Time for change, time for third party voting...

[Mac1958]

The first thing that needs to happen is for the arbitrary rules on debate qualification need to change.

Johnson isn't going to hit 15% and that will keep him out this time.

This is the perfect opportunity - two terrible "major" candidates leaving the door open for an alternative.
.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So why do other countries have more parties as a general rule? The US system currently is a two party system. "Enough money" is like 5 billion dollars, who can raise that much money without having a massive political party in place already?

Look at the Tea Party, in another country they'd be a separate party, but in the US they're a part of the Republican Party.

You can say it's nonsense, but then again I've seen the political systems in many countries around the world and I've see that changing the system works.

In Germany you see a difference of voting in a single election between PR and FPTP.

The CDU gained 13 million votes with FPTP but only 11 million with PR.
The SPD gained 12 million votes with FPTP but only 10 million with PR.

That's 4 million people who chose to vote for the two main parties (plus half a million extra in Bavaria with the CSU) with FPTP than with PR. Why?

Also, the CDU gained 173 seats from their 13 million votes. The SPD gained 64 seats with their 12 million. Doesn't seem fair to the voters out there who voted SPD to then see that they get 64 seats from 299, that's 21% of the seats from 28% of the votes. Whereas the CDU gained 32% of the votes but got 58% of the seats.

When the people were able to vote PR, this changed massively. Instead of 58% of the seats, the CDU gained 31.2% of the seats. The SPD instead of 21% of the seats they got 23.5% of the seats.

The FPD gained not a single FPTP post seat, even though they were the third party nationally with votes. 4 million people voted for them at FPTP and no seats. 6.3 million people voted for them at PR, so instead of zero seats they gained 93 seats.

You see that people's attitude to voting will change, on the same day, the same minute in the same place, the same voting booth, depending on how the election is set up.

We have a presidential system and the countries you are talking about have parliamentary systems, so you can't take one item from one system and stick it into another system. If you are saying you want to change our system into a parliamentary system, why don't you just say so, and if you aren't then you don't appear to understand the situation.

At the same time they all have parliaments made up of a large number of representatives who are elected to serve as the legislature. There are many ways of electing such people.

Argentina has a president who is elected in a two ballot system similar to France.

They have a 24 seat Senate using a closed list system, which is Proportional Representation.

Also there are 257 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, equivalent of the House, and they're also elected with proportional representation and uses the D'Hondt Method.

I'm not just making this stuff up out of the air. It's possible to have PR for the legislature and then some kind of 2 ballot election for the president, which allows for far more democracy.

The French system is no more democratic than our's is, and Gary Johnson would have no more chance of being president or PM if we had the French system.

I disagree. The US system is hardly Democratic at all. Two parties, no choice beyond that. The French have more parties, however it is still FPTP in the equivalent of the House, so it could be more Democratic than it is.

What do you mean no choice? I voted for Chuck Baldwin and Virgil Goode. How can you sit there and say "no choice", when I clearly had a choice, because I voted for two choices, outside the two parties?

What you mean is, no choice that the rest of the population will vote for. But that's how voting works. No democracy has a choice that "My guy wins even if no one else votes for him".

What I mean is more from other people's perspectives rather than my own. The view in the US, propagated no doubt by the main two parties, and parroted a lot of forums like this, is that a vote for someone other than the main two parties is a wasted vote. And this is played out in US elections where less than 5% vote for anyone other than the big two evil main parties.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Like I said in a previous post, maybe it's just that we're both coming from different angles on this, and it's not that I don't understand the point, it's that I don't accept your point because you're coming it at from an angle I don't like.

That was the thing though.

I was only trying to argue that taxation is involuntary, using the popularized general, legal, and philosophical definitions of voluntary.

It seemed you were just conflating voluntary with having choice, which seemingly you were not addressing at all no matter what I said trying to point this out.

If you look at the royalty of Europe over thousands of years, those who are remembered aren't the reactionaries, but the revolutionaries.

You do realize reactionaries can also be revolutionaries?

Anarchism is often labelled as a reactionary ideology, since it seeks to return mankind to the natural order.

The people who were against ending slavery, the people who were against ending segregation, and many other things are similar to the people who are against moving forwards, and I'm looking at moving forwards and being pro-active.

Okay, well slavery exists right now. Our masters abuse and degrade us, the ruling class consolidates their powers, inhumanity has began plaguing our society, Americans are turning amongst ourselves, and the country is heading towards war.

This is what your idea of proactive has led to throughout history, without exceptions. You had over 4500 years to prove your ideology worked. It did not work, and consistently it had produced the same civil violence, and ended with the same destruction.

Now we have nuclear bombs capable of dousing the whole world in flames, massive industry that is shredding through the environment at rates never seen before, and growing nanny states of unseen proportions.

Your solutions do not work. Enough is enough. It is time to stop ******* around.

What you think I'm thinking might not be what I'm thinking on this one.

You seem to be frustrated that I don't share your view, and at the same time you don't share my view. It's the way it goes. You can try and huff and puff all you like, I still probably won't agree with you simply because I'm looking at it differently.

With the term "revolutionary" I might be using the wrong term, I am here using it to mean revolutionary in a good sense, rather than just causing a revolution, but in the manner that someone did something so great it's revolutionary. If you can think of a better word for this then it might help me.

You say slavery exists right now. I disagree. As someone who has lived in various countries I can't see this slavery. I can see that some people impose something akin to slavery upon themselves, restricting their life and making excuses for why they can't be more pro-active, but it's not slavery, this is the wrong term altogether and I can't accept it being used in the manner you're trying to use it.

You say my solutions don't work. I'm trying to think why you're saying this, who you think I am or what you think my solutions are.

Also, the question is, does anything work? We're human beings. We're fallible as a matter of course, we're prone to accumulate power, to have pride, to do many things which some would put under the banner of "sinning".
We don't want perfection because we seem to thrive in the chaos, and the closer we get to perfection, the more we moan and complain and find new ways to destroy everything.

Solutions might come along, but one person has one solution and the other 7 billion all have their own solutions (or not) and finding one solution that can work is impossible because as soon as you implement it, then it goes to hell because everyone starts changing it and making it not work. We like the chaos.

However we still strive to make it as fair as possible, except for those who are just looking out for their own interests.

 

[Onyx]

You say slavery exists right now. I disagree. As someone who has lived in various countries I can't see this slavery.

Everyone you ever met is a slave.

Your personhood is legally owned by the state. That is just a fact.

You say my solutions don't work. I'm trying to think why you're saying this, who you think I am or what you think my solutions are.

Someone convinced that he can fix a system so fucked up and evil through political reform suggestions.

Also, the question is, does anything work? We're human beings. We're fallible as a matter of course, we're prone to accumulate power, to have pride, to do many things which some would put under the banner of "sinning".

Which is fine, but when you make evil into a system, then that leads solely to degradation.

We don't want perfection because we seem to thrive in the chaos, and the closer we get to perfection, the more we moan and complain and find new ways to destroy everything.

Humanity has gotten farther away from perfection over time. Statism and colonial subjugation spread throughout the world like a plague.

