Two Party Politics - How should we elect our leaders?

[Ambrosia]

This came up in another thread and I thought discussing this topic merited it's very own thread.

-we need a strong two-party system.

I agree that the U.S. needs a strong 2-party system.

No, no and furthermore. No.

The US, like the UK, needs a strong voting system.

The two party system is fundamentally broken and the FPTP voting system that we use gives us two party politics, and that shortchanges us a lot.

Voting is like a false dichotomy. Vote red or vote blue. Don't like either candidate? tough.

If instead people could vote red, blue, purple, yellow, orange or green then our governments would more accurately represent the electorate, filibustering and rabid partisanship and gerrymandering is much harder to accomplish.

If you look at the US and the UK there are presently no stand out candidates from any party that you think "hey they'd make a great President/PM" I think that's also a symptom of 2 party politics.

If a given party had to beat out several other parties that all had reasonable chances of being elected then you would need to focus more on positive campaigning to point out what you would do to help, rather than negative campaigning and belittling the other party, as there is now more than one main rival party.
Also if a spectrum of political parties existed then more people would be inspired and enthused to join/lead a political party (it's hard to be a charismatic leader if you don't firmly believe in the ideals of that party) and we would have potentially more stand out candidates/politicians to represent us.

 

[kellyb]

I strongly favor instant runoff voting/ranked choice voting. I'm not a fan of duopoly politics.

 

[LSSBB]

We need more than 2 parties that are strong.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I strongly favor instant runoff voting/ranked choice voting. I'm not a fan of duopoly politics.

We need more than 2 parties that are strong.

Agreed.

Problem is "First Fast the Post" voting inevitably leads to two party systems.

"We need more than two parties" and "We need a different election system" are the same problem.

- No Gerrymandering (shortest split line algorithm to determine voting districts) and some form of instant runoff / ranked choice voting.

- People should able to vote for the person the agree with / support the most without fear of siphoning votes off from a more likely candidate that they agree with... mostly.

- Your vote shouldn't count less because you are surrounded by people who vote another way. A Democrat's vote in Texas (or a Republican's vote in California) should matter to the election as much as a Democrats vote in California (or a Republican's vote in Texas.)

All that said this is all... arguments in the margins as long as nearly half the elecorate never bothers to show up for an election. Technically speaking a Mr. John B. Didnotvote Esq. has been the rightful President of the United States since right before the Civil War

 

[Horatius]

I've always wanted a "None of the above" option. If NotA wins the vote, you have another election, and all the candidates who ran in the original are barred from running again*. Make the parties find candidates that people actually want to vote for, not just candidates they're reluctantly willing to vote for because those are the options they've been given.



*They're certainly barred from this election cycle. We can discuss the merits of banning them from a certain number of future elections as well.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've always wanted a "None of the above" option. If NotA wins the vote, you have another election, and all the candidates who ran in the original are barred from running again*. Make the parties find candidates that people actually want to vote for, not just candidates they're reluctantly willing to vote for because those are the options they've been given.

I've also vaguely thought about suggesting a "Minimal voter turnout" cutoff.

Win the election but only 45% of the people turned out to vote? Well then you didn't win the election. We open the polls again next week and the 55% who didn't vote can come vote. We repeat this process until we get... 75% let's say. If that means the new votes tip it to the other guy... oh well. You should have been more likable.

Of course I'm being halfway sarcastic but I do think there is a certain... illegitimacy (in tone and perspective not in literal legality) to someone winning an election when a small percentage of the people actually vote.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Mail in voting should become the default. There's no reason for people to actually visit a polling place in the modern era. Long lines and limited hours are big disincentives for working people to actually be able to vote.

 

[WilliamSeger]

We need more than 2 parties that are strong.

I have a somewhat unpopular opinion about this: Why should a democratic society have leaders who can't even win the support of one of the two major parties?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I have a somewhat unpopular opinion about this: Why should a democratic society have leaders who can't even win the support of one of the two major parties?

Because it's naive to think that's how this works.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Because it's naive to think that's how this works.

