Is the two party system dead

[DeYaKen]

From this side of the pond, it looks like your two party system is falling apart.

The republicans have had a party within a party for some time. The tea party seems to be using the republicans as a vehicle to get elected but their candidates do not share the views of the mainstream party members. Now they have Donald Trump who appears to be a party all by himself.

The democrats seem to be split also. Bernie and Hillary are worlds apart on most things. It makes interesting TV but does it help the survival of the system?

Your system is drastically different from ours. Your president is supposed to be all-powerful (I know that in reality the only thing he really has absolute control over is the military machine) That rules out coalitions so multi-party systems are difficult. However, the system you have seems guaranteed to leave a lot of people feeling disenfranchised.

 

[phrodeau]

It's not quite dead; it just smells funny.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The GOP is currently splattered on the ceiling of a portashitter due to a self inflicted gunshot wound incured with a .50 BMG.....

The DNC has a DEagle to their head and the hammer cocked praying Sanders doesn't force them to pull the trigger.

If he does this could all get really ugly and actually lead to that level of change.

But then again it it likely wont.

The GOP/DNC will likely just tell us all to fuck off and I think most Americans will just lay down and accept it.

 

[Real_American12]

I hope so, the two party system is unAmerican and should be abolished.

No private political group should have any control over the election process.

 

[Adre]

We'll be just fine but thanks for your interest.

 

[XBR8208]

One point I'd like to correct, is that our president is not supposed to be, and was never intended to be, "all-powerful." The system here will inevitably correct itself, but I tend to thing it will get worse before it gets better...

 

[sr71plt]

We have more than two parties already and it might be a time when some of the other parties than the two major ones take serious attempts at campaigning and getting registered for elections in a great swath of states, but I think the two major ones will weather this attempt to usurp them from the outside--Trump for the Republicans and Sanders for the Democrats.

I think the Republicans are in the worse shape of the two, as they have let the Tea Party grow within them. Trump is not Tea Party; he's more alien to the Republican fundamental values than the Tea Party, so the Republicans are being attacked on more than one front. If he wins through, though, he'll flop on his own and the party will step aside and regroup. Sanders isn't actually a Democrat; he's just trying to usurp the Democrats' apparatus. If he does so, the party will just both support him as a temporary Democrat and swallow him up. The Democrats are, I think, in better shape to concentrate on electing mainstream Democrats to office. The Republicans are stuck with more distasteful choices in what to do with the congressional races.

The real battleground is Congress, not the White House, though, I think and most candidates running don't have it in them to get much of anything done with the Congress they'll be handed. A few of them don't have a clue what to do or have the support to do it even if they get a majority Congress (most explicitly Trump, Cruz, and Sanders).

 

[Real_American12]

We have more than two parties already

The GOP and Dems control the election process.

People should not run on any party, they should run as individuals on whatever their platform is.

If a party wants to endorse them fine, but jumping through party hoops to get on a ballet is unAmeican.

Getting on a ballet should be the same process for any potential candidate, and people shouldn't go into a polling booth and just press the button with (R) or (D) next to it.

This republic was meant to have informed voters, idiots that just look for a letter should not be able to vote.

They're too stupid to even know the names of who they're voting for.

 

[LadyVer]

It's not that the two-party system is dead. It's that the two parties no longer represent their platforms.

 

[KrisLace]

Dead?

It's not that the two-party system is dead. It's that they are the UNdead.

Approx. numbers with some quick research:

129.2 million total votes in presidential election in 2012

48 million U.S. residents under the age of 18 in 2012

Accounting for 177 million people- give or take however many you think

U.S. population in 2012.....314 million

137 million of voting age didn't vote, for whatever reason- don't care, don't believe, aren't allowed, etc.

Obama got just under 66 million votes. He's the president because a little over 20% of the population picked him over 3 other people.

How ludicrous is all this????

 

[Sean Renaud]

I hope so, the two party system is unAmerican and should be abolished.

No private political group should have any control over the election process.

It is not UnAmerican which is again a term with no real meaning. They have a lot of power but there isn't much that can logically be done about parties having power.

The GOP and Dems control the election process.

People should not run on any party, they should run as individuals on whatever their platform is.

If a party wants to endorse them fine, but jumping through party hoops to get on a ballet is unAmeican.

Getting on a ballet should be the same process for any potential candidate, and people shouldn't go into a polling booth and just press the button with (R) or (D) next to it.

This republic was meant to have informed voters, idiots that just look for a letter should not be able to vote.

They're too stupid to even know the names of who they're voting for.

That is just life. It sucks but there it is and getting on the ballot (not on the dance trope) being the same for everybody would lead to some really fucked up scenarios, much worse than what we have now.

