[QUOTE]Ohio Gov. John Kasich said he believes Americans could be witnessing the "end of a two-party system."
"I don't think either party is answering people's deepest concerns and needs," Kasich told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl in an interview that aired today on "This Week." "We may be beginning to see the end of a two-party system. I'm starting to really wonder if we are going to see a multiparty system at some point in the future in this country"
He added, "I don't think it's going to happen tomorrow, but I think over time, do not be surprised if these millennials and these Gen Xers begin to say, 'Neither party works, we want something new.'"
Kasich ran for the GOP nomination for president in 2016 and after losing the primary to Donald Trump withheld his endorsement from the Republican nominee in the general election against Democrat Hillary Clinton. He said in a recent book that he could not "set aside everything I believed for the good of the party."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Asked by Karl on "This Week" if other Republicans may be putting aside their beliefs to support Trump, Kasich turned to criticizing the Democratic Party for having "no agenda."
"You know, people want me to criticize my party. Let me tell you about the Democrats. I have no clue what they stand for," Kasich said. "And we are heading into a midterm election where they are counting on the Republicans bouncing the basketball off of their foot and out of bounds ... But how can you have a national political party that has no agenda? Just no agenda."
Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, who was interviewed along with Kasich, said, "Right now, both parties don't seem capable of having a coherent agenda."
[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://abc7ny.com/us-could-be-witnessing-end-of-a-two-party-system-republican-governor/3138214/"]source[/URL]
It's only a matter of time until the next party break-up, imo
This is good and bad.
Both parties need to collapse, but can you imagine if the republicans alone control the US?
The Reps have an agenda of fucking the people over and lining their pockets, so far they've done a good job of that.
[QUOTE=Zakkshockv2;53162750]This is good and bad.
Both parties need to collapse, but can you imagine if the republicans alone control the US?[/QUOTE]
The two-party system collapse will be triggered by people rising up against pervasive corruption. Conservatives tend to be more corrupt than liberals. Therefore, if the two-party system were broken only an uncorrupt left (there are definitely corrupt democrats in congressional seats right now) would come out on top. Which is good for everyone besides people who have too much money.
[QUOTE]"You know, people want me to criticize my party. Let me tell you about the Democrats. I have no clue what they stand for," Kasich said. "And we are heading into a midterm election where they are counting on the Republicans bouncing the basketball off of their foot and out of bounds ... But how can you have a national political party that has no agenda? Just no agenda."
[/QUOTE]
The Democrats have an obvious agenda and it takes all of a cursory Google search to find it, it's just that criticizing Trump is really easy political points that never runs out because he does or says something stupid literally every single day. Maybe they are overdoing it and letting some of their own platforms become obscured, but the flipside of that is a lot of their agenda does come from fighting Trump on issues, like DACA and the tax plan.
I think it's simply preposterous to look at the Republicans in Congress and especially the Republican administration in the White House and say that [I]both[/I] parties lack a coherent agenda.
I feel like Republicans have a terrible agenda and democrats don't really have one. Or they haven't found one that the whole or most of the party can apparently agree on.
The thing is the two party system isn't going to change unless we change the way we vote. The parties may change, but there will still be two dominating ones.
I’d suggest that the American two-party system is working as good as it could possibly be. Both parties are broad camps, comprised of multiple factions. Both parties have broad agendas, and the specifics on policy are determined by whichever faction holds the most influence at the time. I would concede that the Democrats don’t really have a dominant faction at the moment, however.
When Americans contemplate political reform, it’s kind of pointless to talk about ‘breaking the two-party system’, because any system in which only one person can win (eg there can only be one elected President, or one Senator elected at a time in each state) will ultimately become a two-party system (Duverger’s law). Australia has a two-party system despite having preferential voting (as members of the lower houses are elected from single-member districts), for example.
The one thing that America needs right now is a change in political culture, less ‘us versus them’ and more respect. That applies to people on both the political left and right, and especially some members here on Facepunch.
[QUOTE=abananapeel;53162815]The thing is the two party system isn't going to change unless we change the way we vote. The parties may change, but there will still be two dominating ones.[/QUOTE]
And the first one to "split" hands the election to the other party with the current system.
The two party system literally can't end until we eliminate First Past the Post. Until then, as we have in the past, the country will only be able to sustain more than two parties for a few years at a time following party-destroying upheaval.