I think it's naïve to think we have "two parties." I see both major parties as being loose coalitions of minor parties who agree somewhat on most issues.

 

[LSSBB]

I think it's naïve to think we have "two parties." I see both major parties as being loose coalitions of minor parties who agree somewhat on most issues.

That is pretty much the case.

 

[ahhell]

I think it's naïve to think we have "two parties." I see both major parties as being loose coalitions of minor parties who agree somewhat on most issues.

That is pretty much the case.

The problem is that the only thing the minor parties agree on is that the other coalition is bad if not evil.

 

[Upchurch]

I would like to see us try instant-runoff voting at some point. I think it would give a real shot for third party candidates while not necessarily splitting a ticket.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I would like to see us try instant-runoff voting at some point. I think it would give a real shot for third party candidates while not necessarily splitting a ticket.

Agreed. If I could have one single change that would be it, even beyond fixing Gerrymandering and the Electoral College (although those would be close behind.)

People have to vote "strategically" is what is keeping the government from being a fair representation of the citizenry.

 

[LSSBB]

The problem is that the only thing the minor parties agree on is that the other coalition is bad if not evil.

I think you misread. The major parties themselves are really loose coalitions, is the point. Third parties, or lack of viable ones, is a whole other subject.

 

[ahhell]

I think you misread. The major parties themselves are really loose coalitions, is the point. Third parties, or lack of viable ones, is a whole other subject.

More like my sentence construction was confusing. I meant that the only the that holds the GOP coalition together is that they all hate the Dems and the only that holds the Dem coalition together is that they all hate the Reps.

The lack of viable third parties is related to your theory though. Because they are coalitions they basically poach the reasonable/practical folks that would otherwise join a third party which basically just leaves the crazies in the third parties. A practical libertarian joins(used to anyway) the GOP because they know the LP can't get elected to dogcatcher. A practical democratic socialist or green does the same but joins the Dems for the same reason. Bernie being a notable exception. Maybe not, its hard to say how pragmatic he is.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think you misread. The major parties themselves are really loose coalitions, is the point.

If 90% of people vote a straight ticket, what difference does it make?

*https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...oting-officially-dead/?utm_term=.0286e72ccbb5

 

[WilliamSeger]

If 90% of people vote a straight ticket, what difference does it make?

*https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...oting-officially-dead/?utm_term=.0286e72ccbb5

Before that happens, the minor parties duke it out in the primaries or caucuses to see who runs, presumably by sampling the opinion of the party members. The ones selected are presumably closer to your opinions than the opposition party's candidates. If there's anything wrong with our "two party system" it's because this aspect of it doesn't receive enough attention. But splitting up into multiple actual parties doesn't really address that; it would just make it harder to elect someone close to what you'd like. Pragmatic democracy requires pragmatic compromise.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well I got into it about primaries already in a previous thread and I don't want to rehash the whole thing but... safe to say I think the idea that right now the primary goal of the primaries is for the parties to decide who the voters want... is a little backwards.

 

[Ambrosia]

splitting up into multiple actual parties doesn't really address that; it would just make it harder to elect someone close to what you'd like.

Under the current FPTP system yes, but it doesn't have to be that way.

We, the electorate, have wide ranging and diverse views on everything. We all come from different backgrounds and have different priorities and so on and so forth.

How can it possibly be correct that we all divide neatly into a binary choice of political party?

Instead of having the 2 main parties being "sort of coalitions" why not have a system whereby the end result is usually a coalition, and the coalition is made up of politicians that the people voted into office.

As an added bonus, if we had a free choice and could choose from 6 or 7 candidates and our vote was meaningful then turnout would increase as less people are disenfranchised.

Instead of needing to pass laws, like those in Australia, where voting is mandatory, we could change the system so that more people feel more represented by the politicians and are thereby more people would vote.

I'd take a change right now where there's a main election and then the top two from that go to a runoff election, or similar, in a heartbeat. That alone would be streets ahead of the system we have now.