Current Events > The two party system in the US is really bad for the democracy,

(+) Yeah! (+)

It's all about for or against. Theres no middle way. Most other real democracies has multiple parties to vote for: And after the election, the winner will still have to find someone of the other parties to rule the country with: It's not "My way or the highway" That's how you run a real democracy: Give and take. But always the country first.

Multi-party systems have their flaws too

This is a dumb gimmick
---

Nikra posted...

Most other real democracies has multiple parties to vote for

Such as?
---

stupid people are really bad for democracy.
---

It should have been 3 parties but 2 of them got smart and used their money to stamp out the 3rd party to just being a joke full of crazies on parade while they dress up their own crazy.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

Nikra posted...

Most other real democracies has multiple parties to vote for

Such as?

Name another Democracy
---

Antifar posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

Nikra posted...

Most other real democracies has multiple parties to vote for

Such as?

Name another Democracy

North Korea
---

voldothegr8 posted...

Nikra posted...

Most other real democracies has multiple parties to vote for

Such as?

Canada, Germany, England, France, etc.

The 2 party system and 24 hour news have resulted in compromise being a sign of weakness instead of being the result of good politics.

First past the post voting needs to go.
---

There are way more than 2 parties though.

You really can't blame the government for people ignoring like 30 of them and focusing on two.
---

Nikra posted...

It's all about for or against. Theres no middle way. Most other real democracies has multiple parties to vote for: And after the election, the winner will still have to find someone of the other parties to rule the country with: It's not "My way or the highway" That's how you run a real democracy: Give and take. But always the country first.

the problem in the US isn't the lack of a middle ground between "right wing" and "extreme right wing"

the problem is the complete lack of a socialist alternative
---

averagejoel posted...

Nikra posted...

It's all about for or against. Theres no middle way. Most other real democracies has multiple parties to vote for: And after the election, the winner will still have to find someone of the other parties to rule the country with: It's not "My way or the highway" That's how you run a real democracy: Give and take. But always the country first.

the problem in the US isn't the lack of a middle ground between "right wing" and "extreme right wing"

the problem is the complete lack of a socialist alternative

Congress getting nothing done because the parties aren't able to compromise is a pretty big problem that is completely agnostic to where on the political spectrum they lie.
---

I Like Toast posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

Nikra posted...

Most other real democracies has multiple parties to vote for

Such as?

Canada, Germany, England, France, etc.

The 2 party system and 24 hour news have resulted in compromise being a sign of weakness instead of being the result of good politics.

First past the post voting needs to go.

Canada, UK and France all use FPTP. Canada and UK have huge two-party problems. France doesn't for whatever reason. Maybe it's because the republic is less than 60 years old, so the party system hasn't had time to converge yet.
---

ZeldaMutant posted...

I Like Toast posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

Nikra posted...

Most other real democracies has multiple parties to vote for

Such as?

Canada, Germany, England, France, etc.

The 2 party system and 24 hour news have resulted in compromise being a sign of weakness instead of being the result of good politics.

First past the post voting needs to go.

Canada, UK and France all use FPTP. Canada and UK have huge two-party problems. France doesn't for whatever reason. Maybe it's because the republic is less than 60 years old, so the party system hasn't had time to converge yet.

France has two voting rounds. First round to determine which 2 candidates face off against each other in the final rounds. So while they do have first past the post, they have a system that allows people to actually vote for a candidate they like the most instead of having to pick which one is less worse. Since worst case they don't win first round of voting and you can just vote for someone else in the 2nd round.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

France has two voting rounds. First round to determine which 2 candidates face off against each other in the final rounds. So while they do have first past the post, they have a system that allows people to actually vote for a candidate they like the most instead of having to pick which one is less worse. Since worst case they don't win first round of voting and you can just vote for someone else in the 2nd round.

That's for the presidential election, no? AFAIK there are still plenty of parties represented in their parliaments.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

France has two voting rounds. First round to determine which 2 candidates face off against each other in the final rounds. So while they do have first past the post, they have a system that allows people to actually vote for a candidate they like the most instead of having to pick which one is less worse. Since worst case they don't win first round of voting and you can just vote for someone else in the 2nd round.

That's for the presidential election, no? AFAIK there are still plenty of parties represented in their parliaments.

Yeah that's the presidential election. I don't know how their local elections are dealt with, but they do have several different parties in parliament. So France has pretty good representation for it's people even if their system isn't perfect.
---

ZeldaMutant posted...

Canada, UK and France all use FPTP. Canada and UK have huge two-party problems.

The NDP did win Official Opposition in 2011, but that was a bit of an anomaly. I'm still upset about Trudeau getting cold feet regarding electoral reform. FPTP is definitely a big problem here.
---

Yes it sucks
---

I very much prefer the UK's system of proportional representation and coalitions. That being said, there are other aspects of their democracy I think the US does better, so ultimately it's a tradeoff.
---

s0nicfan posted...

