Second, since radio and television (media) started catering towards individual interests (echo chamber) people get so wrapped up in "Hillary/Trump/Somebody is so evil!" that they _don't_ want to experiment because it could cause the person they dislike to win.
Third, nobody cares about politics. We get ~40% turnout in midterm elections, ~60% for presidential. That's pitiful. Those who vote are those who _really_ like voting--those who are engaged.
To break the stranglehold you'd need:
- people to stop consuming sound bite media (Now This, Twitter) and tailored media (talk radio, some major news stations)
- better civic engagement at the local level (this is _the_ most important bit)
- better civic knowledge (the previous bullet point is predicated on this one)
- people willing to run for office as a third party _and_ not be a fringe weirdo
- myowncrapulence 10y agopeople willing to run for office as a third party _and_ not be a fringe weirdo I genuinely believe Bernie could have won if he stayed independent. The two political parties are owned and operated as Corporations. They can choose whoever they want to represent them. There are no laws governing their inter-party behavior. This is why non-party candidates need to be taken seriously.
- komali2 10y agoI voted for Bernie, but how could he win independent if he couldn't win the Democratic primary?
- yesiamyourdad 10y agoBecause the primary/caucus process disenfranchises the majority of the electorate. I believe this is why the GOP produces such poor candidates in the last 20 years or so; they must pander to the hard core of the party to become a candidate, and the people that pass that test are almost always too far removed from the electorate to win the general. This is also why we're devolving to a system of ruling families. Clinton was never the best candidate. She was the presumed candidate and the candidate preferred by the party core, so nobody was willing to challenge - except Sanders who could seriously run on ideology.
- Godel_unicode 10y agoIn theory they can choose whoever they want, however in practice if the small percentage of the electorate who actually vote pick e.g. Trump, the party is stuck with them
- myowncrapulence 10y agoI have a feeling this is slowly changing.
- Figs 10y agoIt would probably also help a lot if we split up voting issues over multiple much smaller elections so that people could actually discuss the issues without it all being overshadowed. In California, for example, I'm supposed to cast votes for over 40 positions and issues this election between choices for the president, federal and state representatives of various sorts, local positions, and dozens upon dozens of propositions and measures. There are over 500 total pages in the official voter guides, and the mail-in ballot is supposedly so heavy this election that regular postage isn't enough! It's crazy! During the primary, we had the first senatorial election without an incumbent in decades and damned near no one was talking about it! (Barbara Boxer is not running for re-election.) It was completely overshadowed by the presidential election. I don't know if it was because the voter guide was so over-packed with propositions or what, but they didn't even print the senatorial candidates' statements during the primary and I had to go online instead to see them! And people wonder why this country is so fucked up...