Statism is the ideology of perfectionists and utopians. The idea behind it is to gradually condition the perfect society through the right set of laws, the right usage of violence, and the right choice of rulers.

However we still strive to make it as fair as possible, except for those who are just looking out for their own interests.

The ruling class, which is who you support.

Equality is maximized when everyone is free, self sufficient, and personally accountable.

 

[Andylusion]

We have a presidential system and the countries you are talking about have parliamentary systems, so you can't take one item from one system and stick it into another system. If you are saying you want to change our system into a parliamentary system, why don't you just say so, and if you aren't then you don't appear to understand the situation.

At the same time they all have parliaments made up of a large number of representatives who are elected to serve as the legislature. There are many ways of electing such people.

Argentina has a president who is elected in a two ballot system similar to France.

They have a 24 seat Senate using a closed list system, which is Proportional Representation.

Also there are 257 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, equivalent of the House, and they're also elected with proportional representation and uses the D'Hondt Method.

I'm not just making this stuff up out of the air. It's possible to have PR for the legislature and then some kind of 2 ballot election for the president, which allows for far more democracy.

The French system is no more democratic than our's is, and Gary Johnson would have no more chance of being president or PM if we had the French system.

I disagree. The US system is hardly Democratic at all. Two parties, no choice beyond that. The French have more parties, however it is still FPTP in the equivalent of the House, so it could be more Democratic than it is.

What do you mean no choice? I voted for Chuck Baldwin and Virgil Goode. How can you sit there and say "no choice", when I clearly had a choice, because I voted for two choices, outside the two parties?

What you mean is, no choice that the rest of the population will vote for. But that's how voting works. No democracy has a choice that "My guy wins even if no one else votes for him".

What I mean is more from other people's perspectives rather than my own. The view in the US, propagated no doubt by the main two parties, and parroted a lot of forums like this, is that a vote for someone other than the main two parties is a wasted vote. And this is played out in US elections where less than 5% vote for anyone other than the big two evil main parties.

But that's true everywhere. Even the UK, during the last national election, I'm watching Skynews, and they are saying "if you vote for the third party, that's like giving a vote to the Torys!"... that would be the Conservatives. The three major parties are Liberal Democrats, Labor, and Conservatives (nick named the Torys).

Every where in the world, there will always be two big parties, and usually a small less significant third party. And any vote for the third, is usually claimed to be a waste.

Even if we adopted a completely new political system, of proportional voting. Your vote for a third party still won't matter. Because the third party will still have about as much political influence as it does now. You have 100 seats in the Senate. If 51 are Democrap, and 46 are Republican, and 3 are all Green Party...... what real influence do you think the Green party will have? The Democraps are going to do whatever the heck they want, and your 3 Greeny people are nothing.

Same if the Republicans have 51 votes. The major parties are going to do whatever the heck they want, and splitting the vote 3-ways, isn't going to change that. The majority will always rule in the voting chamber.

So what exactly are you hoping for? If you accomplished everything you wanted, you would still be right where we are now. Nothing would change.

 

[frigidweirdo]

At the same time they all have parliaments made up of a large number of representatives who are elected to serve as the legislature. There are many ways of electing such people.

Argentina has a president who is elected in a two ballot system similar to France.

They have a 24 seat Senate using a closed list system, which is Proportional Representation.

Also there are 257 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, equivalent of the House, and they're also elected with proportional representation and uses the D'Hondt Method.

I'm not just making this stuff up out of the air. It's possible to have PR for the legislature and then some kind of 2 ballot election for the president, which allows for far more democracy.

The French system is no more democratic than our's is, and Gary Johnson would have no more chance of being president or PM if we had the French system.

I disagree. The US system is hardly Democratic at all. Two parties, no choice beyond that. The French have more parties, however it is still FPTP in the equivalent of the House, so it could be more Democratic than it is.

What do you mean no choice? I voted for Chuck Baldwin and Virgil Goode. How can you sit there and say "no choice", when I clearly had a choice, because I voted for two choices, outside the two parties?

What you mean is, no choice that the rest of the population will vote for. But that's how voting works. No democracy has a choice that "My guy wins even if no one else votes for him".

What I mean is more from other people's perspectives rather than my own. The view in the US, propagated no doubt by the main two parties, and parroted a lot of forums like this, is that a vote for someone other than the main two parties is a wasted vote. And this is played out in US elections where less than 5% vote for anyone other than the big two evil main parties.

But that's true everywhere. Even the UK, during the last national election, I'm watching Skynews, and they are saying "if you vote for the third party, that's like giving a vote to the Torys!"... that would be the Conservatives. The three major parties are Liberal Democrats, Labor, and Conservatives (nick named the Torys).

Every where in the world, there will always be two big parties, and usually a small less significant third party. And any vote for the third, is usually claimed to be a waste.

Even if we adopted a completely new political system, of proportional voting. Your vote for a third party still won't matter. Because the third party will still have about as much political influence as it does now. You have 100 seats in the Senate. If 51 are Democrap, and 46 are Republican, and 3 are all Green Party...... what real influence do you think the Green party will have? The Democraps are going to do whatever the heck they want, and your 3 Greeny people are nothing.

Same if the Republicans have 51 votes. The major parties are going to do whatever the heck they want, and splitting the vote 3-ways, isn't going to change that. The majority will always rule in the voting chamber.

So what exactly are you hoping for? If you accomplished everything you wanted, you would still be right where we are now. Nothing would change.

Of course it happens in other places.

The difference in the UK and the US is that 98.26% of all people in the US presidential election 2012 voted for the main two parties. Nearly 127 million people out of the 129 million who voted. 117.5 million voted for the main two parties in the House with the Libertarians being the only other party to get above 1% in the House and got 0.9% in the Presidential election.

Only 75% of people voted for the main two parties in the UK General Election in 2015.The Lib Dems got 7.9% and that was considered a disaster for them. The SNP got 4.7% of the votes but won every seat they contested. UKIP got 12.7% and lost one seat that had gained from by-elections the previous year.

See the difference? People in the UK will vote. However both have FPTP.

Go to Germany, and the two main parties CDU/CSU and SPD gained 74.7% of the constituency vote. Similar to the UK. But the PR vote was 67.2%.

Imagine if the US could get down to 67.2% instead of figures that corrupt African leaders get.

 

[Andylusion]

The French system is no more democratic than our's is, and Gary Johnson would have no more chance of being president or PM if we had the French system.

I disagree. The US system is hardly Democratic at all. Two parties, no choice beyond that. The French have more parties, however it is still FPTP in the equivalent of the House, so it could be more Democratic than it is.

What do you mean no choice? I voted for Chuck Baldwin and Virgil Goode. How can you sit there and say "no choice", when I clearly had a choice, because I voted for two choices, outside the two parties?

What you mean is, no choice that the rest of the population will vote for. But that's how voting works. No democracy has a choice that "My guy wins even if no one else votes for him".

