How To Break The Monopoly That The Democrats and Republicans Hold

I know that most of you guys are Ron Paul supporters who would love to see the Libertarian power have a major roll in today's politics. Unfortunately, you guys are NEVER going to take power for one simple reason. The current political parties have a law that states that the only political parties that can participate in the presidential debates are those that are supported by 15% or more of voters. In my opinion, this law should be considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it allows the same political parties to maintain control virtually forever. To solve this problem, all you have to do is bring that number down to 5%. This change would break the monopoly that the current political parties hold and will give them more of an incentive to fight FOR THE PEOPLE. Not just for their own political ambitions. More people will become aware of what the alternative parties stand for and will transfer their donations over to them. Many of the national media outlets that currently only cover the Democrats and Republicans will be forced to cover other parties. This will result in new parties holding seats in Congress or even the presidency. If you want to create real change, you must solve this one single issue.

 

In addition to minor party candidates being effectively kept out of Presidential debates, first-past-the post voting and the current lack of alternative-vote / ranked-choice ballots discourage most people from considering minor party candidates seriously. Campaign related policies are favorable to the two major parties, both of which have overwhelmingly better war-chests at their disposal and as a result can completely dominate debate and frame the issues in comparison to the relatively modest and grassroots minor parties, who in turn do not get nearly so much in the way of capital due to their dismal prospects for victory (which of course becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy). Likewise, major news outlets tend to ignore these candidates. Coverage of the two major parties' rivalry is better for ratings and netting profit.

Getting minor party candidates into nationally televised debates may be a good place to start of course. Yet at the same time I think we are going to need a lot of electoral and campaign-related reforms before a multiparty system can ever drift within the people's reach. Even if Libertarians were to succeed in replacing either the Democratic or Republican Party in the two-party paradigm, folks like me who usually lean either Green or socialist would be not at all better off than before in terms of having a satisfactory measure of representation in government. The game really ought to be opened up (at least initially when most people still side with either the Democrats or Republicans to some extent and are unfamiliar with the alternatives) to all of the traditionally-marginalized factions, in my opinion, rather than just those that can initially exceed the 5% threshold. Personally, I'd recommend 0.5-2% for at least a few cycles after the reform.

 

Well...you could repeal that law, but it would do you no good. Problem is that the higher the number of parties present, the less and less representation. (which just goes to show there is no real representation in the first place)

If you had, say, 5 groups...

Democrats 20%
Republicans 23%
Socialists 19%
Nationals 20%
Constitutionals 18%

When one group wins, it represents on 23% of the entire country. Democracy...

However, because we know (when questioned outside of the polarizing political climate) peoples natural wants and desires, or their views on the wants and desires of others do not always fall into just two or even five groups, but there are many of them. (300 million people...two ideological choices for election...) Creating a hundred parties is highly impractical and having two leads to a false sense of representation as one is technically forced to endorse the candidate that "comes close" or do nothing at all.

 

I don't know if that's going to happen unless the economy completely crumbles. But it would nice if a few slots in Congress were filled by third parties. This could end some of the political games that we see going on in Washington these days.

 

It wouldn't really help. I mean, it would help just one party. It depends on the policy of that party. Right now we Democrats and Republican's. If the third party leans towards a Republican view, it would harm the Republican's by splitting their combined vote and Democrats would win. If the other way around, the Republicans would win. (or whatever combination you can think of) So it's kind of a tricky thing.

- - - Updated - - -

It wouldn't really help. I mean, it would help just one party. It depends on the policy of that party. Right now we Democrats and Republican's. If the third party leans towards a Republican view, it would harm the Republican's by splitting their combined vote and Democrats would win. If the other way around, the Republicans would win. (or whatever combination you can think of) So it's kind of a tricky thing.

 

Don't worry read the news , people are starting to realise that Obama is a gay marriage friendly version of a generic republican ( same as in Europe generic conservatives are identical with generic social-democrats) . Disappointment will eventually turn people to other directions , i see already some of your nationals exploring alternative socio-economic ideas ( unfortunately most are turning anacaps but well better bad than stall)
Look what happen in Italy with M5S / Grillo , find a charismatic personality , organise through the web , host meetings and online debates, US people are well wired into the internet and it will work.

 

"...it would nice if a few slots in Congress were filled by third parties."

Taxcutter says:
All they have to do is win elections. There are those faux-"Independents" in New England. They are hyper-leftists in deep blue states. Why could the Greens not win a district in the SF bay area? Why could the Libertarians not win an election in Idaho?

Sometimes the old Nike slogan applies. Just do it.

 

Multiparty systems like the UK and Israel are a complete and utter joke. You end up with a plurality of small minorities constantly switching their allegiances on a daily basis. Ideally there would be no political parties as the founders had originally envisioned but short of that as a Libertarian my best bet is to keep working on changing the Republican party from the inside out. (Democrats are a lost cause)

The 5% rule wouldn't even work for Libertarians or Greens because with a few exceptions like Ross Perot third parties don't even reach the 5% mark most of the time.

 

A second simple reason is that there are just not enough Libertarians out there to matter. For good reason.

 

Then you get into all that European crap of forming coallitions, usually between highly unlikely partners. That ain't no way to run a country.

