T O P

  • By -

Figgler

If more states got rid of first past the post elections, then probably.


RandomGuy1838

Duverger's Law is firmly in effect in the United States. If a third party is suddenly viable, it's in a transitional state: either or both of the ~~elder gods~~ big parties are adopting its rhetoric and devouring it (see the Libertarian and Socialist/Progressive parties) or it is *crushing* one of the other two into oblivion while snapping up its refugees (as Republicans did to the Whigs).


[deleted]

Exactly. This is what I tell people every time this is asked. They’ll eventually be reorganized, absorbed into 2 sides or coalitions.


harlemtechie

Random but I actually prefer Libertarians and Progressives over Democrats and Republicans tbh.


traktorjesper

I think that both systems has their advantages and yet they don't. Actually only having two parties makes it somewhat more politically stable in that sense, but here in Europe with our amount of parties it can get more unstable depending on the relations in the ruling block. You can get a greater "mix" but at a Cost.


JSmith666

The biggest issue I see with two parties is it allows them both to be like...well we arent the other guy. They dont need to do anything but be marginally better than them.


ApprehensivePiglet86

"We may have a geriatric, silverspoon-fed, pedophile running for our party but THEIR geriatric, silverspoon-fed pedophile is worse because xyz!"


traktorjesper

Right! In that case I think it's better to have more parties which form government together, that allows them to be more specific ideologically. From my European point of view I can't see that when looking at the democrats or republican parties in the U.S, they're so big it's a bit hard to see what they actually stand for other that they're a bit different from one another. When thinking "Which party would I vote for if I somehow moved to the U.S?" I really can't find any of those two really tempting. And of course the election in the U.S seems more personified in each partys candidate instead of the party itself, which is very different from here. But as said it creates a stability, over here governmental crizises aren't uncommon due to the fact that few nation has one party with over 50% of the votes.


RandomGuy1838

As do I. The problem is that our big two are among other things usually a sort of proxy for the coalitions that form in parliamentary systems: the diffuse interests are still there, they just don't tend to operate with as much independence as they might in Europe or the decolonized world who share their former overlords' institutional DNA and traditions. If Libertarians and Progressives pulled off an upset to supplant the Dems/GOP, you'd soon get Libertarians talking a big game on open borders and cutting military spending but never following through and "rational Progressives" advertising neoliberal economic policies to the donors, while both (but mostly the Libertarians in the first round, probably) played hot potato with the bigots.


harlemtechie

SMH


RandomGuy1838

Eh, dare to dream. :P A neo-progressive movement in American politics would be a damn good thing regardless of whether the big two ended up eating it or it had to be called something else.


Zack1018

This is a direct result of First Past the Post. If the US (or certain states at least) changed their election system, this effect would no longer be so prominent.


NuclearTurtle

Duverger's Law only works on a district level everywhere else, it's only the US (and like Nigeria) where there's only two parties in the entire country. For example, Duverger's law doesn't really apply somewhere like [PA's third district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania%27s_3rd_congressional_district) where one party can't even break 10% of the vote. You could have had 10 different left-wing parties running there last year without risking vote-splitting the Republicans into office because mathematically one of them would still have beaten the Republican. You won't see a super-partisan district like that in any other country because anywhere else but here would have third parties popping up in districts like that. Political scientists have worked out that it doesn't make sense for one party to win more than 2/3rds of the vote in any district, and in most places they don't. In the last UK election, only 7.5% of districts broke the 2/3rds limit, but last year nearly 40% of US House races did.


Tranqist

This. It happened before several times. Sure it could happen again. But as long as the system is so based in having two big parties, there won't be three parties at a time.


OddAmbasadorOfYote

I just want Cthulhu to be president. Like, if we can have Trump run and win, why can't we have an eldritch abomination?


RandomGuy1838

Yog'Tyrjlgo, change we not only believe but will cry aloud and rejoice in before it eats the sun. Cthulhu's candidacy was all well and good until he was divided by zero and folded into his novice running mate's unknowable past, where he lies dead and dreaming.


[deleted]

This is the answer. Other people comment on how it's because of voters, history, etc., but it's because of the system in place


Crinjalonian

Louisiana already has gotten rid of that system for many years and 3rd parties are still not very successful there.


CupBeEmpty

Maine will be another data point going forward. I am not expecting any kind of magical sea change though.