What I mean is more from other people's perspectives rather than my own. The view in the US, propagated no doubt by the main two parties, and parroted a lot of forums like this, is that a vote for someone other than the main two parties is a wasted vote. And this is played out in US elections where less than 5% vote for anyone other than the big two evil main parties.

But that's true everywhere. Even the UK, during the last national election, I'm watching Skynews, and they are saying "if you vote for the third party, that's like giving a vote to the Torys!"... that would be the Conservatives. The three major parties are Liberal Democrats, Labor, and Conservatives (nick named the Torys).

Every where in the world, there will always be two big parties, and usually a small less significant third party. And any vote for the third, is usually claimed to be a waste.

Even if we adopted a completely new political system, of proportional voting. Your vote for a third party still won't matter. Because the third party will still have about as much political influence as it does now. You have 100 seats in the Senate. If 51 are Democrap, and 46 are Republican, and 3 are all Green Party...... what real influence do you think the Green party will have? The Democraps are going to do whatever the heck they want, and your 3 Greeny people are nothing.

Same if the Republicans have 51 votes. The major parties are going to do whatever the heck they want, and splitting the vote 3-ways, isn't going to change that. The majority will always rule in the voting chamber.

So what exactly are you hoping for? If you accomplished everything you wanted, you would still be right where we are now. Nothing would change.

Of course it happens in other places.

The difference in the UK and the US is that 98.26% of all people in the US presidential election 2012 voted for the main two parties. Nearly 127 million people out of the 129 million who voted. 117.5 million voted for the main two parties in the House with the Libertarians being the only other party to get above 1% in the House and got 0.9% in the Presidential election.

Only 75% of people voted for the main two parties in the UK General Election in 2015.The Lib Dems got 7.9% and that was considered a disaster for them. The SNP got 4.7% of the votes but won every seat they contested. UKIP got 12.7% and lost one seat that had gained from by-elections the previous year.

See the difference? People in the UK will vote. However both have FPTP.

Go to Germany, and the two main parties CDU/CSU and SPD gained 74.7% of the constituency vote. Similar to the UK. But the PR vote was 67.2%.

Imagine if the US could get down to 67.2% instead of figures that corrupt African leaders get.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe 98.26% of voters WANTED to vote for only the two major parties?

I don't want the US getting down to 67%. Why? Again.... what *DIFFERENCE* would it make? Again, look at the UK. I've watched the UK elections. I've watched the UK debates.

It is almost EXACTLY THE SAME AS HERE. It's no different! Same arguments. Same politics. Same haggling back and forth. Same issues. Same everything.

They don't have a utopian result, or even a 'better' result from having 75% voting for the two major parties, or 67% for the two major parties.

I see absolutely no benefit to this. In fact, in some ways it makes things worse. Why? Because now if any party gets less than 50% control over the legislature, they have to form a coalition government.

Then in a coalition, the two parties that form the majority, can both say the reason they couldn't do what they promised, was because neither had a majority.

So now they can gain power, and yet have an iron clad reason to not be accountable to the voters at all. Yes we promised this, but our coalition partners were against it. So we couldn't do anything.

At least when Republicans win both houses, they are expected to do what they say. And if they don't, they have no excuse for it. Same for Democrats. Right now, if they had formed a coalition in 2009 to 2010, we would be hearing how they would have fixed Obama Care to work, they just couldn't because their coalition partners were against it.

I know that is EXACTLY what we'd be hearing right now.

That's what you want? That kind of system? Where government does anything, and gives excuses endlessly? What benefit do you think is going to come from this?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I disagree. The US system is hardly Democratic at all. Two parties, no choice beyond that. The French have more parties, however it is still FPTP in the equivalent of the House, so it could be more Democratic than it is.

What do you mean no choice? I voted for Chuck Baldwin and Virgil Goode. How can you sit there and say "no choice", when I clearly had a choice, because I voted for two choices, outside the two parties?

What you mean is, no choice that the rest of the population will vote for. But that's how voting works. No democracy has a choice that "My guy wins even if no one else votes for him".

What I mean is more from other people's perspectives rather than my own. The view in the US, propagated no doubt by the main two parties, and parroted a lot of forums like this, is that a vote for someone other than the main two parties is a wasted vote. And this is played out in US elections where less than 5% vote for anyone other than the big two evil main parties.

But that's true everywhere. Even the UK, during the last national election, I'm watching Skynews, and they are saying "if you vote for the third party, that's like giving a vote to the Torys!"... that would be the Conservatives. The three major parties are Liberal Democrats, Labor, and Conservatives (nick named the Torys).

Every where in the world, there will always be two big parties, and usually a small less significant third party. And any vote for the third, is usually claimed to be a waste.

Even if we adopted a completely new political system, of proportional voting. Your vote for a third party still won't matter. Because the third party will still have about as much political influence as it does now. You have 100 seats in the Senate. If 51 are Democrap, and 46 are Republican, and 3 are all Green Party...... what real influence do you think the Green party will have? The Democraps are going to do whatever the heck they want, and your 3 Greeny people are nothing.

Same if the Republicans have 51 votes. The major parties are going to do whatever the heck they want, and splitting the vote 3-ways, isn't going to change that. The majority will always rule in the voting chamber.

So what exactly are you hoping for? If you accomplished everything you wanted, you would still be right where we are now. Nothing would change.

Of course it happens in other places.

The difference in the UK and the US is that 98.26% of all people in the US presidential election 2012 voted for the main two parties. Nearly 127 million people out of the 129 million who voted. 117.5 million voted for the main two parties in the House with the Libertarians being the only other party to get above 1% in the House and got 0.9% in the Presidential election.

Only 75% of people voted for the main two parties in the UK General Election in 2015.The Lib Dems got 7.9% and that was considered a disaster for them. The SNP got 4.7% of the votes but won every seat they contested. UKIP got 12.7% and lost one seat that had gained from by-elections the previous year.

See the difference? People in the UK will vote. However both have FPTP.

Go to Germany, and the two main parties CDU/CSU and SPD gained 74.7% of the constituency vote. Similar to the UK. But the PR vote was 67.2%.

Imagine if the US could get down to 67.2% instead of figures that corrupt African leaders get.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe 98.26% of voters WANTED to vote for only the two major parties?

I don't want the US getting down to 67%. Why? Again.... what *DIFFERENCE* would it make? Again, look at the UK. I've watched the UK elections. I've watched the UK debates.

It is almost EXACTLY THE SAME AS HERE. It's no different! Same arguments. Same politics. Same haggling back and forth. Same issues. Same everything.

They don't have a utopian result, or even a 'better' result from having 75% voting for the two major parties, or 67% for the two major parties.

I see absolutely no benefit to this. In fact, in some ways it makes things worse. Why? Because now if any party gets less than 50% control over the legislature, they have to form a coalition government.

Then in a coalition, the two parties that form the majority, can both say the reason they couldn't do what they promised, was because neither had a majority.

So now they can gain power, and yet have an iron clad reason to not be accountable to the voters at all. Yes we promised this, but our coalition partners were against it. So we couldn't do anything.

