Why does the SCOTUS prefer Democrats and Republicans over third parties?

[elbe]

But that leads back to the lack of coverage of third parties. And there are some big ones like the Constitution-, Green-, and Libertarian Party. Don't they deserve to be involved in the election process much more? Because if the 2 Parties and the majority of the Media pretty much run the election, how in the world could third parties ever get traction in any way?

Well, unless the Democrats and Republicans somehow manage to screw it up badly.

How big do you think they are? Those three are all basically extreme fringe parties that don't represent a particularly significant percentage of the populace. They do get elected for smaller positions where they represent more isolated groups that may better agree with them, but with larger swaths of the public we'd prefer politicians who better represent a majority of their constituency. I think you imagine them to have more support than they actually do.

Remember, third parties and the big two are vastly different things. The big two are meant to be big tent parties, essentially a coalition of smaller interests, while the third parties are usually smaller interests trying to more directly put forth their positions. We, occasionally, get some third parties are somewhat big tent, but without a large enough support they'll just languish in the boonies.

 

[Oliver]

the 2 party system is a byproduct of the "winner take all" election system

imagine an election with 3 candidates, a democrat, a republican, and a liberal third party, the vote might come out like this

Dem: 30%
Rep: 40%
3rd: 30%

the republican wins, even though 60% of the vote went to liberal candidates. in this scenario the 3rd party candidate and his supporters would be better off voting for the democrat



the 20-30% independent voters is probably a bit inflated, since contrary to what you said in another thread there is no requirement to register with a party to vote in a general election.

primary elections (which are what is going on now in the US) are different, they determine which candidate a party will field in the general election in november, which is why some of them are closed to people who arent members of that party

Well, if I imagine an election with 3 candidates, I imagine that all three candidates count. "Winner takes it all" equals election fraud to me. And as far I read in here, the SCOTUS can't do anything about that.

And the idea to be better off voting for someone you just don't want either, sounds just cruel.

Are there any polls concerning how many percent of people are actually happy with being forced to vote either for Democrats or Republicans?

 

[Oliver]

How big do you think they are? Those three are all basically extreme fringe parties that don't represent a particularly significant percentage of the populace. They do get elected for smaller positions where they represent more isolated groups that may better agree with them, but with larger swaths of the public we'd prefer politicians who better represent a majority of their constituency. I think you imagine them to have more support than they actually do.

Remember, third parties and the big two are vastly different things. The big two are meant to be big tent parties, essentially a coalition of smaller interests, while the third parties are usually smaller interests trying to more directly put forth their positions. We, occasionally, get some third parties are somewhat big tent, but without a large enough support they'll just languish in the boonies.

It might well be that I assume much bigger percentages of people being interested in those third parties. But the bigger impression I have is that a lot of of Americans aren't happy with the big 2 choices only.

But unfortunately, I don't have any polls and numbers clarifying that impression.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Well, if I imagine an election with 3 candidates, I imagine that all three candidates count. "Winner takes it all" equals election fraud to me. And as far I read in here, the SCOTUS can't do anything about that.

And the idea to be better off voting for someone you just don't want either, sounds just cruel.

Are there any polls concerning how many percent of people are actually happy with being forced to vote either for Democrats or Republicans?

how is it election fraud? should the candidate with the fewest votes win?

 

[elbe]

It might well be that I assume much bigger percentages of people being interested in those third parties. But the bigger impression I have is that a lot of of Americans aren't happy with the big 2 choices only.

But unfortunately, I don't have any polls and numbers clarifying that impression.

It's likely an issue that would be hard to address. For a representative democracy to work (or, really, any democracy) there needs to be compromise. Part of the idea with the big tent parties is that the smaller interests are compromising to form a larger power block which then has to compromise with the other big tent party. It's hard to get what I want when the party that best represents my interests has to work out the best compromise of all of its constituents while also compromising with the party that doesn't represent my interests just to get anything done. A bit of a pain, yes?

Now let's say it's all a bunch of "third" parties in our legislature, where no one party has a controlling interest: my party will vote for my interests, but they can't pass anything if everyone else is against them, so once again we are faced with compromise and my interests will, once again, suffer.

