If Trump loses in November and continues to drain the GOP dry you will most likely get your wish, I can’t see things going much further than this if they lose, although that would probably mean that it’s time for the Democratic party to go back to being the conservative party again, while hopefully spawning something new that focuses on progression.
Or more, as long as there is a proper required number of votes why limit to 4 arbitrary parties. US has too little representatives anyway. A number should be set per number of inhabitants.
While a nice sentiment, we are organized social creatures by nature. It’s always going to end up in a small amount of larger groups and that’s just how it goes. No matter how well or bad a system works, the system is still made of people and we will congregate into specific roles and ideologies just as the very cells in our bodies group together to perform larger functions.
Sure, but I can imagine the US can have larger parties from separate states or some parties that represent a group of states. With the plurality of inhabitants, climates, environments the US just seems like it would be way better suited for a system with a plurality of parties. Representatives based on inhabitants… I dunno one per 500k people or something. And STAR voting system per state instead of first past the pole.
The Nazis came to power with a minority voting support because there were a plurality of parties so they could have the most votes with only around a third of the country supporting their BS.
Ranked choice voting and multiple parties would be grand though
Yeah, I think the trouble with a parliamentary system is that it encourages things to splinter further and it ends up being MORE dysfunctional rather than less…
Works for me, but the way the government is built is for the adversarial system, which means two main parties, that’s why there’s a public funding threshold based on the amount of voters for each party. It’s because the founders felt that what basically amounts to political yin & yang will balance our government from getting too conservative or too progressive, it also goes along with Jefferson’s “Tree of liberty” quote, where civil wars were planned for by the architects of our government, meaning that they were accepting of the idea that civil wars may occur often in our nation’s history.
The easiest fix to our adversarial democracy problem is to either lower the public funding voter threshold, which would allow for more parties, or initiate national ranked choice voting, which would allow for better quality candidates while maintaining the adversarial system.
You mean admitting they’re the conservative party. I’ve been calling the moderates “Republicrats” for years now. They are basically what Republicans were 40ish years ago.
Yeah basically, because in our system there has to be a “conservative” party and a “progressive” party, and you’re right, the old guard Republicans and Democrats that lean more conservative and more authoritative should team up and become the new non-batshit crazy conservative party, as the MAGA(GOP) party loses its legitimacy and slinks back into being the ostracized Far/Alt Right, as they should be.
If Trump loses in November and continues to drain the GOP dry you will most likely get your wish, I can’t see things going much further than this if they lose, although that would probably mean that it’s time for the Democratic party to go back to being the conservative party again, while hopefully spawning something new that focuses on progression.
There should be 4 parties.
Right wing nutjobs - MAGA
Center-Right - Republicans/Libertarians
Center-Left - Democrats
Progressives/Greens
Or more, as long as there is a proper required number of votes why limit to 4 arbitrary parties. US has too little representatives anyway. A number should be set per number of inhabitants.
While a nice sentiment, we are organized social creatures by nature. It’s always going to end up in a small amount of larger groups and that’s just how it goes. No matter how well or bad a system works, the system is still made of people and we will congregate into specific roles and ideologies just as the very cells in our bodies group together to perform larger functions.
Sure, but I can imagine the US can have larger parties from separate states or some parties that represent a group of states. With the plurality of inhabitants, climates, environments the US just seems like it would be way better suited for a system with a plurality of parties. Representatives based on inhabitants… I dunno one per 500k people or something. And STAR voting system per state instead of first past the pole.
Only if ranked choice voting.
The Nazis came to power with a minority voting support because there were a plurality of parties so they could have the most votes with only around a third of the country supporting their BS.
Ranked choice voting and multiple parties would be grand though
You could argue we already have those, but the 2 groups gets mixed with one. I don’t know the words, but a parliamentary system?
Yeah, I think the trouble with a parliamentary system is that it encourages things to splinter further and it ends up being MORE dysfunctional rather than less…
See…
https://youtu.be/WboggjN_G-4#t=26s
or:
https://youtu.be/l3fAcxcxoZ8?feature=shared
Works for me, but the way the government is built is for the adversarial system, which means two main parties, that’s why there’s a public funding threshold based on the amount of voters for each party. It’s because the founders felt that what basically amounts to political yin & yang will balance our government from getting too conservative or too progressive, it also goes along with Jefferson’s “Tree of liberty” quote, where civil wars were planned for by the architects of our government, meaning that they were accepting of the idea that civil wars may occur often in our nation’s history.
The easiest fix to our adversarial democracy problem is to either lower the public funding voter threshold, which would allow for more parties, or initiate national ranked choice voting, which would allow for better quality candidates while maintaining the adversarial system.
The MAGA contingent is just way too big for this to happen. They would never support a more conservative Democratic Party.
But I wish it would happen.
You mean admitting they’re the conservative party. I’ve been calling the moderates “Republicrats” for years now. They are basically what Republicans were 40ish years ago.
Yeah basically, because in our system there has to be a “conservative” party and a “progressive” party, and you’re right, the old guard Republicans and Democrats that lean more conservative and more authoritative should team up and become the new non-batshit crazy conservative party, as the MAGA(GOP) party loses its legitimacy and slinks back into being the ostracized Far/Alt Right, as they should be.