[QUOTE=BF;53162838]Australia has a two-party system despite having preferential voting, for example.
[/QUOTE]
Preferential voting still leads to two dominant parties.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;53162851]Preferential voting still leads to two dominant parties.[/QUOTE]
Yes, which is what I said.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53162800]I feel like Republicans have a terrible agenda and democrats don't really have one. Or they haven't found one that the whole or most of the party can apparently agree on.[/QUOTE]
It's been 2 years since they lost the election and frankly I still have no idea what the Democrat party is supposed to stand for lol
[editline]27th February 2018[/editline]
The only thing I can say positive about Democrats is that they aren't Republicans, and there's at least some diversity of opinion in the party between the more conservative and progressive in-factions. Other than that..
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;53162851]Preferential voting still leads to two dominant parties.[/QUOTE]
Yes but at the very least it opens one of the parties to being replaced, which is exactly what needs to happen to the GOP right now.
One of the largest problems with the two-party system right now in the U.S. is that far too many voters are choosing a specific party/candidate because they share the same view on one specific policy/moral. For example, a voter might have to choose between Candidate A, whom is pro-murder, anti-abortion, pro-racism, pro-slavery... but they are pro-gun. Versus Candidate B, whom might be anti-all of that, but is against people owning guns, and therefor despite all the negatives of candidate A, they still choose them specifically because of the pro-gun view, rather than choosing a candidate that shares MOST values. And this goes both ways for democrats and republicans.
Honestly I feel like our voting system needs a major reform, where the focus is on specific law decisions, and not a sport where Team A or Team B wins and is filled with tons of hidden agendas and corruption. Unfortunately it would take SO much work for that to happen, and definitely won't happen under the current administration or senate.. at least not in any morally good way.
[editline]26th February 2018[/editline]
That is a shitty example on my part, but my point stands :V
Kinda hard to see how you could break up the parties. We're getting into hypotheticals anyway so may as well wave the magic wand.
Democrats have an obvious 3-way split between semi-conservatives, liberals and progressives.
Republicans...not so much. There's a weird mishmash of center-right, libertarians, conservatives, reactionaries and borderline nationalists.
Even if suddenly all of those ideals were broken off into neat little parties, you'd just see a coalition form of like minded members and we'd be back to square one.
Could be wrong, as this doesn't always happen overseas, so I'd appreciate some input.
[QUOTE=srobins;53162893]It's been 2 years since they lost the election and frankly I still have no idea what the Democrat party is supposed to stand for lol
[editline]27th February 2018[/editline]
The only thing I can say positive about Democrats is that they aren't Republicans, and there's at least some diversity of opinion in the party between the more conservative and progressive in-factions. Other than that..[/QUOTE]
I see the democratic party being 3 different main factions right now. The progessive, economic populist wing of bernie sanders and keith ellison. they're in a pretty underdog position in the party but I've seen a fair number of liberal politicians adopt the policies of Sanders. Then there's the liberals that make up the bulk of the party. I don't think all liberal politicans are corporate but a fair number of them are, certainly all the names that people recognize. Conservative democrats like Joe Manchin are still around here and there but the influence they have on the broader party is pretty minimal.
I think liberals are having trouble articulating how they can change the average person's life without adopting progressive policies. and some don't want to make that shift, whether that's because of a deep seated belief hewing towards the center is the only way to get elected* or a hatred of leftists.
*hopefully this will change more after doug jones
[editline]26th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53163069]Kinda hard to see how you could break up the parties. We're getting into hypotheticals anyway so may as well wave the magic wand.
Democrats have an obvious 3-way split between semi-conservatives, liberals and progressives.
Republicans...not so much. There's a weird mishmash of center-right, libertarians, conservatives, reactionaries and borderline nationalists.
Even if suddenly all of those ideals were broken off into neat little parties, you'd just see a coalition form of like minded members and we'd be back to square one.
Could be wrong, as this doesn't always happen overseas, so I'd appreciate some input.[/QUOTE]
I think democrats need to be more terrified of their base. too many politicans are comfortable in their jobs.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53163094]
*hopefully this will change more after doug jones[/QUOTE]
From what little I've seen of Jones, he doesn't seem like the knight in shining armor that the media portrayed him as. Other than his stance on abortion he seems almost republican to me, and I'm sure if he was running outside of Alabama he could snag a GOP seat.
