Is a Political Duopoly Inevitable?

[$ecular#eckler]

Andrew Yang is campaigning for a third party on the claim that the partisan duopoly can be subverted by reforming elections by allowing voters to rank-vote multiple candidates rather than the traditional vote for your most favorite candidate only.

But, does that subvert the legislature duopoly without fail?

I do not think it does. I believe all legislatures eventually evolve into a duopoly.

I think the solution is to establish legislatures specific to sections of law with different appointment/election schemes. James Madison suggests something like this in Federalist 51.

In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions.

I am very confident that our legislative system fails to accomplish the reasoned idea that Madison presents here. I do not believe his thinking was confined to just two legislative assemblies. They just could not organize more and assign specific functions, because everything was all rolled up in the simplicity of the era's sophistication.

I do not notice a consistent "competition" between the three branches - do you???

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Does anybody know the game theory for legislatures?

if they always evolve to a duopoly then we need to better commission specific legislatures to regulate the party principles, rather than the unequal compromises that happen in "general" legislatures.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Sanctimonious Psychopaths "

* Pro Choice Republican Whom Wants Traitors Out Of The Party *

Does anybody know the game theory for legislatures?

Game theory one is not to allow the actual constitutional basis for Roe v Wade and abortion to enter into the fee press for informed consent of the public , or to file any legal defense , until after the November elections .

The pro-choice administrators were too stupid to listen to a damned thing they were told by way of demanding any supreme court nominee explain Blackmun's " Logically , of course " statement to establish that birth is required for equal protection , and the pro-choice leadership and legal community - even more than the dumb fuckery deceit of constitutional traitors who support scotus sedition are the reason the us public is currently shit stained .

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Death of the Republican-Democrat Duopoly

Being binary is bad for business, so when will politics cure its bipolar disorder? In an excerpt from "The Declaration of Independents," Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch on the lessons Washington should learn from the real world.

www.wsj.com

Economists have a particular fondness for studying what Democrats and Republicans have become: the longest-lived duopoly in American history. The Nobel Prize-winning economist John Forbes Nash (the subject of the book and movie "A Beautiful Mind") was all about duopolies. He showed that two powerful competitors frequently end up locked in a stable, mutually beneficial dance of tit-for-tat—they collude, in short, to carve up a captive market.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Andrew Yang is campaigning for a third party on the claim that the partisan duopoly can be subverted by reforming elections by allowing voters to rank-vote multiple candidates rather than the traditional vote for your most favorite candidate only.

But, does that subvert the legislature duopoly without fail?

I do not think it does. I believe all legislatures eventually evolve into a duopoly.

I think the solution is to establish legislatures specific to sections of law with different appointment/election schemes. James Madison suggests something like this in Federalist 51.

I am very confident that our legislative system fails to accomplish the reasoned idea that Madison presents here. I do not believe his thinking was confined to just two legislative assemblies. They just could not organize more and assign specific functions, because everything was all rolled up in the simplicity of the era's sophistication.

I do not notice a consistent "competition" between the three branches - do you???

View attachment 676129

It's not inevitable.
The system of voting could change.
Until it does, yes, it's going to remain the same, because of the voting mentality.

 

[JGalt]

Andrew Yang is campaigning for a third party on the claim that the partisan duopoly can be subverted by reforming elections by allowing voters to rank-vote multiple candidates rather than the traditional vote for your most favorite candidate only.

But, does that subvert the legislature duopoly without fail?

I do not think it does. I believe all legislatures eventually evolve into a duopoly.

I think the solution is to establish legislatures specific to sections of law with different appointment/election schemes. James Madison suggests something like this in Federalist 51.

I am very confident that our legislative system fails to accomplish the reasoned idea that Madison presents here. I do not believe his thinking was confined to just two legislative assemblies. They just could not organize more and assign specific functions, because everything was all rolled up in the simplicity of the era's sophistication.

I do not notice a consistent "competition" between the three branches - do you???

View attachment 676129

The only thing Yang is trying to accomplish is to subvert the GOP. The Progress Party is mainly attracting Democrats, as well as some Trump-hating Republicans. Remember, this is the same guy who ran on the Democrat ticket and promised to give everyone $1,000 dollars. I looked at their campaign platform: It's vague, has no solutions offered for the real problems we're facing, and is generically-bland.

Anyone who can't see right through this sham needs their head examined. A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf.

 

[Blackrook]

In a system with "winner take all" elections there will always be exactly two major parties, with third parties rarely winning.

 

[JGalt]

In a system with "winner take all" elections there will always be exactly two major parties, with third parties rarely winning.

True. Third parties are just spoilers for one side or the other, and do nothing but allow the disenchanted to register a protest vote. Third party voters might as well just stay home and not vote.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

" Sanctimonious Psychopaths "

* Pro Choice Republican Whom Wants Traitors Out Of The Party *

Game theory one is not to allow the actual constitutional basis for Roe v Wade and abortion to enter into the fee press for informed consent of the public , or to file any legal defense , until after the November elections .

I see - you are sharp. That is good!

The pro-choice administrators were too stupid to listen to a damned thing they were told by way of demanding any supreme court nominee explain Blackmun's " Logically , of course " statement to establish that birth is required for equal protection , and the pro-choice leadership and legal community - even more than the dumb fuckery deceit of constitutional traitors who support scotus sedition are the reason the us public is currently shit stained .

Oh dude, you are so smart - can I suck your dick?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

In a system with "winner take all" elections there will always be exactly two major parties, with third parties rarely winning.

If it is inevitable, would it be reasonable that Andrew Yang would be aware of that?

Do we have an obligation to inform Mr. Yang?

When does his campaign promises become fraud - counselor?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

It's not inevitable.
The system of voting could change.

Okay, I will grant you that the selection at the election booth may be subverted, but once the third party member wins and goes to the legislature where does their voting go? One side or the other - right???

The Tea Party was essentially the last such situation, and what happened?

Until it does, yes, it's going to remain the same, because of the voting mentality.

Where does the change have to be - the public election system, or the legislature rules?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, I will grant you that the selection at the election booth may be subverted, but once the third party member wins and goes to the legislature where does their voting go? One side or the other - right???

The Tea Party was essentially the last such situation, and what happened?


Where does the change have to be - the public election system, or the legislature rules?

Problem is, if you remember, the Tea Party wasn't a "third party". They latched onto the Republican Party because it's impossible to be a third party.

I'll tell you this, the UK has FPTP like the US. Germany has Proportional Representation.

In 2015 UKIP, a pro leave the EU party in the UK gained 12.6% of the vote and only one seat. Why? Because you need to have a majority of votes in any one place and they couldn't do that for the most part. For example Boston and Skegness they gained 33.8% of the vote, but the Tories got 43% of the vote so the Tories won.

In Germany the AfD, a similar type of party, gained 12.6% of the vote in 2017. They got 90 seats. Why? Because the system is fairer.

People vote POSITIVELY with PR and negatively with FPTP.
They look and the two parties most likely to win, and either vote for one of these two or against one of these two.
With PR people vote for who they like.

We know this. In Germany they actually have both systems. Some members are elected by FPTP but the make up of the Bundestag is PR. The smaller parties do better with PR, because people know their vote counts, and the smaller parties do worse with FPTP because people know their vote doesn't count if they vote smaller parties.

The change has to be with the electoral system. People only know two parties now, to change this without changing to something like Proportional Representation would be very difficult.

 

[jwoodie]

Canada has a multi-party system which allows Quebec to screw the rest of the country.