First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Do you think the two party system will fail after this election? (U.S.A)
2951 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / In a Yaoi Fanfic
Online
Posted 11/2/16

HolyDrumstick wrote:


Dogempire wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:

My personal opinion is that the two party system was designed to distract people from real issues and as false competitors. They're essentially controlled opposition.

For example, is the national debt and terrible economy a problem? Let's turn this into a who is screwing things up the worst insult-fest, so that no one actually focuses on policy to address these.

Basically, it's misdirection so very few people vote on policy these days.

Also, honestly, nothing will actually happen until we start voting someone else into office (absolutely ANY elected office), every term. It seems like, once someone is office they will continue to automatically get elected until they max out on terms, retire, die, or do something so terrible they have no choice but to resign.

Now what exactly does that have to do with the two party system? Basically, if we started always voting for someone new, it would be harder for the parties to not actually take any productive or different policy. They'd actually have to seek improvement for the US, if they ever hope to get reelected.

But, do I think the two party system will fail? Yes. But, it already has. Though it can be considered beneficial in many ways, it has been failing us for years, in terms of actually doing what is best for the US.

That's my opinion, anyway.


The two-party system wasn't designed, it just happened due to the winner take all voting system.

As for voting for a non-viable third party system, well let's say we had three candidates: Tronald Drump, Chillary Hilton, and Burning Sanders.

Now let's assume the United States population is 50% conservative leaning and 50% liberal leaning, and Tronald Drump is conservative while Chillary Hilton and Burning Sanders are liberal. Needless to say, Tronald Drump will, in a perfect world, get all of the conservative votes while Chillary Hilton might get say 35% of the votes and Burning Sanders gets 15%.

Because the liberal voting base is split into two sections despite being the other half of the population, it caused Chillary Hilton to lose 15% of the liberal vote and therefore lose the race, where Tronald Drump does not have any opponents who are similar in political views to them.

Now let's say instead of 3 candidates we had 5, and all were influential candidates and not a joke. Let's call these candidates A-E.

The election results come in, candidate A gets 24% of votes, B gets 21%, C gets 15%, D gets 20%, and candidate E gets 20%.

Next election rolls around, the same 5 candidates que up, but this time, the voters for candidate C know that C won't win, so instead of voting for C, they vote for candidate B because they're the only candidate they can stand, meaning that candidate B gets 36% of the votes and everyone else remains the same. This is called strategic voting, which is basically when people vote for a more popular candidate to prevent the undesired outcome of candidate A getting re-elected.

Now this applies to third parties in the U.S. election in that people know third parties won't win if they vote for them, so rather than vote for Chill Stein they vote for Chillary Hilton because she's the next closest to their preferred candidate's political views while being more popular. In this the votes that third parties would normally be getting if people didn't have to strategically vote are being allocated to a different candidate instead, which just perpetuates the two party system. Of course not all of the voters from say candidate C will allocate to a different candidate all at once, but the trend will happen, at least slowly. Voters are especially likely to switch to a similar candidate if a candidate gets crushed to the point they have no chance of winning the next election.

Once a party digs its hands into the back of the two-party system, it's very difficult for said party to let go without a public consensus on how unpopular the party is and how a certain other party is even more popular and should be voted for in their stead, and in this situation you're basically swapping out one of the two main parties for another.



It's easy. People just need to not be stupid. There are at least two candidates who'd be a better bet than Hillary or Trump. The two party system WAS designed, actually. You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. There are nations that have many parties, which is just as hectic.

Simple, simple, simple. All people have to do is start voting for the Jill Steins, Gary Johnsons, and.... no, never mind, that Evan fellow look like he'd be better off managing a Walmart, based on what I know of him.


Where in the constitution does it say there is to be a two-party system? We ended up with the system, we specifically didn't want parties in the early U.S.

Posted 11/2/16

Dogempire wrote:

Where in the constitution does it say there is to be a two-party system? We ended up with the system, we specifically didn't want parties in the early U.S.



nowhere. but that doesnt mean some bastards didnt get together an decide to design ways to pervert the project.
2951 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / In a Yaoi Fanfic
Online
Posted 11/2/16

RaisedInACult wrote:


Dogempire wrote:

Where in the constitution does it say there is to be a two-party system? We ended up with the system, we specifically didn't want parties in the early U.S.



nowhere. but that doesnt mean some bastards didnt get together an decide to design ways to pervert the project.