 

The bold definitely. The largest political party is the party of nonvoters, who for the most part do not vote because they do not trust either party, and know they do not represent their best interest. What is even worse is the large number of stupid and flat out ignorant people who vote a particular party line because they think that party represent their best interest. Then when you include the blatant gerrymandering that is illegal as well as unethical but a common practice among the two major parties, and the other legislation/rules on elections like the one you are talking about that exclusively benefits the two major parties, as well as the fact that the two corporate owned parties have placed themselves, conveniently, in the position of the coordinators of all elections, the election officials who oversee the process, and assign the official ballot counters, the odds that any election is legitimate in this country is slim to none. Good luck though.

 

"...there are just not enough Libertarians out there to matter."

Taxcutter says:
As long as they define success is simply getting a place on the platform in Presidential debates, they'll never matter. Parties are built from the ground up, not from the top down. Ross Perot was a one-shot deal, totally driven by his money. When he lost interest, his party evaporated.

This is why the Tea Party is unique. They are not forming a new party but taking over an existing party from the bottom up. Or maybe just redefining an old coalition.

I don't see OWS trying to redefine the Democrat Party.

Both major parties are in fact coalitions. They always have been although the coalitions shift from time to time. If you don't have coalitions you cannot get anything near a majority. Some parts of coalitions are mysterious. Environmentalists and blue collar labor are part of the democrat coalition. Most puzzling because environmental regulations have flat murdered the old blue collar industries. But the coalition persists.

The American system of nominal majority rule (there have always been exceptions) demands coalitions. If five parties run and none get over 30% or so, they cannot govern. If three factions form a coalition they can get a majority and govern. The American system where the coalitions are built into the parties forces the coalitions to stay stable for at least one term of office. The European system of proportional representation means the small parties remain intact and coalitions are too ephemeral to effectively govern.

Who can the various "little parties'" possible coalition partners?

 

Please quote me in the federal code where that is "law." You can't, because it's not law, its an agreement between the two parties. Basically speaking, the two parties decide the rules.

Then the big two won't show up, and you will have no real debate.

Basically, libertarians (or any other third party) needs to start from the ground up. Start running locally, and stop running nutcases.

 

For the most part I agree with you but the tea party, is just being used by republican/neocons the same way they used the religious right. In fact most of the tea party "IS" the religious right getting a second go round in the barrel, by the same republican/neocons who used, abused, and ignored them before. They are not only allowing it, they are making it possible.

 

Easier said than done, because the people who would have to enact that change are the same people who benefit so well from the two party monopoly. And a more self serving group of people you will not find.

Politics, it's the last refuge of a scoundrel doncha know.......

 

We've got a Socialist in Congress (Bernie Sanders). Nothing stopped him from winning that election.

 

That's a good point you bring up. I wonder what percentage of American's who are able to vote don't vote and if that number has increased or decreased over the years...

 

Our last general election had a turnout of 14% of eligable voters. The primary had a turnout of 4%.

The quality of our "leaders" here in Kansas reflects it.

 

And evidently it is working for them. The so-called leaders that is.

 

"...the tea party, is just being used by republican/neocons..."

Taxcutter says:
You got it backwards. The Tea Party is displacing the old guard and neo-cons. Ask Dick Lugar.

 

There are pros and cons to this either way.

A multiparty system is good for representing a greater range of voters, ideologically, and providing relatively stable public policy agendas in government but - along with your own criticisms - suffers from small factions influencing much larger ones that depend on their support to remain in the governing coalition, and from the fragmentation of similarly-interested folks into many small bickering factions (i.e. a country can go from having too few parties to having far too many, especially if the threshold for entry is set too low).

In a two-party system there is more intraparty cohesion (even though each party is a de-facto alliance of many smaller factions) and less danger of small, extreme groups exerting any influence over public policy. Yet at the same time the major parties are prone to being mostly devoid of a strong set of ideals and clearly-defined platform, being relatively opportunistic in nature and leaving a very large minority of people feeling disenchanted with the system and disinclined to vote at all. It also is prone to suffering bipolar swings in public policy agendas, with each (relatively frequent) change in the balances of power bringing about new courses of action - often before the last set of policies can take full affect and have its outcomes be rationally examined.

I imagine there are more benefits and criticisms out there for both of these approaches though, eh?

 

The only way to break the monopoly is thru education - but since the progressives have such a stranglehold on education at all levels, the media, government unions, school boards, et al, there really is no way back.

Right off the top - anyone fool enough to vote for Barack Obama is unspeakably ignorant. As citizens?? they are indoctrinated simpletons - completely ignorant of history, governmental systems, the principles of freedom, basic economics, the basic functions of institutions, responsibility to posterity, on and on...

That's roughly half the country right there. Throw in the 50% of Republicans who are neocons, and 10's of millions of Americans who are even dumber than your average democrat, but don't bother to vote... add all that up, and you have 100's of millions of ignorant Americans who are completely incapable of self government.

Wish I had better news - but the writing is on the wall. Nothing left to do now but ride it out. The transition will necessarily require bloodshed... hopefully it won't be too bad.

Liberals have complete control of all of our institutions. 20 years from now conservatives won't be fearing an audit, they'll be in fear for their life.

 

Libertarians who want the Libertarian Party in power miss the point that it's state authority that's illegitimate. It's not a matter of bad people being in power, it's that power itself. Let the people decide for themselves through voluntary interactions, no need for a government.

I see their reasoning in wanting a LP, and I think they should continue pushing for it, but let's be honest - once Gary Johnson gets in power he's gonna continue to mess with liberty. Nobody is immune to that sort of power.

 

If they are voting republican they are shooting themselves in the foot, because republicans are neo-cons, not conservatives.