It makes it very easy to be disillusioned by the process, and we do so love to complain. But really, without using some sort of tyrannical method of forcing others to agree with you you can't assume your interests will ever truly be represented in a democracy.

 

[Trakar]

the 2 party system is a byproduct of the "winner take all" election system

imagine an election with 3 candidates, a democrat, a republican, and a liberal third party, the vote might come out like this

Dem: 30%
Rep: 40%
3rd: 30%

the republican wins, even though 60% of the vote went to liberal candidates. in this scenario the 3rd party candidate and his supporters would be better off voting for the democrat...

Provided there is truely daylight between the big two parties. Currently, in the US most differences are superficial and cosmetic, which means you have the choice of Bad and Worse, and why we get the governance we choose.

I would prefer a system where multiple parties were involved and governance depended upon building and adhering to coalition agreements of independent parties. With regards to SCOTUS seats, I don't think it is a terribly important issue, this is about as close to non-partisanship as I see in the US government, not that there isn't the occassional stink-bomb, but for the most part advise and consent is taken rather seriously. Many, if not most, of the justices rule in ways that upset the base of the party that supported their nomination, I've rarely seen instances of apparently blatant partisanship from the supreme bench (note I said "rarely").

 

[elbe]

how is it election fraud? should the candidate with the fewest votes win?

Perhaps he'd prefer a runoff election. Still, hardly election fraud if the rules are written down ahead of time and everyone implicitly agreed to them by participating.

 

[Oliver]

how is it election fraud? should the candidate with the fewest votes win?

Sorry, I referred to "winner takes it all"-states, not the final vote.

 

[elbe]

Sorry, I referred to "winner takes it all"-states, not the final vote.

Like in our electoral college system? Do try to remember that the US does not have direct election of the President. It's in our constitution.

 

[Oliver]

Provided there is truely daylight between the big two parties. Currently, in the US most differences are superficial and cosmetic, which means you have the choice of Bad and Worse, and why we get the governance we choose.

I would prefer a system where multiple parties were involved and governance depended upon building and adhering to coalition agreements of independent parties.

Well, but to me it seems that the 2 leading parties themselves differ only in superficial and cosmetic terms. I don't see them as 2 differing parties. Nor do I see any bigger change in policy whether Dems or Reps are in charge. Do you?

 

[Oliver]

Like in our electoral college system? Do try to remember that the US does not have direct election of the President. It's in our constitution.

Do you have an idea why the authors of the constitution didn't want to have direct presidential elections? Or does it make sense to you that the popular results turn into delegates who choose other delegates who choose electoral delegates who finally choose the president? Not mentioning the Superdelegates being completely independent from the popular vote.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, but to me it seems that the 2 leading parties themselves differ only in superficial and cosmetic terms. I don't see them as 2 differing parties. Nor do I see any bigger change in policy whether Dems or Reps are in charge. Do you?

Yes, I do. You're not an American, Oliver. Everything you know about the US is filtered through third parties. Your sources of information are not comprehensive, your impressions on these matters are not terribly reliable, and you have some fundamental misconceptions about how our system works.

Your primary complaint, as far as I can tell, really boils down to the fact that the American public does not in general want the sort of politics you want. And so we don't elect politicians who enact the policies you prefer. Adding more parties to the mix wouldn't change that. There are plenty of things I would like to see happen to change politics in the US, but the number of parties isn't the problem.

 

[elbe]

Do you have an idea why the authors of the constitution didn't want to have direct presidential elections? Or does it make sense to you that the popular results turn into delegates who choose other delegates who choose electoral delegates who finally choose the president? Not mentioning the Superdelegates being completely independent from the popular vote.

The legislature writes the laws while the executive enforces it. The basic idea is that we have direct vote for the people who can, and should, act in our best interests. The president, like the SCOTUS, is then chosen by our representatives. Over time we've given more control over presidential elections to the people, but it is still going through the electoral college. Really, though, the idea that the president can do everything a candidate promises is just silly.

