Faith in Humanity Restored! Americans Elect opts to break free of the two-part system!
60 replies, posted
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;33302791]*reads title*
That didn't say what I thought it said... right?
*reads article*
YES! [I]YES![/I] [I][B]FUCKING YES![/B][/I]
Where do i participate??[/QUOTE]
:v: If you'd read the article you'd know
[URL="http://www.americanselect.org/"]The Americans Elect Website[/URL]
[QUOTE=Contag;33301758]Except Bush got [I]lots[/I] done.
If his presidency was crippled by partisan politics the US might be in a different state.[/QUOTE]
What a terrible fact... He (or rather his 'administration') practically stepped around the system.
[IMG]http://www.davidhenderson.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dhs-threat-315x450.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=valkery;33302617]Signed up and answered the questions. Hopefully they get a good candidate, and not some crazy person that inherited millions of dollars from his/her parents.[/QUOTE]
who's "they"
you're a delegate! you are as much a part of the nomination process as anyone else!
[editline]16th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Last or First;33302096]I was disappointed when I read that it was just about getting a third-party candidate, not about reforming the system itself. We really need to move it away from the "first to 51% wins everything" that basically enforces only 2 parties.[/QUOTE]
i doubt we can get reform like that without getting third parties
we need to work on local elections, though. electing people to positions of local power is far more feasible right now and can do a lot for politics as a whole. "winner-take-all" isn't decided on a national level, the state decides that itself.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;33302639]Yeah competition sucks, eh Comrade?[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, that competition which prevented the economy from being fixed, stalled countless bills, and kept us in two useless wars that we should have never been in.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;33303716]Ah yes, that competition which prevented the economy from being fixed, stalled countless bills, and kept us in two useless wars that we should have never been in.[/QUOTE]
You are going in the wrong direction. One party rule spits in the face of democracy. What we need is multiple parties of relatively equal power and size. This way, one single group of asshats won't cock up the whole system by doing batshit insane things like [URL="http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/01/zakaria-tea-party-held-america-hostage/"]holding legislation hostage until they get what they want.[/URL]
As a nice side effect, the diplomatic system as a whole would go smoother because there would be more people nominated to the presidency, which in turn means that there will be a greater crop of politicians to choose from rather than the "less or two evils" system we have now.
The two party system is the cause for alot of american stupid shit. Breaking it would help alot.
[QUOTE=Falchion;33303880]The two party system is the cause for alot of american stupid shit. Breaking it would help alot.[/QUOTE]
And there is the other side of the argument. A zero party system. It won't work out in practice.
If parties were abolished and politicians were sent scattering, there would still be major differing opinions across the U.S. Rather quickly, it would devolve into a state where we are a zero party country in name only. Multiple parties, on the other hand, would dilute the poison of ideological warfare as there would be too many sides to fight off. It is essential that parties should be much more strict when it comes to recruiting and much more lax when it comes to compromise and debate. This will allow legislation to represent multiple points of view and do its best to be for the benefit of most, if not all parties.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;33303716]Ah yes, that competition which prevented the economy from being fixed, stalled countless bills, and kept us in two useless wars that we should have never been in.[/QUOTE]
You're right, it'd be much better if only one party had total control over the government.
You are such a genius!!!!
[QUOTE=Lazor;33303506]i doubt we can get reform like that without getting third parties
we need to work on local elections, though. electing people to positions of local power is far more feasible right now and can do a lot for politics as a whole. "winner-take-all" isn't decided on a national level, the state decides that itself.[/QUOTE]
True. The big problem I've seen with really any third party is that they put undue weight behind their own presidential candidates rather than focusing on local elections. I don't know who they're kidding by contending for the presidency, and they'd make a much bigger impact by running their best for House, Senate, and State legislatures.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;33303716]Ah yes, that competition which prevented the economy from being fixed, stalled countless bills, and kept us in two useless wars that we should have never been in.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.elistmania.com/images/articles/147/Original/Adolf_Hitler.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;33304191]You're right, it'd be much better if only one party had total control over the government.[/QUOTE]
At this point in the game it's hard to deny that there's nothing but self-serving interests. Two 'opposite' groups are supposed to debate and collaberate to reach educated decisions for the rest of the country- this can't happen when one side just stonewalls the other because it can't 'win'.
