We really need get rid of the two party system and vary the political spectrum
What other political parties would you like to see rise in our country?
I would like to see Libertarians
and Meritocrats
Just to stir shit up
I know alot exist but I am meaning parties that could take POTUS
national socialist party is the only one needed
Because the majority of us are uninformed or just blatantly don't give a shit. Our mass media is aimed at celebrities rather than issues.
>>65798817
this t.b.h.
>>65798817
/thread
>>65798606
Both of our parties do a pretty good job of wrangling and corralling most of the political spectrum and accommodating most mainstream viewpoints.
>>65798606
it would be better to get rid of the 2 part system and not have any political parties at all.
people run for a position. get rid of primaries. who ever gets more votes wins
the worst thing that would happen is people would actually listen to what others say instead of voting across party lines
>>65798606
I'm honestly sure what system I prefer. While it's obviously not good to only have two choices, the problem when you have multiple parties is that you have all these small parties that can decide which block wins the election, depending on who they ally with. In other words, they end up with way too much power compared to the amount of people who voted for them.
It's a big issue in our current government, where our two most conservative parties make up the government, while they're dependent on two smaller parties for survival. Of course, these two parties seem to do everything in their power to fuck over the coalition when it comes to immigration.
Back in the early 2000s, which was the last time we had a conservative government, one of the same small parties was in a similar position. They only had 12% of the votes, but it was enough to push either side over the top. They ended up supporting the conservative side, but in return, they got the prime minister.
>>65798606
You are lucky people cause in Russia we have only one party - CPSU
>>65798606
>We really need get rid of the two party system and vary the political spectrum
I disagree.
A two political party system ensures the majority will _always_ win unless, of course, someone runs as an independent (which they could, albeit with considerably less support).
Furthermore, more parties are unneeded—the GOP and the Democratic party have a wide variety of candidates, all of whom have a myriad of different stances ranging from very socially conservative to very socially liberal, and very communist-like (Bernie), to free market oriented (Rand).
In short, whilst you may 'only' have 2 parties, each member could easily belong to a different party, except if you had multiple parties, very rarely would you ever get the vote of the majority.
>>65799295
>people run for a position. get rid of primaries. who ever gets more votes wins
Agree and disagree. I think there should be two groups and each candidate would be assigned to a random group. Whoever comes on top gets to compete against each other, thereby eliminating the 'majority' problem I mentioned.
>>65799369
>In other words, they end up with way too much power compared to the amount of people who voted for them.
>It's a big issue in our current government, where our two most conservative parties make up the government, while they're dependent on two smaller parties for survival. Of course, these two parties seem to do everything in their power to fuck over the coalition when it comes to immigration.
100% this. It's an issue in Portugal, and I suspect, the rest of Europe.
Just recently a pooinloo staged a coup using similar tactics to get the majority.
>>65798606
It does.
Nobody votes for them.
Most elections in the US are "first past the post" with single member districts. That reinforces two parties by district. Combine that with electoral laws that make it difficult for minor parties to get and maintain ballot status and you end up with a two party system.
>>65798606
Don't we also have the green party, independent party and the tea party? None of those are relevant though
I think the most famous other party candidate in recent times was Ross Perot. He actually got media attention making him a contender.. unlike Ron Paul who you knew was never going to win in a million years
thats why i kind of hope bernie and the republican losers keep running. it would be sweet to have a 4 party presidential election.
>>65798606
Theirs the green party if bernie drops out you can vote for jill stein
>>65798606
honestly even though the two party system limits options, there are still many varying degrees of political leaders within those parties, you're voting more for the politician to co-lead in the republic, even if they are a member of that party doesn't mean it's all the same thing. I think it's slightly different in europe though.
>>65800823
Green party canidates get on the ballot
Jill stein will be on the ballot
They would adopt a coalition process and we would essentially have a 1 party system like the French and Brits.
>>65800694
Never even heard of Perot and somehow he had a better chancestors than Ron Paul? What the fuck are you talking about
>>65798606
someone has yet to fund third-party media organizations to effectively spread propaganda
>>65798606
Progressives only move in one direction. There can only be them and those who oppose them.
>>65798606
because it's easier to control 2 groups. illusion of choice. ross perot pretty much destroyed the chance of a third party ever succeeding in a general election because it scared the shit out of the feds.
This is the start of that. The nation is fractured and white people are tired of being blamed. Trump and Sanders are two sides of the same angry coin. You think those Sanders supporters are going to lone up for Hillary?
>>65799569
I disagree with you due to the fact the parties established typically nominate the candidate that fits the particular narrative
So while in essence of primaries and races it appears to be varied along all political spectrums its actually a false choice because the establishment candidate always takes the nomination
This is why Trump is so special because it fucks with this paradigm
I think Trump running and possibly winning is the first time we will see the establishment shit a brick and either become more varied in candidates
OR both parties implode from the bernie people and if trump loses the nomination for the GOP
This breakup would force more parties to come
OR we just take it up the ass again
So while what your saying sounds pleasurable to the American Political system it has always shown time and time again that establishment chooses and gives the illusion of wide choices
>>65798606
more parties just means coalitions and watered down shit like we already have
>>65798606
>Check the post
>Check the flag
Congrats, you are the first American here that's not talking absolute trash!
To keep the thread going, anything that will cause some uproar around the world would be fun, really.
>>65798606
I used to think our effectively Two-Party system was awful, but then I saw how things tended to play out in European elections and I've changed my mind. Our system doesn't have any bullshit like coalition governments, you can safely vote for the candidate you want and not have them gang up with some other party you don't like to shit all over you. (For the most party, anyway.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
>>65799295
How about direct democracy? Voting for every seperate issue seems tedious but possible with modern technology.
I recommend you read the green book by Gaddafi and realize the problem goes deeper than that, and it's rooted in the existance of political parties themselves and the system of representative democracy.
>>65798817
fpbp
>>65798606
It is demoralizing when there is a president who only has 20% of the vote, so we have the whole caucus process of elimination instead, so we can get a majority vote in the general election,
>>65801057
People have long said he is the only reason Clinton got into office since Perot had double digit percent of the vote in many districts which is why some had speculated that Trump was going to run independent (obviously why they asked him about this in the first debate) because Clinton was using him as a plant to repeat her husband's earlier victory.
>>65802702
people who advocate for a direct democracy completely miss the point of the united states
see the US is actually not much different than the EU, a state is actually a fully sovereign state, with it's own government, elected officials, judges, and military
this is distinct from say some chunk of canada which is only a political territory without any real power of it's own
the federal government was only suppose to exist to facilitate the exchanges between the states and external powers, allowing the states to behave as allied countries instead of rouge nations who may or may not be at war.
The presidential vote is therefore a representation of that, in which the states select their representation and then send those representatives to do the deciding for them, with each state being represented different ways
because the founding fathers knew that there would be a problem with either A: direct 1 to 1 representation with populations, which would disenfranchise smaller states, or B: 1 state 1 vote which would disenfranchise larger states, they use a mixed system in which the congress is made up of both, and the presidential election is a college (group of people) who represent the desires of the states who select the president, each state actually decides differently and some even split their votes proportionally, getting rid of this would create a system in which states like alaska would be irrelevant in the election entirely.
