By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - What would be the best option to get more parties involved/elected in the USA?

JazzB1987 on 21 September 2012
sethnintendo said:

It is pretty obvious that most people are sick of the Democrats and Republicans in the USA.  However, I believe with the current winner takes all system that it is almost impossible for other parties to get elected in state and national elections.  If I wanted to vote libertarian or another party then my vote would most likely be worthless.  It would be nice to know that my vote actually means something rather than be tossed out.  I believe that we need to go from a winner takes all election process to proportional representation.  I view the electoral college, winner takes all and two party systems in a very negative light.  I was wondering what you guys think would be the best way to solve this problem? 


The biggest probme here is this:

Politics in the USA is like wrestling.  Its supposed to be 2 different teams but behind the scenes they are all friends and work together as 1 big company.

You vote for  X. X Wins.   X fuckes up and then people will vote for Y  Y makes fucks up and people will vote X  etc etc.  

They always win because both parties are actually one big party that acts like 2 different ones. They have some opposite opinions on stuff thats unimportant for them so people think they are enemies because of all the differences but stuff thats inportant to them will not be changed even if the other party wins. etc.

And as long as this system exists  and people believe both parties are enemies etc  why would anyone vote for a small new party etc?

The best way to remove the 2 party dominance is to make a limit on what parties can spend for ads. Make it affordable for individuals like no party is allowed to spend more than 10000 dollars a year. 
Seriously a new party can not compete  with the reps or dems  because they use billions for advertising, shows  etc etc which is a waste of money because its useless and its not what elections are for.   People are supposed to vote for the best IDEA and for the best person to represent the country   not for the person  with whitest teeth   best smile  who has the best speech and has the most money and therefore can afford the most time on air.

People should not even hear or see how candidates sound or look like.  It is unimportant and distorts the image of the person that is actually there.

But all this will never happen because the 2 party system already won  they control everything  so you cant make a law that will cripple their power etc.

People should just take some pitchforks and torches and  well you know the rest.



Around the Network
SamuelRSmith on 22 September 2012
Kasz216 said:
All people would need to do is repeal a shitload of the election "regulations" that were passed by the two dominant parties to make sure that there were only two.

While we always had 2 main parties, there used to quite a few popular 3rd parties.


Another good one would be to go back to the State governments electing senators. As state legislators are much more likely to be third party members.


Pretty much this.

Also, take non-political means. Forget about "reforming the system", actually go out and talk to people, educate them. If you have the resources and skills, set up a blog, youtube channel, or what-have you, the more that people are awakened to the shambles in the halls of power, the less power those halls have.

Just like how we don't need Government intervention to fix our healthcare problems, we don't need Government intervention to fix representation problems. Also, what I'm suggesting will actually be more effective rather than what everybody else has said... because the Governing parties will not listen to a single proposal that will diminish their hold. You have to bypass them.



Jumpin on 22 September 2012
Adinnieken said:

The United States is not a democracy, we are a republic.  We may be a democratic nation, but we are not a democracy and we never were nor did the founding fathers ever intend for the United States to be a democracy.

The US is a Democracy AND a Republic. These are not mutually exclusive terms. In other words; the implication that the US cannot be a democracy because it is a republic follows the same logic as saying that something cannot be a bus ibecause it is coloured green; neither statement is logically coherent.

Republics are countries whose head of states are not Monarchs.

Democracy is a system where eligible citizens have equal votes to elect the government.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

non-gravity on 22 September 2012

Noone is ever happy

In the UK the Liberal Democrats want proportional representation.

In the Netherlands the liberal democrat D66 wants a district system that will ultimately push toward a two-party system.



mrstickball on 22 September 2012
Jumpin said:
sethnintendo said:

It is pretty obvious that most people are sick of the Democrats and Republicans in the USA.  However, I believe with the current winner takes all system that it is almost impossible for other parties to get elected in state and national elections.  If I wanted to vote libertarian or another party then my vote would most likely be worthless.  It would be nice to know that my vote actually means something rather than be tossed out.  I believe that we need to go from a winner takes all election process to proportional representation.  I view the electoral college, winner takes all and two party systems in a very negative light.  I was wondering what you guys think would be the best way to solve this problem? 

Why on earth would you want to vote for a libertarian party? History proved time and again that libertarianism simply doesn't work; do you Americans just not know about the 18th and 19th centuries?

