4 ms·

We desperately need to get away from the hyper-partisan, two party system. An Either-Or system was not what the framers had in mind and is damaging. While not t

by pmc1 9y ago

We desperately need to get away from the hyper-partisan, two party system. An Either-Or system was not what the framers had in mind and is damaging. While not the most popular position, I ALWAYS vote for the 3rd party candidate with reasonable policies for the sake of our country.

MBCook 9y ago
Even with only two real parties if things were drawn to maximize competitiveness then at least the parties would be forced to play towards the center instead of their more extreme bases. Not ideal but much better than what has been going on since the 2000s.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  I don't see how it maximizes competitiveness. Even in a perfectly split district, the primary generally has to play towards the base, and it's easier to get more members of your base to vote than to convert someone from the other party. The bipartisan attempt to neutralize other parties helps with that, it's easier for a Republican to turn a Libertarian voter to their side than a Democrat voter.
  - MBCook 9y ago
    Competitiveness forces candidates to balance playing to the base with not alienating the other side, lest they turn out against you. In the current system the question is who can be the most conservative/liberal. There is little downside to pushing further because there are more votes there but few people you’ll drive away.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      The check to that is more parties, where the most conservative/liberal has actual competition on being the most extreme. Your change to gerrymandering doesn't make pushing for the extremes a worse strategy. Even in a perfectly split district, roughly 25% vote Democrat, 25% Republican, and 50% don't vote. That 50% is a better target than any voters on the fence.
  - patrickmay 9y ago
    > it's easier for a Republican to turn a Libertarian voter to their side than a Democrat voter. Maybe in the Reagan years, but it's become more difficult since then. Orwell said "The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians." Both Republicans and Democrats have grown increasingly more authoritarian over the past 20 years.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      Reagan wasn't any more in line with Libertarian ideas than the current Republicans, and I'd still be surprised if more members of the Libertarian party voted Democrat than Republican.
unabridged 9y ago
I used to think the same way about 3rd party, but now I'm beginning to view the 2 party system including the primary as just a 2 round playoff. If you really have enough support to contend as a third party, you can easily win the primary of one of the major parties. Your most important vote is in the primaries (especially in areas dominated by a single party), and I think the country as a whole is beginning to realize it.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Primaries should just not impact the names that appear on the ballot (parties could still endorse a candidate). The reason that the parties have influence over the ballot is because they like it that way.
- sedtrader 9y ago
  We shouldn't have to go through one of the 2 major parties to contend as a third party candidate. One way to solve this could be putting caps on campaign financing which would level the playing field for smaller 3rd parties. But that would never happen because the major 2 parties make the rules and that would hurt their dominance. By voting for either party we are essentially enabling the either-or system to continue
  - unabridged 9y ago
    >By voting for either party we are essentially enabling the either-or system to continue I used to agree, but the parties have no ideology attached to them. Their names are just generic terms regarding democracy and you can see how much their platforms have changed and moved over the last century. At this point they are just the Urban and Rural divisions of our election playoff. They are just the ideology of the people elected. If you change the candidates of the party, you have changed the ideology of the party. Trump figured this out and instead of sticking with the Reform party, he just took over the Republican nomination.
    - Jesus_Jones 9y ago
      I disagree, I think there are some clear ideologies. Support for women choosing whether to have abortions is in one camp, support for so called unborn children is in the other. Diversity is in the dems of course, the Republicans want to protect and emphasize the "traditional white american culture". I'm trying not to be pejorative to either side. There are negative influences that lead to them to have similar views, like the influence of say wall street money has both sides supporting big banks, I think this is what you are really getting at imho when you say there is no ideological differences.
24gttghh 9y ago
An either-or system was not what Washington had in mind, but I am very sure there were a number of framers who did indeed seek this out and formed parties almost immediately after the Revolution ended.

by pmc1 9y ago

MBCook 9y ago

Even with only two real parties if things were drawn to maximize competitiveness then at least the parties would be forced to play towards the center instead of their more extreme bases. Not ideal but much better than what has been going on since the 2000s.

boomboomsubban 9y ago
I don't see how it maximizes competitiveness. Even in a perfectly split district, the primary generally has to play towards the base, and it's easier to get more members of your base to vote than to convert someone from the other party. The bipartisan attempt to neutralize other parties helps with that, it's easier for a Republican to turn a Libertarian voter to their side than a Democrat voter.
- MBCook 9y ago
  Competitiveness forces candidates to balance playing to the base with not alienating the other side, lest they turn out against you. In the current system the question is who can be the most conservative/liberal. There is little downside to pushing further because there are more votes there but few people you’ll drive away.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    The check to that is more parties, where the most conservative/liberal has actual competition on being the most extreme. Your change to gerrymandering doesn't make pushing for the extremes a worse strategy. Even in a perfectly split district, roughly 25% vote Democrat, 25% Republican, and 50% don't vote. That 50% is a better target than any voters on the fence.
- patrickmay 9y ago
  > it's easier for a Republican to turn a Libertarian voter to their side than a Democrat voter. Maybe in the Reagan years, but it's become more difficult since then. Orwell said "The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians." Both Republicans and Democrats have grown increasingly more authoritarian over the past 20 years.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    Reagan wasn't any more in line with Libertarian ideas than the current Republicans, and I'd still be surprised if more members of the Libertarian party voted Democrat than Republican.

unabridged 9y ago

I used to think the same way about 3rd party, but now I'm beginning to view the 2 party system including the primary as just a 2 round playoff. If you really have enough support to contend as a third party, you can easily win the primary of one of the major parties. Your most important vote is in the primaries (especially in areas dominated by a single party), and I think the country as a whole is beginning to realize it.

maxerickson 9y ago
Primaries should just not impact the names that appear on the ballot (parties could still endorse a candidate). The reason that the parties have influence over the ballot is because they like it that way.
sedtrader 9y ago
We shouldn't have to go through one of the 2 major parties to contend as a third party candidate. One way to solve this could be putting caps on campaign financing which would level the playing field for smaller 3rd parties. But that would never happen because the major 2 parties make the rules and that would hurt their dominance. By voting for either party we are essentially enabling the either-or system to continue
- unabridged 9y ago
  >By voting for either party we are essentially enabling the either-or system to continue I used to agree, but the parties have no ideology attached to them. Their names are just generic terms regarding democracy and you can see how much their platforms have changed and moved over the last century. At this point they are just the Urban and Rural divisions of our election playoff. They are just the ideology of the people elected. If you change the candidates of the party, you have changed the ideology of the party. Trump figured this out and instead of sticking with the Reform party, he just took over the Republican nomination.
  - Jesus_Jones 9y ago
    I disagree, I think there are some clear ideologies. Support for women choosing whether to have abortions is in one camp, support for so called unborn children is in the other. Diversity is in the dems of course, the Republicans want to protect and emphasize the "traditional white american culture". I'm trying not to be pejorative to either side. There are negative influences that lead to them to have similar views, like the influence of say wall street money has both sides supporting big banks, I think this is what you are really getting at imho when you say there is no ideological differences.

24gttghh 9y ago

An either-or system was not what Washington had in mind, but I am very sure there were a number of framers who did indeed seek this out and formed parties almost immediately after the Revolution ended.