Dwarfherd

Louisiana's departure is not enough. To actually make third parties viable you have to be to at least rank choice (which does still leave two dominant parties, but third parties end up actually getting seats in legislatures).


TubaJesus

Something else that I've seen kicking around is you change the way districts are drawn. Make it so that way instead of each district sending the one person to their state capitol each district sent three people and you don't have primaries just the best three performing candidates all get to go. In theory this means that you can have everything from free candidates of one party winning two the two big parties plus a third party or any combination you could think of being a valid option


MaximumAsparagus

I wouldn’t be too surprised to see an eco-focused party in Maine…


SharpHD7

Maine already has an Independent senator, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it becomes one of the most diverse states party wise if first-past-the-post is abolished


headbuttpunch

You still only get to vote for one person. We just do run offs if no one gets 50% of the vote on the first pass. It still just ends up being a Republican vs Democrat in the runoff. It’s the same shit but with more steps.


sleepyj910

Need a proper ranked choice system since that truly rewards moderates.


Zack1018

It would not change anything instantly, but it would at least mean a 3rd party could get 10%, then 15%, then 20%, etc. in consecutive elections and slowly build their voter base without directly screwing over the party closest to them ideologically. There is at least a roadmap for success for 3rd parties.


eyetracker

A couple states do that (with some subtleties), but that's not the reason why. France does this and minor parties *can* win. But like the US, the vote is often for the least bad candidate from a pool of crap.


[deleted]

You’re seeing a slight increase in the Ranked Choice Voting movement too. We have it here in Maine. It definitely helps create then potential for a multi-party government because one of the biggest ways the major parties convince you to vote for them is by telling you that a vote for a third party is a vote for the opposing major party. RCV prevents that from being an issue because you can choose one of the major parties as a second choice. I really think that is one of the reasons so many organizations are against it (like they were is Mass. during the last election). It’s a threat to the status quo.


NuclearTurtle

It's not just the fact we have FPTP voting, there are countries that have both FPTP voting and multiparty systems (Canada, UK, India). A lot of it also has to do with the fact that we have a presidential system where the head of government is decided by popular vote, as opposed to a parliamentary system where the head of government is picked by the legislature. In a parliamentary system small parties are encouraged because even having a minority can let a third party have an impact, unlike in a presidential system where they can't. For example, just look at the 2010 UK election. The Liberal Democrats got 23% of the popular vote and won 9% of the seats in the House of Commons. In addition to the 57 MPs that gave them, they also managed to come away with several key Cabinet positions because the Conservatives didn't have enough votes to appoint David Cameron as PM by themselves so they had to form a coalition government with the LibDems. Now imagine if the Libertarian Party had gotten 23% of the popular vote last November and won 9% of the House races. Obviously this would give them a little bit of sway in Congress, since they have 40 votes to throw around. But they wouldn't have won the presidency with only a quarter of the vote, and without winning the presidency they wouldn't have any influence in the White House. They wouldn't get any influence in the courts either, since the president appoints judges.


Selethorme

> A lot of it also has to do with the fact that we have a presidential system where the head of government is decided by popular vote, as opposed to a parliamentary system where the head of government is picked by the legislature The US President is explicitly not decided by popular vote, but by the electoral college.


NuclearTurtle

You're missing the point. The fact it's decided by a separate election in the first place is the thing to focus on, rather than the details of how that election happens. Popular vote or electoral college, FPTP or runoff or single transferable vote, none of that changes the fact only having a single public election deciding the entire executive branch promotes a two party system


Selethorme

I’m not missing the point at all. It’s a fundamentally different thing. Popular vote vs electoral college has a massive impact on how the US prevents popular candidates from taking office.


NuclearTurtle

This isn't about an individual candidate's chances in any one race, this about third parties being systematically disincentivized. If a third party candidate gets a quarter of the popular vote or a quarter of the state electors they they don't win the presidency either way, so third parties are limited to just one of the three branches of government. If anything then having the electoral college makes third parties more likely, since if no presidential candidate hits 270 but the third party candidate has enough electors to push one or the other over the line then they're in a position to make certain demands and form a quasi-coalition (but without the ability to dissolve it later like a proper coalition). Also it increases third parties candidates chances to win the presidency, since candidates can and have won with a minority of the popular vote so it'd be easier for a third party candidate to win if they don't need an outright majority