Yeah, because those feudalistic societies that lassiez-faire capitalism replaced made our world worse :-



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
mrstickball on 22 September 2012
TheShape31 said:
-Free and open airtime on radio, TV, and other forms of public broadcasting.
-Open debates which represent all parties, and are not run by the Republicrats.
-A independent, non-profit news organization with no money interests to any one party to cover elections.
-Free and open national ballot system for all parties.
-No public or private spending allowed, ensuring an equal playing field between rich and poor candidates.
-No electoral college.
-No congress, only public voting on national issues.

There is more, but these are off the top of my head.

That would be horrible. Then the media could easily shape any and all debates. Want to ban gay marriage forever? Just run a few ads on TV! Want to go to war with China? Just make the people angry!



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

SamuelRSmith on 22 September 2012
Jumpin said:
Adinnieken said:

The United States is not a democracy, we are a republic.  We may be a democratic nation, but we are not a democracy and we never were nor did the founding fathers ever intend for the United States to be a democracy.

The US is a Democracy AND a Republic. These are not mutually exclusive terms. In other words; the implication that the US cannot be a democracy because it is a republic follows the same logic as saying that something cannot be a bus ibecause it is coloured green; neither statement is logically coherent.

Republics are countries whose head of states are not Monarchs.

Democracy is a system where eligible citizens have equal votes to elect the government.


Actually, no. In the American sense, a Republic is something where no Government is sovereign. ie, the Feds are not sovereign over the States, and vice versa. Powers are apportioned by the sovereign citizens to the various levels of Government. There are things that the Feds can and cannot do, same for the states, same for local.

If the Feds suddenly became 100% democratic, then they will essentially become the sovereign entity of the USA, as they will have vast new claims to power through ideas such as "public mandate"... in reality, this is pretty much the case, now, anyway... but it's not what the Founders envisioned, hence why the Senate was appointed, and the President indirectly elected.



Jumpin on 23 September 2012
mrstickball said:
Jumpin said:
sethnintendo said:

It is pretty obvious that most people are sick of the Democrats and Republicans in the USA.  However, I believe with the current winner takes all system that it is almost impossible for other parties to get elected in state and national elections.  If I wanted to vote libertarian or another party then my vote would most likely be worthless.  It would be nice to know that my vote actually means something rather than be tossed out.  I believe that we need to go from a winner takes all election process to proportional representation.  I view the electoral college, winner takes all and two party systems in a very negative light.  I was wondering what you guys think would be the best way to solve this problem? 

Why on earth would you want to vote for a libertarian party? History proved time and again that libertarianism simply doesn't work; do you Americans just not know about the 18th and 19th centuries?

Yeah, because those feudalistic societies that lassiez-faire capitalism replaced made our world worse :-

Considering Feudalism was gone 3-400 years before laissez-faire economics were first attempted in Europe, I am not sure where you are making this connection. Laissez Faire economics were a collosal failure and were indeed far more oppresive and considerably worse than the prior systems. The historical fact that is monument to this are the deaths of millions of impoverished people in the core of the two largest imperial powers of France and the United Kingdom.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin on 23 September 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
Jumpin said:
Adinnieken said:

The United States is not a democracy, we are a republic.  We may be a democratic nation, but we are not a democracy and we never were nor did the founding fathers ever intend for the United States to be a democracy.

The US is a Democracy AND a Republic. These are not mutually exclusive terms. In other words; the implication that the US cannot be a democracy because it is a republic follows the same logic as saying that something cannot be a bus ibecause it is coloured green; neither statement is logically coherent.

Republics are countries whose head of states are not Monarchs.

Democracy is a system where eligible citizens have equal votes to elect the government.


Actually, no. In the American sense, a Republic is something where no Government is sovereign. ie, the Feds are not sovereign over the States, and vice versa. Powers are apportioned by the sovereign citizens to the various levels of Government. There are things that the Feds can and cannot do, same for the states, same for local.

If the Feds suddenly became 100% democratic, then they will essentially become the sovereign entity of the USA, as they will have vast new claims to power through ideas such as "public mandate"... in reality, this is pretty much the case, now, anyway... but it's not what theFounders envisioned, hence why the Senate was appointed, and the President indirectly elected.
Government ::UNITED STATES
conventional long form: United States of America
conventional short form: United States
abbreviation: US or USA
 
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

 

 

 

 

 

-CIA World Factbook

In otherwords, a Democratic Republic; both Democracy and a Republic.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

SamuelRSmith on 23 September 2012
Jumpin said:

Government ::UNITED STATES
conventional long form: United States of America
conventional short form: United States
abbreviation: US or USA
 
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

 

 

 

 

 

-CIA World Factbook

In otherwords, a Democratic Republic; both Democracy and a Republic.

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing your definition of a "republic", which means something different in regards to the way the American system is set up, to what you described "republic" to mean (which is the term applied to other republics).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States