The two party duopoly: a solution proposal.

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by modernpaladin, Aug 1, 2019.

  1. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Would the myriad of problems associated with having two totally dominant politically parties be alleviated by requiring that both of the field two candidates in the general election?

    For clarity: if we had done this in 2016, the choices for president in the general election would have been Trump, Clinton, Cruz and Sanders, as well as all the 3rd party/ I candidates.

    Obviously this would (likely) result in the president getting elected by closer to 1/4 of the voters than closer to 1/2 as it usually ends up now.

    But no longer would many of those votes merely be against the other team. Additionally, it would complicate the dynamics of campaign strategy, adding an unpredictable element that would lessen the establishments ability to play the two sides off eachother, given that theres two competing elements on each side.
    It would also reduce the perception that a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote, as their statistical improbabilities of success substantially reduce.

    What do you think?
     
    Meta777 likes this.
  2. Spim

    Spim Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,664
    Likes Received:
    6,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not quite feeling the 4 candidate thing, i'd have to think about it, i'd be happier with just a 3rd candidate that isn't associated with either party, primarily because both IMO are so flawed (and powerful) that they need a serious chopping at the knees.

    A third party just needs better candidates (better funded too) I voted for Johnson last term but he honestly was a terrible candidate. I cast that vote to send a message of support rather than thinking that he had a chance at even 1 electoral vote with hopes that if 7-8% supported a 3rd candidate then in 2020 people would become convinced that it could grow.

    We just need a 3rd party candidate that is willing to step up to the pressure given by the dnc/gop to not break away instead of backing down.

    I'd be more than willing to support any 3rd party candidate that isn't god awful, and that goes from the federal all the way down to the local level. Heck in 2020 if we actually had the effort put in, independents could flip a sizable chunk in the house and probably steal a couple of senate seats as well, which would force the two major parties to actually work together instead of apart. <one can dream
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2019
    Collateral Damage and Moi621 like this.
  3. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I can tell you I'd rather have Cruz than Trump.
     
  4. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I honestly don't think this is a problem that needs solving. What we need is a Congress that actually responds to what the people want rather than saying one thing and governing completely opposite of what they say. This is true on the right and the left, but most of my beef is with the Republicans. It wasn't the Democrats who held up the border wall for two years in Congress, it was the Republicans. It wasn't the Democrats who refused to gut funding for Planned Parenthood, it was the Republicans. It wasn't the Democrats who refused to rein in our uncontrolled immigration, it was the Republicans. It wasn't the Democrats who increased the budget more than Obama did, it was the Republicans. Useless bunch of ****ing bastards all need to get voted out and replaced by people who will actually follow Republican principles. Having a third party or more than two presidential candidates won't solve the problem, and from my observations of Europe, multiple party systems are not an improvement over our two party one.
     
  5. AltLightPride

    AltLightPride Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    1,215
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's a very flawed system, since the party whose voters like both candidates equally will always be massively disadvantaged compared to the party whose voters significantly prefer one candidate to the other.

    If half your voters vote for one candidate and half for the other, you spread your votes and ensure that both candidates lose.

    Actually the optimal strategy in your system is to field one real candidate and a dummy nobody will vote for. So both parties will do that.

    In fact that's the very reason why primaries exist, so that you don't compete against your own party.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019
    Meta777 likes this.
  6. MississippiMud

    MississippiMud Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2015
    Messages:
    1,544
    Likes Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Why do candidates need party's? I say separate them from these political machines and have them stand on their own. If voters want to organize parties/groups/factions fine. Lets be real. We don't vote for a person. We vote for a political machine.

    We have a 2 headed political co-op and it doesn't really matter which one wins. The end game is the same. They both seek the same end. More control over the people.
     
  7. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The malcontents here are just lazy

    Instead of rolling up their sledves and working to improve the current system they do nothing but complain about it
     
  8. Bluehyena

    Bluehyena Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2019
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    It's always the same thing election year after election year, only last time it was literally like choosing between a broken left leg and a broken right leg.
     
  9. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What we really need is a Ranked System.
    The OP makes some good points, but ALP
    illustrated the major flaws in the OP solution.

    -Meta
     
  10. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course its a problem that needs solving.
    I'd even say its the very cause of the issue you mentioned,
    governing bodies being unresponsive to the wishes of the people.
    They, the parties, go back on their word and are unresponsive, because they know that voters typically have only one serious alternative to them,
    and that many voters are not going to vote for those whom they view as their polar opposite. This is why we need Ranked Voting...
    So that voters can choose to vote for candidates who are not their polar opposites in cases where their usual choices aren't meeting their needs/following through on promises.

    In fairness, the democrats did also contribute to the blocking of border wall funding and Planned Parenthood cuts, but I see your point on the others.

    Speaking specifically of Great Britain, I'd say that their multi-party system is a mess,
    but its still better than what we here in the U.S. have, as it allows for more nuanced preferences to be expressed via representation.
    However, rather than emulate Great Britain, I believe it'd be better to instead aim for something closer to what Australia has, though perhaps
    without all the mandatory voting stuff... In the end, all we really need is a simple Ranked system that mitigates/eliminates the election spoiler effect.

    -Meta
     
  11. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if either party splits their votes, the other party wins

    this country is divided 50\50, if either side loses votes to a 3rd party, the other wins
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2019
  12. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, this is why we need is a Ranked System...
     
  13. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    we have congress, which is a mix and they write the laws, part of the issue with the current system is congress is giving more and more of their power to the President

    it does upset me that dems changed the rules on judges to 50

    and that republicans then changed the votes to 50 for sc judges

    that was short sighted on both parties parts

    we have gotten to the ends justifies the means politics... which is not good for America
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2019
  14. Spim

    Spim Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,664
    Likes Received:
    6,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it would be interesting of there was no party affiliation, where we had to listen to the candidate to figure out if their views line up with our own, how weird would that be?
     
  15. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, I just don't see multi-party or multi-candidate elections as being an improvement over what we have now. We experiment with these things on a local level, such as city council elections, where all the candidates run and the people get to vote for their top two or three choices and the top five vote-getters become the electees. It doesn't change anything.

    They do this in Louisiana, the candidates run with no party affiliation, no party primaries, with the two top vote getters having a run-off election if no candidate wins more than 50% of the vote. Again, there's no real distinction making Louisiana's system any better than the one we use elsewhere.
     
  16. MississippiMud

    MississippiMud Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2015
    Messages:
    1,544
    Likes Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It would be weird given that we are mostly too lazy to even listen.
     
  17. Spim

    Spim Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,664
    Likes Received:
    6,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    true, and we tend to completely ignore local elections.

    We had a game night gathering a couple weeks back, 15 people and one of the contests was a blind taste test of 3 different beers and 3 different wines, we knew which 3 so the goal was to pick them correctly and put them on a slip of paper.

    For fun my wife suggested to also write down the name of your city's mayor.

    Shocking (not) that we had a higher percentage of correct beer/wine guesses than we did on the mayor, only 6 got the name right.
     
  18. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To eliminate the two party duopoly, you need to allow more than one candidate to be elected from each voting district.
     
  19. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    19,291
    Likes Received:
    7,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Open Primary is a problem, not the solution as expected.
    Primaries should be the business of the State's Registered Parties
    and not the business of the States creating one Party candidate choices in State/Federal elections with candidates from the same party.
    Let parties limit voting in their primary to persons registered as of that party, again.
    Every registered party gets its candidate on the ballot.


    I wish the Republican Party would challenge such laws in California
    denying the GOP Governor, Senator and Congressional candidates.


    Moi :oldman:



    Don't :flagcanada:ize, :flagus:
     

Share This Page