Truly a house divided.
Meanwhile the increasingly ignorant population is bred to lash out or cheer for the colour blue or red, the donkie or the elephant, the female or male, the black or white. The current state of the political system is a mere symptom of America's sickness.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;33304478][img]http://www.elistmania.com/images/articles/147/Original/Adolf_Hitler.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Wasn't hitler initially elected?
[quote=Norm Ornstein;33301660]He said an independent candidate elected president in any case would be even less effective than someone from the traditional parties, as they would have no power base in Congress.[/quote]
Sounds like it's time for a new Congress then.
[QUOTE=ghosevil;33304842]At this point in the game it's hard to deny that there's nothing but self-serving interests. Two 'opposite' groups are supposed to debate and collaberate to reach educated decisions for the rest of the country- this can't happen when one side just stonewalls the other because it can't 'win'.
Truly a house divided.
Meanwhile the increasingly ignorant population is bred to lash out or cheer for the colour blue or red, the donkie or the elephant, the female or male, the black or white. The current state of the political system is a mere symptom of America's sickness.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the 2 party system is definitely a huge issue, but I think having only one party would be an even worse situation.
Ron Paul, Barack Obama, and Jon Huntsman are the top 3 Most Tracked.
I was hoping to see some new faces, not people who are already in the spotlight.
Barack Obama and Jon Huntsman aren't that bad though.
I'm on the "Not going to fuck everything up" side.
Which [at the moment] is neither.
I respect the idea and all, but historically strong 3rd parties have just made elections turn out worse. Nader split the vote and we ended up with George W. If these people split the left vote, we end up with Romney/Perry/Cain/whoever running the country. Yikes.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;33309152]I respect the idea and all, but historically strong 3rd parties have just made elections turn out worse. Nader split the vote and we ended up with George W. If these people split the left vote, we end up with Romney/Perry/Cain/whoever running the country. Yikes.[/QUOTE]
So really, Nader should've shut the fuck and not have exercised his right to run for president?
No, no, no, it doesn't work like that.
Fascism is, shut your mouth; Democracy is talk all you want!
[URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClTxaY8Uy5U]Oh, and Bush never won his elections.[/URL]
I've been playing with AE from the start, and I'm actually really fed up with it.
The questions that are supposed to line you up with different positions on public policy are typically biased or over simplified to the point of irrelevance, and the system as a whole is too heavily reliant on external systems such as Facebook.
Yeah, I get that they are trying to reach out to people through whatever ways they can, but I'm not about to reactivate a Facebook account just to be able to participate in a debate.
It seemed cool at first, but if you look at their trending politicians, it kind of seems like the whole goal of finding candidates outside of the two party system has been ignored:
[url]http://secure.americanselect.org/candidates/most-tracked[/url]
[QUOTE=Hidole555;33301660][URL="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d4413aa6-1057-11e1-8010-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1dtI6QFtB"]Source.[/URL] [B]CRAP! Can someone fix the thread title?[/B]
[URL="http://www.americanselect.org/"]The Americans Elect Website[/URL]
“A third-party candidate likely would need to be a major self-funder to be potentially viable, someone capable of contributing $100m-$200m of their own money into their campaign,” he said. “In short, someone like Michael Bloomberg.”
[/QUOTE]
Y'know, he's done a good enough job as mayor of New York, but I'm not sure if Americans will sympathize with one of the richest men in the entire hemisphere.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;33308593]Yeah, the 2 party system is definitely a huge issue, but I think having only one party would be an even worse situation.[/QUOTE]
That and parties would naturally form together anyway.