At least when Republicans win both houses, they are expected to do what they say. And if they don't, they have no excuse for it. Same for Democrats. Right now, if they had formed a coalition in 2009 to 2010, we would be hearing how they would have fixed Obama Care to work, they just couldn't because their coalition partners were against it.

I know that is EXACTLY what we'd be hearing right now.

That's what you want? That kind of system? Where government does anything, and gives excuses endlessly? What benefit do you think is going to come from this?

No, it never occurred to me that 98% of the population of a country that is 300 million wanted to vote for just two people. People vote NEGATIVELY, it's quite clear that people do this. How many people in November will be voting AGAINST Hillary or AGAINST Trump rather than for anyone?

It's also clear, and I've shown it, that when people have the choice to vote TWICE, they'll less likely vote for the main party under Proportional Representation than under First Past The Post.

What difference would it make if the US got down to 67%? A lot of difference. It would be the difference between this sick partisan politics that is more about nonsense than anything else. It would give much more mobility to smaller parties. Look at Germany.

The AfD has managed to come second in Saxony-Anhalt with 24.2% of the vote, third place in Baden-Wuerttemberg with 15.1% of the vote, and second in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern with 21.5% of the vote.

This wouldn't happen in the US, it's as simple as. In Germany if the people are fed up with the main party they can vote for a secondary party on the same political wing. In the US if you're fed up with the Republicans you vote Democrat. If you're fed up with the Democrats you vote Republican, unless of course you're fed up with the Democrats and see the Republicans as a threat and then there's no one to vote for.

In the US the main political parties are safe. Nothing can knock them down. It's like the NFL or other US sports. You finish bottom of the table, oh, well, you get first pick in the draft and you're still in the top division, so it doesn't matter. You messed up, well, so what?
In Germany you finish bottom of your soccer league and you're in division 2. You finish bottom again you're in regional football, an absolute disaster. The CDU is a large party but it knows there is a threat to its position.

That's one big difference. People have democracy in their hands. In the US they don't.

Again, the UK is FPTP, the same as the US. Politics is more mobile because people are less likely to take the partisan mode of the US, this is a difference in culture rather than in the elections itself.

Sure, in a coalition both can say they couldn't do what they promises. The Lib Dems did that. Look what happened to them. The Tories did more than they said they'd do for their supporters, and they gained an overall majority. A coalition can go many ways, but this was the first coalition in a long time. When coalitions are the norm, then things change, as they are in Germany.

The US system, the presidents promise all sorts of things. Obama promised he'd close Guantanamo prison before he'd finished 8 years in office. But he doesn't have that power. But people still voted for it. He can only serve 2 terms, so he can promise things and then not bother because who cares, he can't stand anyway.

Congress is just an absolute mess.

The arguments you are using are fine. A coalition isn't "Utopian" as you put it, never will be, but what the US has right now is so damaging to the country it's ridiculous.

 

[Andylusion]

What do you mean no choice? I voted for Chuck Baldwin and Virgil Goode. How can you sit there and say "no choice", when I clearly had a choice, because I voted for two choices, outside the two parties?

What you mean is, no choice that the rest of the population will vote for. But that's how voting works. No democracy has a choice that "My guy wins even if no one else votes for him".

What I mean is more from other people's perspectives rather than my own. The view in the US, propagated no doubt by the main two parties, and parroted a lot of forums like this, is that a vote for someone other than the main two parties is a wasted vote. And this is played out in US elections where less than 5% vote for anyone other than the big two evil main parties.

But that's true everywhere. Even the UK, during the last national election, I'm watching Skynews, and they are saying "if you vote for the third party, that's like giving a vote to the Torys!"... that would be the Conservatives. The three major parties are Liberal Democrats, Labor, and Conservatives (nick named the Torys).

Every where in the world, there will always be two big parties, and usually a small less significant third party. And any vote for the third, is usually claimed to be a waste.

Even if we adopted a completely new political system, of proportional voting. Your vote for a third party still won't matter. Because the third party will still have about as much political influence as it does now. You have 100 seats in the Senate. If 51 are Democrap, and 46 are Republican, and 3 are all Green Party...... what real influence do you think the Green party will have? The Democraps are going to do whatever the heck they want, and your 3 Greeny people are nothing.

Same if the Republicans have 51 votes. The major parties are going to do whatever the heck they want, and splitting the vote 3-ways, isn't going to change that. The majority will always rule in the voting chamber.

So what exactly are you hoping for? If you accomplished everything you wanted, you would still be right where we are now. Nothing would change.

Of course it happens in other places.

The difference in the UK and the US is that 98.26% of all people in the US presidential election 2012 voted for the main two parties. Nearly 127 million people out of the 129 million who voted. 117.5 million voted for the main two parties in the House with the Libertarians being the only other party to get above 1% in the House and got 0.9% in the Presidential election.

Only 75% of people voted for the main two parties in the UK General Election in 2015.The Lib Dems got 7.9% and that was considered a disaster for them. The SNP got 4.7% of the votes but won every seat they contested. UKIP got 12.7% and lost one seat that had gained from by-elections the previous year.

See the difference? People in the UK will vote. However both have FPTP.

Go to Germany, and the two main parties CDU/CSU and SPD gained 74.7% of the constituency vote. Similar to the UK. But the PR vote was 67.2%.

Imagine if the US could get down to 67.2% instead of figures that corrupt African leaders get.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe 98.26% of voters WANTED to vote for only the two major parties?

I don't want the US getting down to 67%. Why? Again.... what *DIFFERENCE* would it make? Again, look at the UK. I've watched the UK elections. I've watched the UK debates.

It is almost EXACTLY THE SAME AS HERE. It's no different! Same arguments. Same politics. Same haggling back and forth. Same issues. Same everything.

They don't have a utopian result, or even a 'better' result from having 75% voting for the two major parties, or 67% for the two major parties.

I see absolutely no benefit to this. In fact, in some ways it makes things worse. Why? Because now if any party gets less than 50% control over the legislature, they have to form a coalition government.

Then in a coalition, the two parties that form the majority, can both say the reason they couldn't do what they promised, was because neither had a majority.

So now they can gain power, and yet have an iron clad reason to not be accountable to the voters at all. Yes we promised this, but our coalition partners were against it. So we couldn't do anything.

At least when Republicans win both houses, they are expected to do what they say. And if they don't, they have no excuse for it. Same for Democrats. Right now, if they had formed a coalition in 2009 to 2010, we would be hearing how they would have fixed Obama Care to work, they just couldn't because their coalition partners were against it.

I know that is EXACTLY what we'd be hearing right now.

That's what you want? That kind of system? Where government does anything, and gives excuses endlessly? What benefit do you think is going to come from this?

No, it never occurred to me that 98% of the population of a country that is 300 million wanted to vote for just two people. People vote NEGATIVELY, it's quite clear that people do this. How many people in November will be voting AGAINST Hillary or AGAINST Trump rather than for anyone?

It's also clear, and I've shown it, that when people have the choice to vote TWICE, they'll less likely vote for the main party under Proportional Representation than under First Past The Post.

What difference would it make if the US got down to 67%? A lot of difference. It would be the difference between this sick partisan politics that is more about nonsense than anything else. It would give much more mobility to smaller parties. Look at Germany.

