Forum Post: Ending the Two Party System
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 4, 2011, 8:31 a.m. EST by Sethi
(1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I think most Americans agree that the two party system is broken in our country. Third parties have always struggled in America because many voters don't want to "throw away their vote" by supporting something other then the Democratic Party or Republican Party.
The Tea Party is fully in line or satisfied with the leadership of the Republican Party. Occupy Wall Street wouldn't be hear if people thought their interests were being served by the Democratic Party.
What if both parties split off from the main stream parties, and we had four political parties? It might be the only way that the two party system could end without weakening either the right or the left.
I am not sure the best way to bring that about, but think that could be an excellent solution for the political deadlock in our country.
Four Parties, Tea Party, Republican Party, Democratic Party, and Occupy Wall Street Party.
Thanks for your time, and please offer your thoughts.
One topic that the new parties would agree upon, which the entrenched existing parties might not, is the necessity for political reform and getting money and corruption out of our system. Most grass roots Tea Partiers would agree with that more readily then establishment Republicans.
Toddtjs, fundamental change of some sort is necessary, if not breaking up the two party system, then it must lie in getting money out of the election process.
www.savingamericaspromise.com
...for a REAL PERSON for president who will fight for us against these corporations...
...check it out...
Occupy wall street is here not because of democratic party discontent but rather the democrats don't have any more power. The tea party movement took over our political system. They are the opposite of what we here believe. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Democrats represent the 99% to some extent. Let's work with what we have and make improvements down the road.
Kestrel,
You are right that coalitions are created in these countries (otherwise how else would a government be formed). However there is a much wider range of opinions allowed.
For example, there is no chance with the current US system that the pirate party (as an example) could gain representation in the US, even if they gained significant support. Both democrats and republicans move in lockstep to continually increase copyright lengths so that nothing significant will become public domain in our lifetimes.
The slave system or who have not been canceled! He bought tsivillizovanye form! But they forgot that they themselves are made from the same meat!
The whole system needs to be done away with. People please listen Capitalism and government have failed you. It is time to move to a resource based economy so that we actually have a chance in the future. Thank you.
Even in countries with multiple parties, (e.g. Italy, Israel, Germany), the coalitions always end up split into two sides. So either way, the OWS people will end up in the democratic party which is why the democratic party fully supports the OWS effort.
I agree. I believe the US democratic system is fundamentally "broken" and won't be solved by changing one or two laws. We really have to think, how can me make the US government more representative? Some thoughts: (1) Introduce proportional representation in the house - Instead of having small congressional districts, create "super-districts" that elect multiple members. The advantage being that this will give a chance to a lot of less well financed candidates, especially candidates outside the major parties. (2) Double house terms from two years to four years - As soon as congressmen/congresswomen are sworn in, they have to start raising funds for their re-election. How crazy is that? How can you take any brave decisions in such an environment? (3) Term limits - two terms max for the house and senate (4) Remove the electoral college and have a direct presidential election - we already have a states house in the senate. We don't need the state by state election for president. It disenfranchises people who don't live in the swing states. (5) Break the democratic/republican stranglehold on politics - Even if a politician starts out with good intentions he/she will get bound to support the party donors.
I am sure people have many more ideas. Let's get the discussion started!
i agree the system is very broken right now. as to your individual points, i agree totally on 3, 4, & 5. in response to 1: I think that the way that the system is currently set up for electing officials is a pretty good system, a major problem comes from gerrymandering though, there needs to be a system set in place that prevents a political party from redrawing district lines to essentially stack the voting deck in their favor as it were. republicans are the worst offender of this. 2: i don't think doubling the term limits is what is needed, the 2 year term is a good thing, the issue however is the second part that you mention, the fundraising. we need to come up with a new system of controls for oversight of fundraising. right now corporate interests, due to their incredibly deep pockets, have far more influence over candidates than they should have. this is an issue that needs to be corrected.
one thing which i feel we also need to do is switch over to a ranked voting system. this is the single most effective way to get a more representational government AND to break the two party stranglehold on american politics today.
Thanks for responding!
When you mention a "ranked voting system", you mean a "preferential voting system" (i.e. you rank candidates in order - when votes are counted, candidates with the lowest votes are removed one by one and their votes redistributed according to preference order)?
The problem with that is that it leads to a lot of preference horse trading, as most people will just follow the "how to vote" card from their preferred party (I know - I previously lived in a country with one of these systems). And it doesn't break the two party stranglehold (again, I know from experience). Only proportional voting will do that.
oh, and where was using the preferential/ranked voting? i'd like to do some research on how their system has been faring.
yes, preferential voting and ranked voting are the same thing. there are several places that have started using it here in the us and every place it is being used it is breaking the hold of the two party system.
what do you mean by 'preference horse trading'
the proportional voting would likely lead to districts being flooded by candidates from the two parties, it would be very easy to manipulate that system to keep it a two party system.
In a preferential voting system, the operatives from the parties will hand out "how to vote" cards or provide "how to vote" instructions. These instructions will indicate the order which you should rank candidates. Whilst a few people don't follow these instructions, most people do. Thus parties make "cross-preference deals" between themselves, which can decide elections in close races.
It is very easy to stop districts from being flooded by candidates from the major parties. No party would be allowed to put up more candidates than seats available. Candidates from each party are grouped together on the ballot
We already have a case study on preferential vs. proportional voting (Australia). Australia has proportional voting in the senate and preferential voting in the house. Only in the senate do minor parties have any significant representation. In some states they are actually getting rid of preferential voting in the house (or at least making the specification of preferences optional) because people get upset that in the end, no matter who they vote for, their vote tends to go to one of the two major parties.
OK, after having looked a little further into the preferential voting system I am convinced that it is one of the best representational models currently available. The major issue I can see is instituting it, it would never be done on a federal level, it would require more tinkering with the constitution than most people would be comfortable with. That would leave the states, and each state decides how they elect their officials, so by doing a state by state change would be necessary.
Ranked voting would still need to be used, but only for offices that have only a single elected official, President, Mayor, Governor, etc.
A two party system is inherently going to create and us/them adversarial relationship. A system where more voices are heard is never a bad thing and even if things slant left/right at least there's variables at play.