They really need to switch to a proportional representation system with more than two candidates. Under the current system more than half of the country can hate you but as long as you get more votes than any other party you run the country. Just look at Canada.
[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;33310546]They really need to switch to a proportional representation system with more than two candidates. Under the current system more than half of the country can hate you but as long as you get more votes than any other party you run the country. Just look at Canada.[/QUOTE]
You're going to suggest something and not even going to explain what it is?
You sure you're not a US Politician?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;33310590]You're going to suggest something and not even going to explain what it is?
You sure you're not a US Politician?[/QUOTE]
Just for people like you, I'll explain it.
Basically, the seats a party gets in the Parliament/Congress/whatever is directly proportional to the amount of votes they receive instead of having someone run for an electoral district and if they win they popular vote in the electoral district they get elected to the parliament.
[editline]16th November 2011[/editline]
Most countries with multiple parties use this system.
I had a dream where the obscure neo-nazis got one of their few hundred or so "candidates" into the white house. Since he was a politician, he didn't kill the Jews as promised.
I expect the same thing here, honestly. :(
[QUOTE=Florence;33309513]So really, Nader should've shut the fuck and not have exercised his right to run for president?
No, no, no, it doesn't work like that.
Fascism is, shut your mouth; Democracy is talk all you want!
[URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClTxaY8Uy5U]Oh, and Bush never won his elections.[/URL][/QUOTE]
I know full well Bush never won, but it would never have been in question if every Nader vote went to Gore instead. Even though there were more left-leaning voters in that election than Republicans, the office went to Dubya. Really, 3rd parties seem to be a great way to ensure that the person NOT supported by the most Americans gets elected.
At this point I don't see a way out of the two party system. Unless a new party comes in out of nowhere and immediately sweeps the elections, any attempt just results in the minority gaining power.
lovely video about the american voting system
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/media]
[editline]17th November 2011[/editline]
and the solutions
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE&feature=relmfu[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU&feature=related[/media]
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;33311033]I know full well Bush never won, but it would never have been in question if every Nader vote went to Gore instead. Even though there were more left-leaning voters in that election than Republicans, the office went to Dubya. Really, 3rd parties seem to be a great way to ensure that the person NOT supported by the most Americans gets elected.
At this point I don't see a way out of the two party system. Unless a new party comes in out of nowhere and immediately sweeps the elections, any attempt just results in the minority gaining power.[/QUOTE]
I contend that the best way to handle multiple parties running for one position (i.e. President) is to have the first election consist of all parties on a national level. Then, if no one has accrued 50% of the vote, a final round of voting will occur with the top two candidates going head to head.
Nothing would make me happier to see a viable third-party candidate. Neither party fully represents my personal ideologies, so I'm forced into a system of voting [I]against[/I] the candidates I don't like, rather than [I]for[/I] the candidates I do.
[editline]17th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Contag;33311162]lovely video about the american voting system
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/media]
[editline]17th November 2011[/editline]
and the solutions
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE&feature=relmfu[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU&feature=related[/media][/QUOTE]
I really like these videos. They perfectly summarize my problems with the two-party system, and offer some viable solutions to those problems that I could comfortably accept.
[QUOTE=ghosevil;33304842]At this point in the game it's hard to deny that there's nothing but self-serving interests. Two 'opposite' groups are supposed to debate and collaberate to reach educated decisions for the rest of the country- this can't happen when one side just stonewalls the other because it can't 'win'.
Truly a house divided.
Meanwhile the increasingly ignorant population is bred to lash out or cheer for the colour blue or red, the donkie or the elephant, the female or male, the black or white. The current state of the political system is a mere symptom of America's sickness.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it's a much better idea to have one party. They could do basically whatever they want. Nobody would oppose them. Nobody would vote against it. Nobody would alert people to the bullshit they were trying to pull. As it stands, one party will always be there to oppose the other side. Oh wait, there's a word for a one-party government already - dictatorship.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.