If you're interested in US politics you might be best suited for reading some US history books. Our system is hardly perfect, but there's a certain amount of sense to most of it.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Provided there is truely daylight between the big two parties. Currently, in the US most differences are superficial and cosmetic, which means you have the choice of Bad and Worse, and why we get the governance we choose.

I would prefer a system where multiple parties were involved and governance depended upon building and adhering to coalition agreements of independent parties. With regards to SCOTUS seats, I don't think it is a terribly important issue, this is about as close to non-partisanship as I see in the US government, not that there isn't the occassional stink-bomb, but for the most part advise and consent is taken rather seriously. Many, if not most, of the justices rule in ways that upset the base of the party that supported their nomination, I've rarely seen instances of apparently blatant partisanship from the supreme bench (note I said "rarely").

again, its a byproduct of the winner takes all system, the natural alignment of the 2 parties will be a 50-50 split of the voter base, then the only way to get elected is to poach votes from the other party, so naturally you get 2 very similar platforms

 

[crimresearch]

Do you have an idea why the authors of the constitution didn't want to have direct presidential elections? Or does it make sense to you that the popular results turn into delegates who choose other delegates who choose electoral delegates who finally choose the president? Not mentioning the Superdelegates being completely independent from the popular vote.

Why did it take you this long to spit out the actual question?

Your 'winner takes all equals election fraud', and 'people aren't allowed to vote for anyone but the 2 parties' red herrings accomplished what exactly?

Or do we have a few more layers to peel away before you get down to the usual xenophobic bashing because 225ish years ago the 'winners' in the American Revolution 'took all' the power away from monarchists?

 

[Oliver]

Yes, I do. You're not an American, Oliver. Everything you know about the US is filtered through third parties. Your sources of information are not comprehensive, your impressions on these matters are not terribly reliable, and you have some fundamental misconceptions about how our system works.

Your primary complaint, as far as I can tell, really boils down to the fact that the American public does not in general want the sort of politics you want. And so we don't elect politicians who enact the policies you prefer. Adding more parties to the mix wouldn't change that. There are plenty of things I would like to see happen to change politics in the US, but the number of parties isn't the problem.

You're right, I don't understand the whole system - because it's a pretty complex issue involving political history, the parties and how they came about, all the State laws and resulting differences in election rules, how the media and politics influence each other, the American mindset about political parties and issues and much more.

But I always thought the main problem is a lack of at least a third choice. Now if you think that isn't the problem, what is it?

 

[elbe]

But I always thought the main problem is a lack of at least a third choice. Now if you think that isn't the problem, what is it?

First off, we've had third parties before, it hasn't always been the Dems and Reps.

Second, what problem are you trying to address? It's sounded like you just want third parties, but their failure to gain any market share is about as much of a problem as why 372 of these people won't be elected president this year: No one is interested (outside of the main contenders, of course).

 

[Trakar]

again, its a byproduct of the winner takes all system, the natural alignment of the 2 parties will be a 50-50 split of the voter base, then the only way to get elected is to poach votes from the other party, so naturally you get 2 very similar platforms

This assumes that there are only two positions on all issues and that everyone is divided approximately equally on all issues. The two party system is not mandated in the constitution and given the opinions expressed by many of the founders, it is a corruptive and "to be avoided" circumstance.
I tend to agree, and would prefer a system with either multiple parties or no political parties (which seems to have been the postion of many founders).

 

[Oliver]

First off, we've had third parties before, it hasn't always been the Dems and Reps.

Second, what problem are you trying to address? It's sounded like you just want third parties, but their failure to gain any market share is about as much of a problem as why 372 of these people won't be elected president this year: No one is interested (outside of the main contenders, of course).

I used to think that the problem is the lack of choice, the lack of a third opinion, the lack of a real opposition.

And if you ask me, number 252 will be reelected.

 

[MaGZ]

Well, I understand that. But didn't anyone in the past try to force the SCOTUS to decide over the issue of equal rights for third parties?

Political parties aren’t mentioned in the US Constitution.