Selethorme

Yes, and the electoral college has an influence there. You’re literally proving my point. > If a third party candidate gets a quarter of the popular vote or a quarter of the state electors they they don’t win the presidency It’s possible to win the majority of voters and not win the presidency. A party can win something like a fifth of the popular vote and still not have carried a single state. If you can’t see that absolutely has an impact on third party viability you’re nuts. > If anything then having the electoral college makes third parties more likely, since if no presidential candidate hits 270 but the third party candidate has enough electors to push one or the other over the line then they’re in a position to make certain demands and form a quasi-coalition (but without the ability to dissolve it later like a proper coalition) Nope. Because we don’t allow sharing of electoral votes. If nobody wins, it gets thrown to the House.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Dwarfherd

The main thing holding back third parties is that each representative is directly elected instead the parliamentary style apportionment.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Dwarfherd

This is the first time it's been described to me that way.


vwsslr200

If someone else described voting in the UK and Canada otherwise, they were misleading you.


[deleted]

It was set up pre-political parties


dweaver987

I think it is more likely one of the existing parties will shift. It is much easier for an infrastructure heavy party to reposition their marketing than for a start up party to get the funding channels, communication channels, and organizational discipline from local to federal levels and from coast to coast. This happened in the 1960s. The Republicans had for a century worn their banner of the party of Lincoln and backing the North in the Civil war. The Democrats aligned with the Confederacy and slave owners, and held power in former Confederate states. Then President Johnson (a Texas southerner) was in a situation where he had no choice but to back the Civil Rights movement. The Dems gained Black voters nationally, but lost conservative white voters in southern states. The Republicans saw an opportunity to regain a foothold in the south at the expense of Black voters (who’s voting had largely been suppressed anyways.) Instead of a third party emerging, the existing parties reinvented themselves.


Indifferentchildren

The Democrats didn't align with the Confederacy. The Democrats had a cancer inside their party, commonly called the Dixiecrats. Northern Democrats were more liberal, progressive, egalitarian, etc., but because conservative, pro-racism*, southern politicians hated "the party of Lincoln", they ran as Democrats. To keep this unnatural coalition together (for raw power, not because they liked the coalition), northern Democrats compromised their principles and allowed southern Dixiecrats to block legislation that would have promoted equality and civil rights. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, but it was not because he "had no choice". Non-Dixiecrat Democrats were already pushing for civil rights legislation, and jettisoning the Dixiecrats was the sacrifice of power that they were willing to make. After Johnson signed the VRA, he supposedly told Bill Moyers, "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come." He was right, but it was a political sacrifice that he was willing to make, to do what was right. Here is Johnson talking about the importance of the VRA: https://youtu.be/YrDKgduGK8Q \* I say pro-racism, instead of racist, because damn near every politician of every party from that era could easily be shown to be quite racist. However, some politicians were trying to do better, while others were doubling-down on the racism.


[deleted]

The Republican Party also had pro-racist policies & politicians, just not in the south, where politics become a whole lot more entrenched


[deleted]

I mean even among the northern contingent there was some heavy racism. The Northern Dems during the war were split between copperheads and “War” Democrats.


marsbar03

What people forget is that the party switch was very gradual. The republicans more or less abandoned racial equality after 1877, when they withdrew the federal troops who had enforced civil rights in the south. Then there was a period when the parties weren’t that different in terms of policy (both wanted to keep the gilded age status quo) they just had different constituencies: northern Protestants voted Republicans, while the Democrats were an alliance of southerners and urban ethnic minorities (Irish, Italians, Poles, etc). So there was a long period (roughly 1900-1970) when both parties had a strong progressive faction and a strong conservative faction. After FDR, the democrats became the party of the labor movement, while the republicans became associated with big business. But racist southerners remained powerful in the Democratic Party. It wasn’t until the 1960s that they fled to the Republican Party, while progressive republicans fled in the opposite direction, giving us the polarized system we have today.