 

[Real_American12]

It is not UnAmerican

It is.

which is again a term with no real meaning.

To a vile scum sack like you it might not, but that's because you have no morals or values.

They have a lot of power but there isn't much that can logically be done about parties having power.

Remove it.

That is just life. It sucks but there it is and getting on the ballot (not on the dance trope) being the same for everybody would lead to some really fucked up scenarios, much worse than what we have now.

No it would be for the best. One President, one path to candidacy.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It's fine that I'm scum, that doesn't give definition to words that have none however and there is no definition here. You feel that you this is UnAmerican but you can't really point to anything to support it. Sure Washington warned us but that's one guy. There were dozens of Founding Fathers by even the strictest of definitions (those who signed the Declaration of Independence) and far more than that if we're being at all honest. Given how quickly the two party system formed it's clear the Founders either a) didn't hate it b) weren't smart enough to find away around it.

There is no real way to remove their power without violating the Constitution. As long as men have the right to peaceably assemble under protection of law and we remain a democratic nation or even a Republic men are going to form coalitions in order to advance their goals.

One President yes. 330 million separate applicants? Or hell lets say just 1% of eligible people sign up. That still something like 1.6 million people running. Can you even envision the BALLOT for that?

 

[RUlookingup]

If you want blood, you got it!

AC/DC

 

[Real_American12]

no definition here.

"deviating from what are widely perceived to be fundamental American cultural and political values."

There is no real way to remove their power without violating the Constitution. As long as men have the right to peaceably assemble under protection of law and we remain a democratic nation or even a Republic men are going to form coalitions in order to advance their goals.

You're wrong, forming a political party isn't the problem. The problem is when a private organization can determine the dates and locations of elections.

Getting on a ballot shouldn't be determined by what party you run as or if you run as an independent.

The process for getting on a ballot should be the same for anyone trying to become a presidential candidate.

One President yes. 330 million separate applicants? Or hell lets say just 1% of eligible people sign up. That still something like 1.6 million people running. Can you even envision the BALLOT for that?

That's why you have a process.

People campaign at the local level, winners move onto the county level, winners move onto the State level. Winners move onto national level.

Through process of elimination, like in basketball or American Idle. You have brackets.

You'd end up with 50 candidates total, and during the 12 months of campaigning many would drop out of the race until it came down to around six candidates, whoever gets the most votes becomes President, the person in second place becomes Vice-President.

 

[Sean Renaud]

That's not a definition so much as guidelines of sorts. By that measure American is simply whatever 51% of us agree upon at any given moment. Which is fine but fluid.

I'm pretty sure the private entities do not actually dictate when and where to vote.

Wow brackets? You're right we could do that. It would just be much worse than our current system in just about every imaginable way.

 

[Real_American12]

By that measure American is simply whatever 51% of us agree upon at any given moment.

Wrong it is what America was founded on and what was valued at the time.

I'm pretty sure the private entities do not actually dictate when and where to vote.

They control it.

The government should decide there own elections, national, State, county, and local.

Wow brackets? You're right we could do that. It would just be much worse than our current system in just about every imaginable way.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I think my idea is better than the current process.

 

[renard_ruse]

From this side of the pond, it looks like your two party system is falling apart.

The republicans have had a party within a party for some time. The tea party seems to be using the republicans as a vehicle to get elected but their candidates do not share the views of the mainstream party members. Now they have Donald Trump who appears to be a party all by himself.

The democrats seem to be split also. Bernie and Hillary are worlds apart on most things. It makes interesting TV but does it help the survival of the system?

Your system is drastically different from ours. Your president is supposed to be all-powerful (I know that in reality the only thing he really has absolute control over is the military machine) That rules out coalitions so multi-party systems are difficult. However, the system you have seems guaranteed to leave a lot of people feeling disenfranchised.

The two parties used to be big tents with a range of views in both of them from the far right to the far left. Some Democrats were very right wing, and some Republicans were pretty liberal, and individual candidates varied widely in their views on issues even in the same party. Over time the parties became less "big tent" and run by their own respective party establishments to a much greater extent. Since we only have two viable political parties (and systematic disadvantages to third parties built in to the system) this has led to lots of people feeling disenfranchised across the political spectrum.

I only see two real solutions, one, get rid of political parties or at least remove their structural advantages (there's no provision for political parties in the US Constitution in the first place), or bring in proportional representation, at least for Congress. The later would probably require a Constitutional amendment nationally though it could be done by individual states if they chose to.

