CDZ Switching Places

[Coyote]

[...] The US needs more political parties so that voters have a choice. Maybe the dems should change their name to shake off the stigma ?

On your last paragraph, totally agree!

The parties participating in the last presidential election. On top of the usual suspects ...

• Democratic Party
• Republican Party

... there were:

• America's Party
• American Solidarity Party
• Approval Voting Party
• Constitution Party
• Constitution Party of Idaho
• Green Party
• Independent American Party
• Legal Marijuana Now Party
• Libertarian Party
• Liberty Union Party
• Natural Law Party
• Nutrition Party
• Party for Socialism and Liberation
• Peace and Freedom
• Prohibition Party
• Socialist Equality Party
• Socialist Party USA
• Socialist Workers Party
• United States Pacifist Party
• Veterans Party of America
• Workers World Party

How many more are needed?

well...there seems to be a duopoly...

 

[Olde Europe]

well...there seems to be a duopoly...

And yet, lack of choice between parties doesn't appear to be the reason for it, and "more parties" doesn't seem to be the cure, as suggested.

 

[22lcidw]

[...] The US needs more political parties so that voters have a choice. Maybe the dems should change their name to shake off the stigma ?

On your last paragraph, totally agree!

The parties participating in the last presidential election. On top of the usual suspects ...

• Democratic Party
• Republican Party

... there were:

• America's Party
• American Solidarity Party
• Approval Voting Party
• Constitution Party
• Constitution Party of Idaho
• Green Party
• Independent American Party
• Legal Marijuana Now Party
• Libertarian Party
• Liberty Union Party
• Natural Law Party
• Nutrition Party
• Party for Socialism and Liberation
• Peace and Freedom
• Prohibition Party
• Socialist Equality Party
• Socialist Party USA
• Socialist Workers Party
• United States Pacifist Party
• Veterans Party of America
• Workers World Party

How many more are needed?

well...there seems to be a duopoly...

The point is that there are a minimum of several different views by most of the population. With two major parties. One party is to the left of left in control. Even with people who are liberal, moderate and conservative in that same party voting for it. The other party is liberal to moderate in control with liberal, moderate and conservative voters voting for it. In both parties there are racists. A bit more are bigots. It is not a hard thing to be a bit bigoted in a nation that has as many different cultures and ethnic backgrounds as we do. Perhaps up to several parties with near equal percentages would be more optimum to our nation's endurance.

 

[Unkotare]

Funny how someone from a little country with worse racial problems would obsess about the US rather than worrying about getting his own house in order. Kind of makes it seem like someone only comes on to this site to bash the United States of America and ignore all of the filth in their own gray dreary little home country.

 

[Olde Europe]

well...there seems to be a duopoly...

And yet, lack of choice between parties doesn't appear to be the reason for it, and "more parties" doesn't seem to be the cure, as suggested.

My diagnosis as to the duopoly.

1. The UK House of Commons has 650 seats. The U.S. has 435, and around six times the population. At the UK's rate, the U.S. should have 3,900 representatives. Why is this important? Quite obviously, campaigning in districts with, on average, about 750,000 residents is horribly expensive, requires enormous staff. This favors machines built and running in order to generate enormous amounts of cash. No (third) party that isn't already "established", and established with the donor class in particular, can compete with that. In the Senate, things are even worse.

2. First past the post voting. Everyone who didn't vote for the winner in a district has basically thrown away their vote. It doesn't change anything. In order to reduce the risk of doing so, voters are basically forced to choose between the two most likely to win. Voting for anyone third or farther down in the polls is a fool's errand. If they picked up the ballot and burned it on the spot, it'd have exactly the same impact on the election result. Were seats in the House allotted (about) proportionately, things would change dramatically, as voters no longer simply throw away their vote for a Libertarian or Green candidate. At least that risk would be greatly reduced once a party gets above a certain threshold of public recognition and support.

It's money, and an outdated voting system designed to keep the well-to-do in charge, and the paupers and their ill-groomed upstarts down and away from the levers of power. Always has been, and by design.

 

[Coyote]

well...there seems to be a duopoly...

And yet, lack of choice between parties doesn't appear to be the reason for it, and "more parties" doesn't seem to be the cure, as suggested.

My diagnosis as to the duopoly.

1. The UK House of Commons has 650 seats. The U.S. has 435, and around six times the population. At the UK's rate, the U.S. should have 3,900 representatives. Why is this important? Quite obviously, campaigning in districts with, on average, about 750,000 residents is horribly expensive, requires enormous staff. This favors machines built and running in order to generate enormous amounts of cash. No (third) party that isn't already "established", and established with the donor class in particular, can compete with that. In the Senate, things are even worse.

2. First past the post voting. Everyone who didn't vote for the winner in a district has basically thrown away their vote. It doesn't change anything. In order to reduce the risk of doing so, voters are basically forced to choose between the two most likely to win. Voting for anyone third or farther down in the polls is a fool's errand. If they picked up the ballot and burned it on the spot, it'd have exactly the same impact on the election result. Were seats in the House allotted (about) proportionately, things would change dramatically, as voters no longer simply throw away their vote for a Libertarian or Green candidate. At least that risk would be greatly reduced once a party gets above a certain threshold of public recognition and support.

It's money, and an outdated voting system designed to keep the well-to-do in charge, and the paupers and their ill-groomed upstarts down and away from the levers of power. Always has been, and by design.

Interesting analysis...makes sense....

I also always thought it would be good to allow people to vote for 1st, 2nd, 3rd choices.

 

[Olde Europe]

Interesting analysis...makes sense....

I also always thought it would be good to allow people to vote for 1st, 2nd, 3rd choices.

Thanks. Has that ever been tried in a FPTP system? I can somewhat vaguely see how it might theoretically make a difference and dent the duopoly of the inevitable, but... It would require folks to be better informed, actually to seek out news other than the horse-race "reporting" shoved down every throat. Anyway, I'd like to see how trying such would play out in reality. My guess would be, it adds a percentage point or two to "third" parties, from those who are alert but also disenchanted.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Certainly on USMB the posters with the most racist tendencies are on the right and are big fans of trump.

Certainly this is totally and demonstrably false. The black ghettos all across America have been 96% Democratic for 50 years. The school to prison pipeline is exclusively Democratic. Liberals attacked and destroyed the black family, religion, schools and work ethic. In some key ways Democrats actually did more damage to blacks than slavery ever did.

"The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state."
Read more at: Thomas Sowell