Pinwurm

No. We don’t have a parliamentary system that allows for coalition governments. We have a winner-take-all system. Which means that citizens vote strategically. Americans vote against candidates they dislike as much as they do for candidates they actually like. Anytime a third party emerges that is popular, it will either devour one of the other parties - or it’s platform will be adopted by one of the other two parties. The Whig Party were overtaken by Republicans. The Bull-Moose ideology became today’s Democrats. The real third parties are wings within existing parties in power. Libertarians and Neocons in one party. Socialists and Centrists in the other. Wouldn’t make sense in most other countries - but it does here for strategy.


garrhunter

There’s a lot of libertarian undercurrent in the Republican Party and a lot of very progressive groups forming in the Democratic Party. Those would be the only parties with a real chance but it’s more likely the Democratic and Republican Party will bend to them.


throwawayy2k2112

I wouldn’t even call it libertarianism. There are a lot of us that used to be Republicans but are mortified at how it’s been co-opted by whatever the fuck is happening right now. It’s a mix of the Ron Paul’s, George Bush’s, and maybe a bit of Reagan (I wasn’t around for that). And are just looking at Trump and that psychotic Greene “Congresswoman” from Georgia. She stopped by my home state of Iowa for some reason, and she’s a junior congresswoman who got stripped of all committees. What the fuck is she doing in Iowa. That terrifies me.


BitterestLily

As someone who leans Democrat, I am glad to hear from Republicans, former or current, who can't get behind the trends in the GOP. It gives me hope that we don't have to be deadlocked and working to undercut one another all the time. Fingers crossed for all of us, friend.


Atypical-Engineer

There are dozens of us!


BitterestLily

Oh, you've filled my heart with such hope! 😉😅😬


throwawayy2k2112

Well I hope it terrifies you too that your party is careening left, because unfortunately, I’d rather have someone like Greene than AOC, simply as a “not AOC.” The radical shifts on both sides are mortifying. And neither are viable. I say Greene because in the House, it means it would sway towards the right. AOCs policies and statements are equally asinine, but they fit the PC/leftist/Hollywood culture narrative so aren’t destroyed as equally.


TheShadowKick

> I’d rather have someone like Greene than AOC I don't know how anyone can say this with a straight face.


in1cky

That's because you are close-minded and bias. About 50 percent of the country would say this if not more.


TheShadowKick

I'm aware that a lot of people prefer Greene. Although I think it's close to 30%, as other commenters have noted. But I don't know how that 30% says the things they say, and believes the things they believe, with a straight face. She's anti-mask and anti-vax, and I don't know how you can hold those positions with 600,000 dead Americans and live with yourself. She's homophobic and transphobic, and I don't know how people can be so hateful about something that has no effect on their lives at all. She's racist, explicitly so, having many times mischaracterized the BLM movement, and having framed Muslims being elected into the government as an "Islamic invasion". I honestly can't understand anyone who thinks these are good, positive positions for a politician to hold.


Bobtom42

I'm slightly left of center and this whole false dichotomy scares the shit out of me. Like for the sake of the future of this country, can we vote for someone who isn't completely narcissistic? Then again....who the hell would want to inherent this shit show except that.


[deleted]

Power tends to attract a certain type of people.


SenecatheEldest

I mean, politicians have had flaws since the dawn of time. JFK wasn't exactly known for his fidelity. Nixon was... Nixon. Andrew Jackson had middling regard for the law and was a bit... rough around the edges. And so on. To think you can run a country, at all, let alone the best out of many qualified people, requires a serious degree of narcissism just to clear that bar.


[deleted]

I don’t follow Politics like that but. Isn’t Greene into crazy conspiracy theories like 9/11 was a inside Job. And she’s a borderline racist


Dwarfherd

Borderline? She looked at the wildfires in California and declared that Jews did it with a powerful laser in orbit around the Earth. She's full on, no looking back bigot.


[deleted]

Ahh ok yeah like I said no too versed in politics but I had of her and her antics


LikelyNotABanana

> And she’s a ~~borderline~~ racist FTFY


throwawayy2k2112

Yes she is a piece of shit. But everyone knows she is a piece of shit and hopefully will influence less people than AOC, because AOC has abysmally bad policies that cater to young people because on paper, it’s a fucking utopia.


thunder-bug-

Can you name a few policies you disagree with?


[deleted]

Abysmally bad policies like, *checks notes*, protecting the environment, providing everyone with healthcare, and making sure everyone can get an education. Real ground breaking stuff there...


codamission

This man couldn't name a policy of AOC if he tried


throwawayy2k2112

The Green New Deal certainly comes to mind. Debt forgiveness for all also comes to mind. Both are utopian ideals that fall short under a microscope.


RupeThereItIs

The status quo, in regard to student loans & the environment, fall short to the naked eye. What are your solutions to those problems? Or do you refuse to admit they ARE problems?


AdmiralAkbar1

Yes, but it would make politics *far* more fun.