People point to proportional systems being "unstable" but it varies. Italy has been unstable over the years, but its inherently corrupt anyway. Proportional representation works well in many countries. It works well in Israel where it allows various communities to all feel like their voice it being represented. For an increasingly diverse society like the US, proportional representation makes more sense than ever. The 2 party system worked when were more homogenous and middle class. Its not very good in our diverse 21st century multi-this and multi-that society, but it works well for the ruling elite of both parties (though it may not work very well much longer for the GOP the way the trends are going, then we will basically be a one party state like California is de facto already).

 

[renard_ruse]

I would say that getting rid of political parties or at least stripping them of official recognition and structural advantages may be more viable of the two options as it would be difficult to have proportional representation in a Presidential system.

Many cities have non-partisan councils already.

 

[renard_ruse]

...That is just life. It sucks but there it is and getting on the ballot (not on the dance trope) being the same for everybody would lead to some really fucked up scenarios, much worse than what we have now.

Let's never change anything because it "might be worse."

How come that never applies to any crazy change liberals propose. What about the fucked up scenarios that are possible when we get rid of sexually segregated rest rooms? Talk about risky, but it doesn't seem to be a problem to those pushing it.

 

[Real_American12]

stripping them of official recognition and structural advantages

That's what I'm saying.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Wrong it is what America was founded on and what was valued at the time.

They control it.

The government should decide there own elections, national, State, county, and local.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I think my idea is better than the current process.

America was founded on a lot of long dead things that nobody would accept as American today.

If you claim that the parties control WHEN the elections take place prove it. I do not believe that they do but maybe I'm wrong. Seems odd that both parties agree to the same days but it's not impossible. Please cite your work. Show me where the government doesn't decide these things.

It would be sheer insanity with a never ending election process going full time without end. I guess it would create millions of jobs amid the chaos.

Let's never change anything because it "might be worse."

How come that never applies to any crazy change liberals propose. What about the fucked up scenarios that are possible when we get rid of sexually segregated rest rooms? Talk about risky, but it doesn't seem to be a problem to those pushing it.

I didn't say or even suggest we should never change anything because it might be worse. I said that holding brackets for president in every city, county and state across the country until it's narrowed down to two people would be worse than what we have today by such a gross measure it it's not even funny.

So it doesn't apply to anything liberals say because it's not the same. Not that I think getting rid of sexual segregated restrooms is all that risky or even going to happen in any REAL terms but whatever. I'm not so much hung up on that as I want someone to explain who is going to grope each person as they enter the bathroom.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

I voted back in March, only to get mail saying I'm not registered to do so at my current address.

I can't say I've claimed to be the same "party" every time, & I'm not sure I'll say the same one next time as any prior.

 

[Real_American12]

America was founded on a lot of long dead things that nobody would accept as American today.

UnAmerican filth like you, not real Americans like myself.

If you claim that the parties control WHEN the elections take place prove it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election#Presidential_primaries
http://ivn.us/2015/04/28/10-ways-political-parties-control-vote/
http://www.law.du.edu/documents/denver-university-law-review/v88-1/Daniels_FinalProof_12711.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110206892.html

I said that holding brackets for president in every city, county and state across the country until it's narrowed down to two people would be worse than what we have today by such a gross measure it it's not even funny.

Why?

 

[Sean Renaud]

UnAmerican filth like you, not real Americans like myself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election#Presidential_primaries
http://ivn.us/2015/04/28/10-ways-political-parties-control-vote/
http://www.law.du.edu/documents/denver-university-law-review/v88-1/Daniels_FinalProof_12711.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110206892.html

Why?

Your Wikipedia link leads here which details their precise control. The sanctions will be directed at candidates who campaign in any state that refuses to follow a 2008 calendar of primaries and caucuses that was also approved Saturday. Any candidate who campaigns in a state that does not abide by the new calendar will be stripped at the party convention of delegates won in that state.

What this means is that the State is in control If the Candidate goes off script the PARTY will strip them but seeing how they are private entities that's within their power.

Your second link is off subject entirely.

The 3rd is 34 pages long. Tell me what precisely I'm looking for.

The 4th is about voter fraud it seems not specifically how the parties wrested control from the states which as your first link shows with some follow up they did not. Sorry.

Because lets for the sake of argument give this an absolute best case scenario.

Why would your brackets not make work. The two biggest reasons are that it would take for fucking ever. Imagine American Idol, only isntead of that huge line being dropped down to 12 people over the first night it's 100k becomes 50k, become 25k, becomes 12.5k becomes 6 . . . . .. As bad as it is now with two full years your plan would literally have the next presidential election starting as soon as if not before the current one ended.

Second good candidates not could but would get knocked out in stupid ways by stupid reason.

Third it would take until people were smart enough to use the internet to get that system right back to the current one just with so many more moving parts that nobody would have the first clue what to do about it.