The AfD has managed to come second in Saxony-Anhalt with 24.2% of the vote, third place in Baden-Wuerttemberg with 15.1% of the vote, and second in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern with 21.5% of the vote.

This wouldn't happen in the US, it's as simple as. In Germany if the people are fed up with the main party they can vote for a secondary party on the same political wing. In the US if you're fed up with the Republicans you vote Democrat. If you're fed up with the Democrats you vote Republican, unless of course you're fed up with the Democrats and see the Republicans as a threat and then there's no one to vote for.

In the US the main political parties are safe. Nothing can knock them down. It's like the NFL or other US sports. You finish bottom of the table, oh, well, you get first pick in the draft and you're still in the top division, so it doesn't matter. You messed up, well, so what?
In Germany you finish bottom of your soccer league and you're in division 2. You finish bottom again you're in regional football, an absolute disaster. The CDU is a large party but it knows there is a threat to its position.

That's one big difference. People have democracy in their hands. In the US they don't.

Again, the UK is FPTP, the same as the US. Politics is more mobile because people are less likely to take the partisan mode of the US, this is a difference in culture rather than in the elections itself.

Sure, in a coalition both can say they couldn't do what they promises. The Lib Dems did that. Look what happened to them. The Tories did more than they said they'd do for their supporters, and they gained an overall majority. A coalition can go many ways, but this was the first coalition in a long time. When coalitions are the norm, then things change, as they are in Germany.

The US system, the presidents promise all sorts of things. Obama promised he'd close Guantanamo prison before he'd finished 8 years in office. But he doesn't have that power. But people still voted for it. He can only serve 2 terms, so he can promise things and then not bother because who cares, he can't stand anyway.

Congress is just an absolute mess.

The arguments you are using are fine. A coalition isn't "Utopian" as you put it, never will be, but what the US has right now is so damaging to the country it's ridiculous.

Yeah, because things were so much better in 1992. You remember 1992? When Ross Perot gathered 20% of the vote. What difference did it make? Nothing.

Yes, look at Germany. Have you been paying attention to Germany? It's the same thing! SAME THING. There are two major parties. Two major political groups. The CDU has 40% of the vote, the SPD has 25%, and the next highest has 8%. All the rest are too insignificant to make any difference. When you watch their politics, it is the same thing. The two major parties fighting it out, while the rest are barely even notice....> JUST LIKE HERE <. Same political back room deals between the major players. Same partisan sniping. Everything is exactly the same.

You want to push for this fine. I'm not even 'opposed' to it. What I am opposed to, is you living in a dream world where you think the grass is greener with some other system. It's no different. Period. End of story. I've watched international politics in Europe for a decade now, and there isn't one single thing 'better' about it. It's EXACTLY THE SAME.

The only reason you think it's different is because the parties change their name. I've watched parties in other countries rise, and fall. You know what happens when the public freaks out, and vote out a party so it ceases to exist? Nothing. They change their name.

The politicians don't change. They just find a new name to hide under. Bernie Sanders was independent, then ran for president as a democrat. Then when that failed, he went back to being independent.

Nothing about Sanders was any different. Only the name of the party he declared himself to be. That is exactly what happens in Europe all the time. Same people, same politics, new name.

Gregor Gysi... In 1980s he was the Socialist Unity party. In the 1990s to 2007, he was Democratic Socialist party. Now he's part of the "The Left" party of Germany.

Same politicians. Same ideology. Same everything, except new name.

That's exactly what would happen here. If you somehow got everyone to vote out all the democrats, they would simply become a new party, with a new name. Same ideology, same people. New name.

They'll give you want you want. The illusion that somehow you have more options than Democrat or Republican, because they know that if they have a new name, you'll think you have control.

In reality, it would be the same people. The Clintons, the Rockefellers... same people new name. Yay we have a choice!

 

[easyt65]

If Hillary & Trump are the best the 2 major parties now have to offer then maybe it is time for a 3rd party.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What I mean is more from other people's perspectives rather than my own. The view in the US, propagated no doubt by the main two parties, and parroted a lot of forums like this, is that a vote for someone other than the main two parties is a wasted vote. And this is played out in US elections where less than 5% vote for anyone other than the big two evil main parties.

But that's true everywhere. Even the UK, during the last national election, I'm watching Skynews, and they are saying "if you vote for the third party, that's like giving a vote to the Torys!"... that would be the Conservatives. The three major parties are Liberal Democrats, Labor, and Conservatives (nick named the Torys).

Every where in the world, there will always be two big parties, and usually a small less significant third party. And any vote for the third, is usually claimed to be a waste.

Even if we adopted a completely new political system, of proportional voting. Your vote for a third party still won't matter. Because the third party will still have about as much political influence as it does now. You have 100 seats in the Senate. If 51 are Democrap, and 46 are Republican, and 3 are all Green Party...... what real influence do you think the Green party will have? The Democraps are going to do whatever the heck they want, and your 3 Greeny people are nothing.

Same if the Republicans have 51 votes. The major parties are going to do whatever the heck they want, and splitting the vote 3-ways, isn't going to change that. The majority will always rule in the voting chamber.

So what exactly are you hoping for? If you accomplished everything you wanted, you would still be right where we are now. Nothing would change.

Of course it happens in other places.

The difference in the UK and the US is that 98.26% of all people in the US presidential election 2012 voted for the main two parties. Nearly 127 million people out of the 129 million who voted. 117.5 million voted for the main two parties in the House with the Libertarians being the only other party to get above 1% in the House and got 0.9% in the Presidential election.

Only 75% of people voted for the main two parties in the UK General Election in 2015.The Lib Dems got 7.9% and that was considered a disaster for them. The SNP got 4.7% of the votes but won every seat they contested. UKIP got 12.7% and lost one seat that had gained from by-elections the previous year.

See the difference? People in the UK will vote. However both have FPTP.

Go to Germany, and the two main parties CDU/CSU and SPD gained 74.7% of the constituency vote. Similar to the UK. But the PR vote was 67.2%.

Imagine if the US could get down to 67.2% instead of figures that corrupt African leaders get.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe 98.26% of voters WANTED to vote for only the two major parties?

I don't want the US getting down to 67%. Why? Again.... what *DIFFERENCE* would it make? Again, look at the UK. I've watched the UK elections. I've watched the UK debates.

It is almost EXACTLY THE SAME AS HERE. It's no different! Same arguments. Same politics. Same haggling back and forth. Same issues. Same everything.

They don't have a utopian result, or even a 'better' result from having 75% voting for the two major parties, or 67% for the two major parties.

I see absolutely no benefit to this. In fact, in some ways it makes things worse. Why? Because now if any party gets less than 50% control over the legislature, they have to form a coalition government.

Then in a coalition, the two parties that form the majority, can both say the reason they couldn't do what they promised, was because neither had a majority.

So now they can gain power, and yet have an iron clad reason to not be accountable to the voters at all. Yes we promised this, but our coalition partners were against it. So we couldn't do anything.