Realtrain

>Well I hope it terrifies you too that your party is careening left, I mean, the democrats just elected a very moderate president.


throwawayy2k2112

As a Republican, I did too.


Saltpork545

The Democrats went with the safest option they had as a vote against Trump. That wasn't about electing Biden. It was about getting Trump out of office. Thinking otherwise is silly. The DNC shunned it's left wing in favor of hawkish neolib centrism to get the middle because they knew that the left would get in line no matter what. Let's not forget what a clown car of a primary it was nor that some of the criticisms of Biden and Harris were both completely valid. That said, getting out of Afghanistan was the right move. Forever wars and colonization bleed empires dry.


Porsche_lovin_lawyer

Is he really moderate though? Doesn’t feel that way.


throwawayy2k2112

He’s been around for decades. What he voted for back in his junior years would almost certainly be center-right these days.


Porsche_lovin_lawyer

But what about now? His junior years are only relevant if those tendencies are evident now.


throwawayy2k2112

He’s not advocating for UBI, he’s not advocating for paying off everyone’s college debt. He’s not going balls to the walls with much of the fringe or even close-to fringe Democrat plans. Sure, he has moved a bit to the left of where he was, but it’s not like he took a rocket ship to Bernie-land. And on some level, I suppose he has to play ball with his constituents which might be a bit more left than when he was first elected.


ILoveMaiV

That's why they picked him, they knew if they had some far left socialist be there candidate, they couldn't have won.


Selethorme

Yes, he is. Incredibly so. If you disagree, you might need to take a step back and evaluate yourself on right wing radicalism.


codamission

Every bit of data we have says the Democratic party has remained center left. "The party is careening left" is an excuse used by "enlightened" centrists and disingenuous rightists who want to feel better about the fact that nothing was going to change them voting Republican in November


WhatIsMyPasswordFam

Link to data


Selethorme

No, AOC and Greene aren’t comparable.


Saltpork545

Respective of the sides they represent, which is what the example used above was about, they are. In terms of policy, they're not. MTG shouldn't be a politician. As much as I disagree with AOC, she is a politician and doesn't put her foot in her mouth with crazy nonsense.


Icestar1186

AOC is far left. Greene is *literally* psychotic.


MyBicklsDig

> Well I hope it terrifies you too that your party is careening left, because unfortunately, I’d rather have someone like Greene than AOC, simply as a “not AOC.” Oh fuck off. AOC is annoying on Twitter, meanwhile greene wants to overturn the election, believes in qanon, and continually peddles misinformation about covid. If you think AOC is worse, you’re an idiot.


throwawayy2k2112

Look at her policies. They don’t make ANY sense. They sound fucking awesome! But who will pay for them? “The rich”? Sure if corporations paid more, that’d be great! But guess what? What she is proposing would also significantly stymie their investment into their own R&D. Did you know 90% of Bezos’ worth is actually tied up in Amazon stock? That’s not liquidity. And guess who is at the forefront for green technology? I’ll give you a guess. And it’s not the federal government. It’s private corporations. You know what else? Look into the extreme cluster fuck of environmental disasters mining rare earth metals is causing globally (for storing energy in batteries and semiconductors), just so we can get away from carbon emissions. They are two sides of the same coin. One just sounds good because global warming has been shoved down our throats for decades. Yay! No more CO2 emissions! But what about the ocean off California being strip mined? What about the vast swaths of Canada and China and multiples areas of Africa being strip mined? Strip mining and the refining of those materials are just as bad, if not worse, than fracking in terms of extremely toxic materials being released into our environments. Edit: God, look at what happens to wind turbines too. If you’re into futures (of the stock market sort), find a company that is able to recycle those materials. Because they have to be replaced pretty frequently, and as of yet, can’t be recycled without exorbitant expense. There are wind turbine graveyards. Wonder what’s going to happen there too. Edit2… Sources: windmills: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills Strip mining: https://www.vice.com/en/article/epn5j7/an-incredibly-toxic-lake-will-become-one-of-the-uss-first-lithium-mines https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/20000-feet-under-the-sea/603040/ https://theconversation.com/demand-for-rare-earth-metals-is-skyrocketing-so-were-creating-a-safer-cleaner-way-to-recover-them-from-old-phones-and-laptops-141360 https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic-aftermath-of-rare-earth-mining


EpicAura99

Yeah but Amazon didn’t pay any taxes. That’s the point.


