What To Do To Reduce Partisan Dysfunction In Politics

Although I applaud your effort, wading through three extra long posts is a bit much for me. Here I thought I posted long post replies at times. I'll just say this without reading all that you posted. If you go back to the 40's,50's and 60's you'll find that between 70-80% of all Americans identified themselves with both major parties. That both major parties had their conservative and liberal wings. That outside of the deep south, the solid Democratic deep south, all states were in play in a presidential election, not just 8 or 10 swing states with the rest pretty much decided.

What has happen is since then is the Republican dropped their liberals, the old Rockefeller Republicans of the Northeast and the Democrats their conservative reliable base of the South as the GOP move further right and the Democrats further left. Once that was accomplished in the 1980's those who affiliated with the two major parties had dropped into the 60-70% range. But the two major parties weren't done moving more and more to the extremes left and right. Soon both began to shed their moderates. The one's who could with across the aisle and compromise with the other party. By 2010, not many moderates remained in either party, they had become independents. Thus leaving the hard core left and right in charge of and that affiliated with both major parties. Both major parties percentage now has shrunk to around 55% of the total electorate according to both Gallup and Pew Research give or take a point of two. Independents has grown from 18% in the 40's and 50's to 45% today.

What we have today with just the hard core left in the two major parties, they choose the candidates for the general in their primaries which independents in most states can't participate. We end up with the hard left and hard right in Washington. The ideologues with no compromise and no give and take. We end up with candidates like Trump and Clinton who on election day had a 36% and 38% favorable rating. First time in history or since Gallup began keeping track of the candidate's favorable ratings that any major party president had a favorable rating of below 40% gong back to FDR. Both candidates broke the record for the lowest favorable rating previously held by Barry Goldwater back in 1964 at 43%. G.H.W. Bush at 46% was the second lowest up until 2016. No other major party candidate since FDR outside of those four I mentioned above ever had a favorable rating of 50% or below.

25% of all Americans disliked both major parties candidates and didn't want neither for their next president. That included 54% of all independents. 60% when adding that 25% who disliked to those who either disliked one candidate but not the other showed that 60% of all Americans disliked Trump and 60% disliked Clinton, yet one of them had to win in our two party system. Yes, it was a hold your nose and vote for the candidate you least wanted to lose.

This is the cause of the problem. The two major parties moving too far left and right. leaving the biggest chunk of the electorate, Americans without a political home or party. Both parties are happy with this, it leaves the hard core in charge, it leave them able to give us candidates like trump and Clinton. Candidates a majority don't want, but have to choose from. Then in congress, it becomes gridlock, party line votes, neither party willing or wanting to give an inch.

What we have today is each major party looking at the other as this nation's number one enemy, it's worst enemy. More of an enemy than Russia, North Korea, Iran, ISIS, the terrorists, or anyone or anything else. That each party looks on the other the other party is out to destroy this nation. Probably in 10-15 years independents will cross the 50% line as they become more and more dissatisfied and basically abhor the two existing major parties. But all the power will continue to lie with them.

 

You didn't ask for arguments. You said "if you can think of an alternate theory for why they are doing this, then I'd love to hear it."

I posted alternate theories. You didn't post any arguments either. You didn't even post theories. You posted bumper stickers.

 

The people who are actively destroying America just want everyone to get along while they're doing it.

um, nope. tooth and mother effing nail.

 

FPP? - https://www.acronymfinder.com/FPP.html

I have long favored Instant Runoff Voting, Ranked Choice, or other such alternative, but I always come up with questions.... fundamental questions. ....

You said "our current system is inherently set up to favor the existence of two, and only two, major parties." True. And therefore both parties will, I expect, stop any effort to change the system.

So the first thing that actually needs to be discussed and resolved is the question of who is going to create such a change and how do we ensure that. When we say "we need to change ________" we are wasting our time, because "we" don't have a way to bring it about.

I'm a bit cynical. I don't see this changing because I don't see any way to make it happen. It's the same with most of the debates and arguments we see on the forum. Do you want to really make a difference and develop a real path to solving a real problem? Then let's discuss practical, realistic ways of bringing about change with a government that talks talks talks but does what they want, and what they want is usually in the interest of the big corporations.

But if we do that, we would also need very strict enforcement of forum rules to prevent attacks of all kinds, derailing of the discussion, flamebaiting, etc.

 

There will be no change. The two major parties enjoy their monopoly of our electoral system. That they agree on. Republicans and Democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. To make a change, the two major parties would have to write laws that would allow for change to their monopoly and neither, both will never do so.

 

Now you read Belch. Given you have, what do you believe the outcome of a vote might look like with you and him voting? Have you persuaded just one other poster?

 

I agree with the post above. Today when discussing politics, it is always based only on what is going on in DC. And my problem with Democrats is they make it worse and worse. Trying to reason them away from their ideology is not working. I have been on forums since Clinton was president and thus far I see not so much as hair of daylight with the Democrats wanting to drop their choke hold on the public.

I once hoped Democrats would recoil from the monster they created and realize the harm they have done. But watching Schumer and the rest proves we have no chance they will change. They want to dig in harder.

Why blame Democrats? I studied our history of government from 1932 forward to stick to modern politics and quickly noticed who governed the majority of years. Some posters look just at presidents to see who governs but I looked at the congress. When Roosevelt was president, Democrats had this nation at their mercy. If Democrats wanted to move to socialism, they were unstoppable. While we finally saw a republic become president around 1953, that was 20 years of non stop Democrats. During that 20 years they poured on the coal and kept wracking up laws. Ike was not able to have a republican congress but his first 2 years. The man was hogtied.

Anyway, this video will shed some light.

 

Of course I am against them; I even question the necessity of having a party system, which purposely draws lines of division. . . . The biggest problem is that the people of the UNITED STATES are no longer unified in their goals. Self vs. country is the divisive factor that challenges our legacy of patriotism.

I DREAM of a time when TWO universally admired candidates face off in an election, the outcome of which will be universally acceptable.

 

Meta, you didn't call for ethnic cleansing. Just an observation from a disinterested bystander.

 

Go to court?

 

No, it doesn't. It requires courts.

Judges can be, and are, elected.

 

I would think that, at that point, a new party could be formed that deliberately targeted the middle. Actually, I think we're at that point now.

 

No, I disagree that it wouldn't be ideal. If judges are chosen by society and they are charged with administering justice then that would be ideal.

 

It's harder than one thinks. For one thing it is the Republicans and Democrats who write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. Maybe those two major parties can't agree on anything else, but they do agree on not letting a viable third party arise. Two is financial. Corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega, huge money donors give the two major parties tens of millions of dollars. They're not about to add a third party to their list.

I went through this with Ross Perot, ballot access was a bear. petitions, 50 different state laws and 50 different time periods, different formats and different information required. It cost millions just to get Ross on all 50 state ballots and a couple of law suits. Republicans and Democrats get automatic ballot access for the general.

Gallup shows 61% of all Americans think a viable third party is needed. What's more 77% of independents think a viable third party is needed.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/219953/...utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

 

Yes, I'm saying that I would prefer that we have judges who settle disputes between people.

This forum's rules should be whatever the owner wants them to be.

I am fine with our current system of electing judges.

 

Where I live (in Pennsylvania) judges are elected by the people. But I would be okay with any way that society wishes to choose who will be their judges.