At least when Republicans win both houses, they are expected to do what they say. And if they don't, they have no excuse for it. Same for Democrats. Right now, if they had formed a coalition in 2009 to 2010, we would be hearing how they would have fixed Obama Care to work, they just couldn't because their coalition partners were against it.

I know that is EXACTLY what we'd be hearing right now.

That's what you want? That kind of system? Where government does anything, and gives excuses endlessly? What benefit do you think is going to come from this?

No, it never occurred to me that 98% of the population of a country that is 300 million wanted to vote for just two people. People vote NEGATIVELY, it's quite clear that people do this. How many people in November will be voting AGAINST Hillary or AGAINST Trump rather than for anyone?

It's also clear, and I've shown it, that when people have the choice to vote TWICE, they'll less likely vote for the main party under Proportional Representation than under First Past The Post.

What difference would it make if the US got down to 67%? A lot of difference. It would be the difference between this sick partisan politics that is more about nonsense than anything else. It would give much more mobility to smaller parties. Look at Germany.

The AfD has managed to come second in Saxony-Anhalt with 24.2% of the vote, third place in Baden-Wuerttemberg with 15.1% of the vote, and second in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern with 21.5% of the vote.

This wouldn't happen in the US, it's as simple as. In Germany if the people are fed up with the main party they can vote for a secondary party on the same political wing. In the US if you're fed up with the Republicans you vote Democrat. If you're fed up with the Democrats you vote Republican, unless of course you're fed up with the Democrats and see the Republicans as a threat and then there's no one to vote for.

In the US the main political parties are safe. Nothing can knock them down. It's like the NFL or other US sports. You finish bottom of the table, oh, well, you get first pick in the draft and you're still in the top division, so it doesn't matter. You messed up, well, so what?
In Germany you finish bottom of your soccer league and you're in division 2. You finish bottom again you're in regional football, an absolute disaster. The CDU is a large party but it knows there is a threat to its position.

That's one big difference. People have democracy in their hands. In the US they don't.

Again, the UK is FPTP, the same as the US. Politics is more mobile because people are less likely to take the partisan mode of the US, this is a difference in culture rather than in the elections itself.

Sure, in a coalition both can say they couldn't do what they promises. The Lib Dems did that. Look what happened to them. The Tories did more than they said they'd do for their supporters, and they gained an overall majority. A coalition can go many ways, but this was the first coalition in a long time. When coalitions are the norm, then things change, as they are in Germany.

The US system, the presidents promise all sorts of things. Obama promised he'd close Guantanamo prison before he'd finished 8 years in office. But he doesn't have that power. But people still voted for it. He can only serve 2 terms, so he can promise things and then not bother because who cares, he can't stand anyway.

Congress is just an absolute mess.

The arguments you are using are fine. A coalition isn't "Utopian" as you put it, never will be, but what the US has right now is so damaging to the country it's ridiculous.

Yeah, because things were so much better in 1992. You remember 1992? When Ross Perot gathered 20% of the vote. What difference did it make? Nothing.

Yes, look at Germany. Have you been paying attention to Germany? It's the same thing! SAME THING. There are two major parties. Two major political groups. The CDU has 40% of the vote, the SPD has 25%, and the next highest has 8%. All the rest are too insignificant to make any difference. When you watch their politics, it is the same thing. The two major parties fighting it out, while the rest are barely even notice....> JUST LIKE HERE <. Same political back room deals between the major players. Same partisan sniping. Everything is exactly the same.

You want to push for this fine. I'm not even 'opposed' to it. What I am opposed to, is you living in a dream world where you think the grass is greener with some other system. It's no different. Period. End of story. I've watched international politics in Europe for a decade now, and there isn't one single thing 'better' about it. It's EXACTLY THE SAME.

The only reason you think it's different is because the parties change their name. I've watched parties in other countries rise, and fall. You know what happens when the public freaks out, and vote out a party so it ceases to exist? Nothing. They change their name.

The politicians don't change. They just find a new name to hide under. Bernie Sanders was independent, then ran for president as a democrat. Then when that failed, he went back to being independent.

Nothing about Sanders was any different. Only the name of the party he declared himself to be. That is exactly what happens in Europe all the time. Same people, same politics, new name.

Gregor Gysi... In 1980s he was the Socialist Unity party. In the 1990s to 2007, he was Democratic Socialist party. Now he's part of the "The Left" party of Germany.

Same politicians. Same ideology. Same everything, except new name.

That's exactly what would happen here. If you somehow got everyone to vote out all the democrats, they would simply become a new party, with a new name. Same ideology, same people. New name.

They'll give you want you want. The illusion that somehow you have more options than Democrat or Republican, because they know that if they have a new name, you'll think you have control.

In reality, it would be the same people. The Clintons, the Rockefellers... same people new name. Yay we have a choice!

No, it didn't make much of a difference in 1992. Probably because nothing much had actually changed.

REAL CHANGE, a change in the way people vote, is the only way to get real change. Trump isn't real change at all.

Yes, there are two major parties in Germany. I'm not saying there won't be major parties. But when was the last time the CDU/CSU or the SPD had outright control of the country? You're looking at before WW1. Again, I've spoken about the effects of a coalition.

The thing is that you say that the other parties aren't in a position to have an impact, yet you're saying this a few days after an election where the AfD has just wiped the floor with the CDU in regional elections, and has come 1st, 2nd and 3rd in regional elections since its founding only 3 years ago. That's real progress. The Tea Party was formed how long ago and has very limited impact and it's still inside the Republican Party.

The CDU is in coalition with the SPD right now. Before that it was in coalition with the FPD who got unlucky and didn't quite make the threshold of 5% (with 4.8%) and the AfD got 4.7%, which was unlucky and it's the first time since 1987 that only 4 parties are in parliament, and I'm sure in 2017 this will change to at least 5 if not 6 parties.

Before that it was the CDU/CSU and SPD in a grand coalition, and before that it was the SPD and the Greens in coalition.

So in the last 14 years there have been 4 parties in government. Compared to 2 in the US in the last, what?, 200 years?



You're opposed to me seeing that a different system would be better? Why? It would be better.

I don't have a problem with you coming up with objections, I welcome the debate, it's not often that I get someone on the other side who will ask such questions. However at times I think you're being a bit too quick to react. It's not the same. You might have "watched" international politics for a decade, but I've lived it, I've studied it. I had a political lecturer who had been a Bavarian MP.

There's a massive difference between how the politics of German and the politics of the USA work. MASSIVE. In Germany it's far more people centered, governments have to appeal to the people. In the US the governments don't appeal to the people, they tell the people what to think.

Look at the issues.
In the US the issues at the coming election are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
In Germany they were talking about the Euro crisis and international politics.
It's not a popularity contest like it is in the US and has been for a long time.

No, I don't think it's different because parties change their name. Please don't tell me what I think, you don't know me.

Some of the leaders change parties. But that doesn't mean they're the same.

The CDU and the SPD were around before Hitler.

The Greens have been around for a long time, but the current party is a post reunification party.

