From across the pond, a good question

US elections: Why does the world's greatest democracy offer just two choices? - Telegraph

BTSOOM.

 

As has happened before, when the voices or sentiments of a large enough constituency is frustrated, then a new party will emerge. The other option, the parliamentary system doesn't work all that well, and it fosters many parties and coalitions. Problem with the parties in the US is the Media, which we rely on as a fourth estate. That monopoly is approaching its end, and when it is reached parties will be able to distinguish themselves from each other and the difference in choices will be profound and clear.

 

Thank you. So if I'm understanding you correctly, if enough people are disenchanted, they will vote third party?

How would the electoral college be affected?

 

An interesting question; for insight look at the election of 1860 HERE. The country was more split then than it is now with (Republican) Lincoln getting 180 , (Southern Democratic) John Breckinridge getting 72, (Constitutional Union/Whig) John Bell getting 39, and (Northern Democratic) Stephen Douglas getting 12.

The combined vote for Douglas and Breckinridge was 84 against Lincoln's 180. Lincoln won 28 more electoral votes than the minimum required to win.

The EC has changed between then and now, so those changes would have to be taken into account.

As to your first question: yes. The slavery and abolition question had become more and more intrinsic to American politics from the time of the Missouri Compromise in 1820. The issue festered for 34 years before the Republican Party was created in response. As I said, though, the Fourth Estate distorts public sentiment, more than it did back then when there wasn’t really an overarching MSM. Then the information media was more parochial and disparate by region.

 

I think the advent of social media and its role in sharing information has played a part (in addition to the MSM), as well as blogs, of course.

It is no longer a point of what politicians think we 'need to know', or the media, either.

 

*Insert "as much"

In my daily discourse I talk with more people who don't connect with social media or blogs. The information that reaches them is almost exclusively from mainstream sources, and is then shaped further by opinion from casual conversation with family, friends, and associates. I'm just saying that we over rate the effects of the "new media," whole segments of the public is unaffected by that.

 

So back up to "Is there any way whatsoever that we can break out of the two party system."

 

Because the world’s greatest ‘democracy’ isn’t, it’s a Republic.

In theory and per the Framers’ original intent, who occupied the WH was of little importance. The Nation was to be guided by Congress with the CE acting as a final check on pending legislation. In addition, since all three branches of government are subject to the rule of law, the people have recourse through the courts to address any government excess, including that by the president.

Sadly this is no longer the case, with the aberration of the Imperial Presidency and the politicization of the judiciary.

Today we’re stuck with a broken system, not as a result of a ‘flawed design,’ but as a consequence of the fear and ignorance of the American people.

 

vote for someone besides the usual suspects.....problem solved....

 

I don't think that 1) that's enough, or 2) it would work because unless everybody votes for the same 'somebody else', a main party person will still win.