Again, from what I've seen.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53163094]
I think liberals are having trouble articulating how they can change the average person's life without adopting progressive policies. and some don't want to make that shift, whether that's because of a deep seated belief hewing towards the center is the only way to get elected* or a hatred of leftists.
*hopefully this will change more after doug jones[/QUOTE]
Doug Jones is pretty moderate, supports corporate tax cuts (but opposes the gop's tax cut on grounds of fiscal responsibility and it being skewed towards the wealthy while ignoring/hurting the lower/middle classes), supports increased defense spending to improve the economy of AL, voted to confirm the anti abortion Alex Azar as the secretary of HHS (Jones isn't opposed to abortion, thinks current law is sufficient and opposes more restrictions), but he supports removing mandatory three-strikes laws, supports same-sex marriage, and is open to a public option for healthcare. Overall probably in the top ten most centrist democrat senators.
edit: fun fact, (can't remember where I saw this, it's not on Wikipedia) Doug Jones would mediate disputes between white and black kids at the school he went to when it became integrated.
Just watch as the next generation of the GOP is called the Patriots.
Then we can have MGS4-tier government shadiness
The system of 2 parties will only dissolve by reworking systems in elections like FPTP alongside making seats of power easier and quicker to lose. It'd have to start within the states before succeeding in DC.
[QUOTE=Blackavar;53162786]Conservatives tend to be more corrupt than liberals.[/QUOTE]
How do you figure that?
NPR discussed deaths of political parties with a historian focusing on the Wiemar Republic leading into Nazi Germany.
The way the historian discussed it, when a conservative party begins to fail/break up, the "death throws" of the party is filling its seats with ultra-conservatives. In the case of the Wiemar Republic, this "filling in of seats" were taken by the Nazi Party as the conservative parties of Germany began to fail. And I think we see a similar thing happening with the GOP, as its policies become archaic and they find themselves losing votes, they're beginning to lean further to the right to double down in hopes of surviving.
[editline]27th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53163069]Kinda hard to see how you could break up the parties. We're getting into hypotheticals anyway so may as well wave the magic wand.
Democrats have an obvious 3-way split between semi-conservatives, liberals and progressives.
Republicans...not so much. There's a weird mishmash of center-right, libertarians, conservatives, reactionaries and borderline nationalists.
Even if suddenly all of those ideals were broken off into neat little parties, you'd just see a coalition form of like minded members and we'd be back to square one.
Could be wrong, as this doesn't always happen overseas, so I'd appreciate some input.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't be so bad if those little groups got shuffled around a bit.
For example, Liberterians could easily fit in with semi-conservative Democrats, and maybe even liberals.
[QUOTE=Zakkshockv2;53162750]This is good and bad.
Both parties need to collapse, but can you imagine if the republicans alone control the US?[/QUOTE]
I disagree, I just think the Republicans need to collapse
[QUOTE=Chonch;53164050]How do you figure that?[/QUOTE]
Because Bernie Sanders exists and he's a liberal. Name one conservative in Congress that isn't corrupt :v:
The greatest flaw in the American experiment was making it too difficult to change fundamental aspects of our institutions. The framers were a bit overconfident in that regard - now we've reached a point where partisanship is so extreme that electoral and voting reform can never be achieved.
Recovering from the fundamental flaws of our democracy requires a unified vision of America's future. I'm still somewhat optimistic that we'll get that in 2020, after the GOP goes down in flames and the DNC blue-washes the entire nation. Maybe then, once the actual swamp is drained, we can start discussing actual policy again, instead of twitter. Maybe we can move to reduce the power of the pardon, amend our Constitution to fix structural flaws in our government, and actually respond to acts of foreign aggression.
I hope that Trump's only lasting legacy is that he motivated the progressive youth to take action. The GOP knows its vision of the future is totally fucked - that's why they're cheating with voter ID, political gerrymandering, [i]collusion with a hostile state[/i] - they know they're a dying breed, and that the "culture war" was lost decades ago. Trump could be this millennia's Hoover - a bombastic failure who paved the way for progressive reform. But that requires the DNC to unify - that's the lynchpin of whether we can leave Trump in the history books.
[QUOTE=Chonch;53164050]How do you figure that?[/QUOTE]
Trump is up to his eyes in corruption dude
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