You're trying to tell me that the people are all the same just different names because the PDS formed an alliance with the WASG and then in 2007 they become die Linke. So therefore it's just all name changing and nothing else.

You do know the PDS isn't the SPD right?

It's not the same ideology. The reality is the CDU/CSU is right, not too right. SPD is left. The FPD is center right. The Greens are environmentally aware and more on the left, die Linke is more on the left of the SPD, and the AfD is on the right of the CDU/CSU.

This is what the US is lacking. The distinction between different levels of right and left and center. You see it on this forum all the time. People are just like "you're on the left, so therefore you're this and you think this and this and you support Hillary" or "You're on the left therefore you're this and that and you support Trump". It's that simple in the US. Partisan politics at it's lowest possible form.

In German people actually have a choice. If they're not at the level of left or right for the two main parties, they vote for ones who are closer to their level of left or right. That's democracy. That's a MASSIVE difference.

So it's not how it would happen in the US. The Tea Party would suddenly become it's own party. There'd be a party for people like Sanders, more to the left. There'd probably be a centerist party too. The US has a population something like 4 or 5 times larger, that's more scope for political opinions than even in Germany.

But they're squashed by the current system.

 

[Andylusion]

But that's true everywhere. Even the UK, during the last national election, I'm watching Skynews, and they are saying "if you vote for the third party, that's like giving a vote to the Torys!"... that would be the Conservatives. The three major parties are Liberal Democrats, Labor, and Conservatives (nick named the Torys).

Every where in the world, there will always be two big parties, and usually a small less significant third party. And any vote for the third, is usually claimed to be a waste.

Even if we adopted a completely new political system, of proportional voting. Your vote for a third party still won't matter. Because the third party will still have about as much political influence as it does now. You have 100 seats in the Senate. If 51 are Democrap, and 46 are Republican, and 3 are all Green Party...... what real influence do you think the Green party will have? The Democraps are going to do whatever the heck they want, and your 3 Greeny people are nothing.

Same if the Republicans have 51 votes. The major parties are going to do whatever the heck they want, and splitting the vote 3-ways, isn't going to change that. The majority will always rule in the voting chamber.

So what exactly are you hoping for? If you accomplished everything you wanted, you would still be right where we are now. Nothing would change.

Of course it happens in other places.

The difference in the UK and the US is that 98.26% of all people in the US presidential election 2012 voted for the main two parties. Nearly 127 million people out of the 129 million who voted. 117.5 million voted for the main two parties in the House with the Libertarians being the only other party to get above 1% in the House and got 0.9% in the Presidential election.

Only 75% of people voted for the main two parties in the UK General Election in 2015.The Lib Dems got 7.9% and that was considered a disaster for them. The SNP got 4.7% of the votes but won every seat they contested. UKIP got 12.7% and lost one seat that had gained from by-elections the previous year.

See the difference? People in the UK will vote. However both have FPTP.

Go to Germany, and the two main parties CDU/CSU and SPD gained 74.7% of the constituency vote. Similar to the UK. But the PR vote was 67.2%.

Imagine if the US could get down to 67.2% instead of figures that corrupt African leaders get.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe 98.26% of voters WANTED to vote for only the two major parties?

I don't want the US getting down to 67%. Why? Again.... what *DIFFERENCE* would it make? Again, look at the UK. I've watched the UK elections. I've watched the UK debates.

It is almost EXACTLY THE SAME AS HERE. It's no different! Same arguments. Same politics. Same haggling back and forth. Same issues. Same everything.

They don't have a utopian result, or even a 'better' result from having 75% voting for the two major parties, or 67% for the two major parties.

I see absolutely no benefit to this. In fact, in some ways it makes things worse. Why? Because now if any party gets less than 50% control over the legislature, they have to form a coalition government.

Then in a coalition, the two parties that form the majority, can both say the reason they couldn't do what they promised, was because neither had a majority.

So now they can gain power, and yet have an iron clad reason to not be accountable to the voters at all. Yes we promised this, but our coalition partners were against it. So we couldn't do anything.

At least when Republicans win both houses, they are expected to do what they say. And if they don't, they have no excuse for it. Same for Democrats. Right now, if they had formed a coalition in 2009 to 2010, we would be hearing how they would have fixed Obama Care to work, they just couldn't because their coalition partners were against it.

I know that is EXACTLY what we'd be hearing right now.

That's what you want? That kind of system? Where government does anything, and gives excuses endlessly? What benefit do you think is going to come from this?

No, it never occurred to me that 98% of the population of a country that is 300 million wanted to vote for just two people. People vote NEGATIVELY, it's quite clear that people do this. How many people in November will be voting AGAINST Hillary or AGAINST Trump rather than for anyone?

It's also clear, and I've shown it, that when people have the choice to vote TWICE, they'll less likely vote for the main party under Proportional Representation than under First Past The Post.

What difference would it make if the US got down to 67%? A lot of difference. It would be the difference between this sick partisan politics that is more about nonsense than anything else. It would give much more mobility to smaller parties. Look at Germany.

The AfD has managed to come second in Saxony-Anhalt with 24.2% of the vote, third place in Baden-Wuerttemberg with 15.1% of the vote, and second in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern with 21.5% of the vote.

This wouldn't happen in the US, it's as simple as. In Germany if the people are fed up with the main party they can vote for a secondary party on the same political wing. In the US if you're fed up with the Republicans you vote Democrat. If you're fed up with the Democrats you vote Republican, unless of course you're fed up with the Democrats and see the Republicans as a threat and then there's no one to vote for.

In the US the main political parties are safe. Nothing can knock them down. It's like the NFL or other US sports. You finish bottom of the table, oh, well, you get first pick in the draft and you're still in the top division, so it doesn't matter. You messed up, well, so what?
In Germany you finish bottom of your soccer league and you're in division 2. You finish bottom again you're in regional football, an absolute disaster. The CDU is a large party but it knows there is a threat to its position.

That's one big difference. People have democracy in their hands. In the US they don't.

Again, the UK is FPTP, the same as the US. Politics is more mobile because people are less likely to take the partisan mode of the US, this is a difference in culture rather than in the elections itself.

Sure, in a coalition both can say they couldn't do what they promises. The Lib Dems did that. Look what happened to them. The Tories did more than they said they'd do for their supporters, and they gained an overall majority. A coalition can go many ways, but this was the first coalition in a long time. When coalitions are the norm, then things change, as they are in Germany.

The US system, the presidents promise all sorts of things. Obama promised he'd close Guantanamo prison before he'd finished 8 years in office. But he doesn't have that power. But people still voted for it. He can only serve 2 terms, so he can promise things and then not bother because who cares, he can't stand anyway.

Congress is just an absolute mess.

The arguments you are using are fine. A coalition isn't "Utopian" as you put it, never will be, but what the US has right now is so damaging to the country it's ridiculous.

Yeah, because things were so much better in 1992. You remember 1992? When Ross Perot gathered 20% of the vote. What difference did it make? Nothing.