I very much prefer the UK's system of proportional representation

Lolwat? The UK uses FPTP.

JE19426 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

I very much prefer the UK's system of proportional representation

Lolwat? The UK uses FPTP.

I mean in terms of parliament. I could be thinking of the wrong country, though. I know one of the major EU countries uses it.
---

s0nicfan posted...

I mean in terms of parliament.

It is still FPTP for parliament.

I could be thinking of the wrong country, though.

Probably.

but politics needs to be like sports, team 1 vs team 2
---

I definitely DO NOT recommend the multi-party system. For example, the last elections in Mexico (2012) for President had four candidates: 2 REALLY bad ones, a fair one and an awesome one. The awesome one turned out being an improbable candidate that ended up with like 4% of the total vote IIRC, or maybe less (why? Because people rather trust the evil they're used to with the big, long-time parties than giving a potentially good one a chance); the lesser of two evils won with at least 33% of the vote, leaving two thirds of the country unsatisfied (in short, he didn't win).
---

Advokaiser posted...

I definitely DO NOT recommend the multi-party system. For example, the last elections in Mexico (2012) for President had four candidates: 2 REALLY bad ones, a fair one and an awesome one. The awesome one turned out being an improbable candidate that ended up with like 4% of the total vote IIRC, or maybe less (why? Because people rather trust the evil they're used to with the big, long-time parties than giving a potentially good one a chance); the lesser of two evils won with at least 33% of the vote, leaving two thirds of the country unsatisfied (in short, he didn't win).

And in a 2 party system it would've come down to the 2 evils without the rest even having a shot
What's your point
---

ZeldaMutant posted...

Canada, UK and France all use FPTP.

that is only one way you can hinder alternate parties from gaining electoral power; we use many

ballot access being a major one
---

ThyCorndog posted...

Advokaiser posted...

I definitely DO NOT recommend the multi-party system. For example, the last elections in Mexico (2012) for President had four candidates: 2 REALLY bad ones, a fair one and an awesome one. The awesome one turned out being an improbable candidate that ended up with like 4% of the total vote IIRC, or maybe less (why? Because people rather trust the evil they're used to with the big, long-time parties than giving a potentially good one a chance); the lesser of two evils won with at least 33% of the vote, leaving two thirds of the country unsatisfied (in short, he didn't win).

And in a 2 party system it would've come down to the 2 evils without the rest even having a shot
What's your point

The point is that narrowing it down to two clearly opposite parties makes for an easier vote than having ten options where you may have no idea what you can deal with (i.e. Building a wall vs. not building a wall sounds much simpler).
---

Advokaiser posted...

The point is that narrowing it down to two clearly opposite parties makes for an easier vote than having ten options where you may have no idea what you can deal with (i.e. Building a wall vs. not building a wall sounds much simpler).

Which is the problem with FPTP.

Advokaiser posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

Advokaiser posted...

I definitely DO NOT recommend the multi-party system. For example, the last elections in Mexico (2012) for President had four candidates: 2 REALLY bad ones, a fair one and an awesome one. The awesome one turned out being an improbable candidate that ended up with like 4% of the total vote IIRC, or maybe less (why? Because people rather trust the evil they're used to with the big, long-time parties than giving a potentially good one a chance); the lesser of two evils won with at least 33% of the vote, leaving two thirds of the country unsatisfied (in short, he didn't win).

And in a 2 party system it would've come down to the 2 evils without the rest even having a shot
What's your point

The point is that narrowing it down to two clearly opposite parties makes for an easier vote than having ten options where you may have no idea what you can deal with (i.e. Building a wall vs. not building a wall sounds much simpler).

making it simpler and coming down to binary solutions isn't a good thing. life and its issues aren't simple. dumbing down politics doesn't fix anything
---

Advokaiser posted...

The point is that narrowing it down to two clearly opposite parties makes for an easier vote

The U.S. does not have "clearly opposite" parties.
---

Balrog0 posted...

ZeldaMutant posted...

Canada, UK and France all use FPTP.

that is only one way you can hinder alternate parties from gaining electoral power; we use many

ballot access being a major one

I think we need SOME ballot access laws, but I'm not sure where to draw the line.

Here in Nebraska the cost for non-president is 1% of the salary of the position to file. Which is reasonable for most of the positions, but means that even getting into the primary for national legislature costs $1760.
---

Antifar posted...

Advokaiser posted...

The point is that narrowing it down to two clearly opposite parties makes for an easier vote

The U.S. does not have "clearly opposite" parties.

Well then. I admit I do not know the U.S. politics, but if this is true, then I don't know what would be the "ideal" case. It just looks better from down here.
---