Right, but I'm saying that it wasn't designed that way, it just happened as a result of the first past the post voting system.
8010 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / florida
Offline
Posted 11/2/16 , edited 11/2/16
Well i guess there is another possible way these things could turn and that's to make primaries more inclusive, but that's not going to fix the real problem. I know a lot of people are fed up with not having a say in who it is they have to pick from so including no party affiliation voters limited to one primary would not be so bad, but just as we have seen with the GOP and DNC mailing and receiving ballots from people who have been dead for decades I'm sure there could be way more voter fraud. just some more food for thought for the discussion.
2951 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / In a Yaoi Fanfic
Online
Posted 11/2/16

lukedollo wrote:

Well i guess there is another possible way these things could turn and that's to make primaries more inclusive, but that's not going to fix the real problem. I know a lot of people are fed up with not having a say in who it is they have to pick from so including no party affiliation voters limited to one primary would not be so bad, but just as we have seen with the GOP and DNC mailing and receiving ballots from people who have been dead for decades I'm sure there could be way more voter fraud. just some more food for thought for the discussion.


If we changed the voting system from first past the post to a ranked voting system and we nominated two candidates per party instead of one, I could definitely see the election system being better.
Posted 11/2/16
http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/

every vote should count as 1 vote.

fractions are how they get more than 100% of voting

just like this explosion in mail ins helps the electoral fraud along too. mail ins used to be if you were out of the country or away and couldnt vote when its time to go vote.
10262 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/2/16 , edited 11/2/16

Dogempire wrote:


RaisedInACult wrote:


Dogempire wrote:

Where in the constitution does it say there is to be a two-party system? We ended up with the system, we specifically didn't want parties in the early U.S.



nowhere. but that doesnt mean some bastards didnt get together an decide to design ways to pervert the project.


Right, but I'm saying that it wasn't designed that way, it just happened as a result of the first past the post voting system.


And, I'm telling you no, it wasn't. A two party system was a planned endeavor. Not an accidental result of voting.

Just because it was never written into law doesn't mean it wasn't a planned policy. (Though, you actually said the Constitution, and there's actually a TON of legitimate policies that are not part of our Constitution. It doesn't need to be a part of our constitution to be part of our government.)

But, NO, the two party system was not accidental. People sat down and said "You know, we'd probably get more down if we only had a couple parties." So, those groups always funded and backed the most likely to be elected candidates, making it even more likely for people to vote for those people, so that people always voted for one party or another. Places actually do use multiple parties, where a two party system was not in place. (Like the Netherlands, at least years ago, not sure about now).

My point is, if you really believe the two-party system wasn't planned, you're wrong.
Posted 11/2/16
This is arguing over semantics, the dude's point was that there's no constitutional basis for it, and he's correct on that.

That it DID find its way into state lawbooks...I dont think anyone's questioning that fact...
14731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/2/16 , edited 11/2/16

Dogempire wrote:Where in the constitution does it say there is to be a two-party system? We ended up with the system, we specifically didn't want parties in the early U.S.


See, we ended up getting into trouble back when there WASN'T a party system--
Because colonials were still British until they revolted, George Washington was a declared Whig, who subscribed to the more liberal wing of Parliament (as opposed to the loyalist Torys), but afterwards, there was no reason to sympathize with British politics.

Candidates ran as themselves and created their own parties out of the one key issue they wanted to push:
We had the Abolitionist Party, the Wet Party, the Anti-Masonic Party; Adams and Hamilton created the Federalist party hoping for a Federal Constitution while Jefferson formed the Democratic-Republicans hoping to keep it as a democratic republic of states, and Lincoln formed his new "Republican" Party hoping to push the issue of preserving the Republic.

Voters voted for their candidate, and whoever got second-place got to be Vice President. That might not mean much when Jefferson had to serve under Adams and Aaron Burr had to serve under Jefferson, but imagine Trump as VP to Clinton, and you get an idea of how long that idea was going to work.
It wasn't until the deadlock on that nasty Adams v. Jefferson election was finally broken that Congress decided we needed a better system, and not only created the Electoral College, but let the candidates choose their own veeps.

As for "Why TWO?", it's like that old joke: Some see the glass as half-empty, some see the glass as half-full, and some see it as "A glass twice as big as it needs to be."
Man's brain is naturally wired to think of abstract issues in binary (man/woman, day/night, good/evil, friend/enemy), which is why third options always tend to be Weird.
166 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 11/2/16 , edited 29 days ago

RaisedInACult wrote:


adairjoseph1973 wrote:

thumbsup and good luck with your business, man. I dont quite fully agree about peak oil, that's just another excuse to scalp people. (that said I got solar on my house, I aint dumb hehe)


Thanks, man. It's been a long road to travel, but it's paying off little by little the more it grows (at least in satisfaction from watching it grow, if not financially). Here's to what the future may bring!



I just think with oil being a finite resource, and with demand growing exponentially in developing countries (especially Asia), it will peak within the next few decades. It's not an exact science, so nothing for certain as to the time frame.

I've got solar in the works for mine as well. Nothing major, just a three panel set up to get my feet wet and lessen my dependence on the grid. Gonna shell out the extra cash for a pure sine wave inverter instead of the old style inverter. Nobody likes their energy dirty.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.