Yes, look at Germany. Have you been paying attention to Germany? It's the same thing! SAME THING. There are two major parties. Two major political groups. The CDU has 40% of the vote, the SPD has 25%, and the next highest has 8%. All the rest are too insignificant to make any difference. When you watch their politics, it is the same thing. The two major parties fighting it out, while the rest are barely even notice....> JUST LIKE HERE <. Same political back room deals between the major players. Same partisan sniping. Everything is exactly the same.

You want to push for this fine. I'm not even 'opposed' to it. What I am opposed to, is you living in a dream world where you think the grass is greener with some other system. It's no different. Period. End of story. I've watched international politics in Europe for a decade now, and there isn't one single thing 'better' about it. It's EXACTLY THE SAME.

The only reason you think it's different is because the parties change their name. I've watched parties in other countries rise, and fall. You know what happens when the public freaks out, and vote out a party so it ceases to exist? Nothing. They change their name.

The politicians don't change. They just find a new name to hide under. Bernie Sanders was independent, then ran for president as a democrat. Then when that failed, he went back to being independent.

Nothing about Sanders was any different. Only the name of the party he declared himself to be. That is exactly what happens in Europe all the time. Same people, same politics, new name.

Gregor Gysi... In 1980s he was the Socialist Unity party. In the 1990s to 2007, he was Democratic Socialist party. Now he's part of the "The Left" party of Germany.

Same politicians. Same ideology. Same everything, except new name.

That's exactly what would happen here. If you somehow got everyone to vote out all the democrats, they would simply become a new party, with a new name. Same ideology, same people. New name.

They'll give you want you want. The illusion that somehow you have more options than Democrat or Republican, because they know that if they have a new name, you'll think you have control.

In reality, it would be the same people. The Clintons, the Rockefellers... same people new name. Yay we have a choice!

No, it didn't make much of a difference in 1992. Probably because nothing much had actually changed.

REAL CHANGE, a change in the way people vote, is the only way to get real change. Trump isn't real change at all.

Yes, there are two major parties in Germany. I'm not saying there won't be major parties. But when was the last time the CDU/CSU or the SPD had outright control of the country? You're looking at before WW1. Again, I've spoken about the effects of a coalition.

The thing is that you say that the other parties aren't in a position to have an impact, yet you're saying this a few days after an election where the AfD has just wiped the floor with the CDU in regional elections, and has come 1st, 2nd and 3rd in regional elections since its founding only 3 years ago. That's real progress. The Tea Party was formed how long ago and has very limited impact and it's still inside the Republican Party.

The CDU is in coalition with the SPD right now. Before that it was in coalition with the FPD who got unlucky and didn't quite make the threshold of 5% (with 4.8%) and the AfD got 4.7%, which was unlucky and it's the first time since 1987 that only 4 parties are in parliament, and I'm sure in 2017 this will change to at least 5 if not 6 parties.

Before that it was the CDU/CSU and SPD in a grand coalition, and before that it was the SPD and the Greens in coalition.

So in the last 14 years there have been 4 parties in government. Compared to 2 in the US in the last, what?, 200 years?



You're opposed to me seeing that a different system would be better? Why? It would be better.

I don't have a problem with you coming up with objections, I welcome the debate, it's not often that I get someone on the other side who will ask such questions. However at times I think you're being a bit too quick to react. It's not the same. You might have "watched" international politics for a decade, but I've lived it, I've studied it. I had a political lecturer who had been a Bavarian MP.

There's a massive difference between how the politics of German and the politics of the USA work. MASSIVE. In Germany it's far more people centered, governments have to appeal to the people. In the US the governments don't appeal to the people, they tell the people what to think.

Look at the issues.
In the US the issues at the coming election are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
In Germany they were talking about the Euro crisis and international politics.
It's not a popularity contest like it is in the US and has been for a long time.

No, I don't think it's different because parties change their name. Please don't tell me what I think, you don't know me.

Some of the leaders change parties. But that doesn't mean they're the same.

The CDU and the SPD were around before Hitler.

The Greens have been around for a long time, but the current party is a post reunification party.

You're trying to tell me that the people are all the same just different names because the PDS formed an alliance with the WASG and then in 2007 they become die Linke. So therefore it's just all name changing and nothing else.

You do know the PDS isn't the SPD right?

It's not the same ideology. The reality is the CDU/CSU is right, not too right. SPD is left. The FPD is center right. The Greens are environmentally aware and more on the left, die Linke is more on the left of the SPD, and the AfD is on the right of the CDU/CSU.

This is what the US is lacking. The distinction between different levels of right and left and center. You see it on this forum all the time. People are just like "you're on the left, so therefore you're this and you think this and this and you support Hillary" or "You're on the left therefore you're this and that and you support Trump". It's that simple in the US. Partisan politics at it's lowest possible form.

In German people actually have a choice. If they're not at the level of left or right for the two main parties, they vote for ones who are closer to their level of left or right. That's democracy. That's a MASSIVE difference.

So it's not how it would happen in the US. The Tea Party would suddenly become it's own party. There'd be a party for people like Sanders, more to the left. There'd probably be a centerist party too. The US has a population something like 4 or 5 times larger, that's more scope for political opinions than even in Germany.

But they're squashed by the current system.

But the CDU has outright control. Pretty much, whatever they want to do, they do.

In fact, the majority party in that system has even more control, than the majority party in our system.

See the opposition in that system is fractured.

Fictional example. The house of representatives has 435 chairs. At the end of 2014, the democrats had 201, and Republicans had 234. Now under this system, do the Republicans have to worry at all about the Democrats? Yes, actually they do. Because if just 17 Republicans vote against something, the Democrats could unify and vote down the bill.

Now imagine if it was 234 to 100 Democrats, 50 Green Part, 25 Socialist, and 10 Christian coaliation, and a few others.

Do you think the Republicans would give a flying crap what the Democrats or other parties were doing? Do you think that if 17 Republicans voted against any particular bill, that the Democrats would be able to rally 10 different parties to have a unified vote against?

In fact... Lets even say that Republicans had less than half the vote. Say only 210 votes for Republicans, 100 Democrats, 50 Green Party, 25 Socialists, 30 Christian coalition, 10 independent, and 10 votes for some other odd party.

Even with 210 votes, they could pretty much ignore all the other parties completely, since they are likely to get at least 8 votes from all the other random parties. Even if not, they could easily cut a back room deal with the least significant party, like the independents, and easily ignore everyone.

The more fractured the opposition is, the less they have to bother considering other views. Again, I have watched European politics for a decade now. This is how it works, or doesn't work.

In fact, on this very forum, we had a guy on here from Europe, can't remember which thread it was, where he was asking the question in 2010, when democrats had control of congress, why did they care at all about the opposition? Why was Obama even talking with Republicans at all? This is why. While still the minority, they have enough of a unified vote, that if they can swing just a few Democrats, they can stop the Democrat agenda. That's why Obama was bothering to even meet with them.

In Europe, where the opposition is usually 2 to 5, or even a dozen parties, no party has enough influence to justify even talking to.

That is exactly what would happen here in the US. The largest party would have enough power to do whatever it wanted, without even considering other opinions, if we had a multi-party system.