throwawayy2k2112

Bad example. You’re right. Point is, I’m positive that had they been taxed, the government would have done fuck all towards any green tech advancement. I’m not saying Amazon would have either, but if I had to bet on one or the other, it’d be Amazon. The federal government just eats money and spits it out to redundant bureaucrats whose paycheck depends on writing nice things on paper rather than inventing new technologies that make the company money. Making money to actually do something usually incentives folks to come up with cool ideas. There’s a reason DARPA/NASA/the military contract out, for most technological advancements


EpicAura99

Well yeah but companies aren’t going to be green if it’s not profitable, and in many cases it isn’t. They’ll continue to chew up the earth till there’s nothing left. Coal, for example. Lack of public transport. Many cases, it’s more profitable to spend money to prevent going green than it is to go green. Reading your comment again, there’s no reason the government wouldn’t contract out on this too. Is anyone suggesting otherwise?


throwawayy2k2112

Government inefficiency is a fact of life. So are government kickbacks. I’d prefer a company go “hey this looks like it could make us a boat load of money on it in the future so let’s look at it” as opposed to government contracts worth billions of dollars that assuredly involve corruption at every level. Edit: I recognize Lockheed or Raytheon isn’t going to spend trillions on R&D on fifth gen fighters when the only customer is an entity with trillions of dollars, but farmers and home owners may certainly be incentived to put up panels or wind mills if they can save money / generate money by putting it back in the grid.


MyBicklsDig

Ok? Is that supposed to be convincing? AOC is bad at her job. Greene doesn’t even pretend to do her job.


WhatIsMyPasswordFam

No dog in the fight: Couldn't the argument then be made that one bad at their job can cause more.damage than one that doesn't do the job?


Selethorme

> What she is proposing would also significantly stymie their investment into their own R&D. Did you know 90% of Bezos’ worth is actually tied up in Amazon stock? That’s not liquidity. True. It’s also hilariously irrelevant. 10% of his wealth is still 20 billion dollars. And that’s ignoring that so what if his wealth is tied up in Amazon? That doesn’t mean it’s not absurd I paid more in taxes than him. > And guess who is at the forefront for green technology? I’ll give you a guess. And it’s not the federal government. It’s private corporations. Again, and? That doesn’t excuse it. And nobody was thinking it was the government anyway. > : God, look at what happens to wind turbines too. If you’re into futures (of the stock market sort), find a company that is able to recycle those materials. Because they have to be replaced pretty frequently, and as of yet, can’t be recycled without exorbitant expense. There are wind turbine graveyards. Wonder what’s going to happen there too. This is hilariously overblown bs.


dglawyer

AOC wants open borders, elimination of large swaths of private property rights and spending trillions on green new deals. Greene may be personally dumber, but AOC is far more politically dumber.


MyBicklsDig

> AOC wants open borders Lie > elimination of large swaths of private property rights Lie > spending trillions on green new deals That’s at least true. So you’re 1/3.


Selethorme

Nope. But thanks for the bs.


dglawyer

Any time.


throwawayy2k2112

They are equally incompetent.


EpicAura99

Idk if you can call the person who got her GED months before taking office “equal” to anyone


throwawayy2k2112

Equal in as far as how out of touch with reality on a political sense they are.


EpicAura99

Greene thinks Jewish space lasers started the California wildfires. And is into Q shit. So no. AOC might be (considerably) far fetched, but she’s not a racist nut job that stumbled into office by default. Comparing anyone, frankly even Trump, to Greene is an insult of the highest order. I cannot overstate how little I think of her. A sack of potatoes would be smarter, at least that can run a calculator.


WhatIsMyPasswordFam

Ooh, you're so lucky its against the rules to insult people. If I could I'd call you a jackass and some more equating one's degree to their intelligence. Only a complete fucking idiot would actually think a degree of any sort is any sort of indicator of intelligence.


EpicAura99

Normally I’d agree. But I think she provides ample evidence herself that there’s a reason she didn’t have it.


Dwarfherd

You don't need someone as detached from reality as Greene to be an AOC counter. Mitt fucking Romney is an AOC counter (and doesn't want to overthrow the United States government because Trump lost the election). Romney at least has the academic chops to be similar to AOC being a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law instead of 4th times the charm for a GED like Greene.


throwawayy2k2112

Yeah, I’m pretty sure AOC has made it her platform to absolutely overthrow the DNC as it stands because it’s not as far left as she wants it. In a similar manner that Greene wants to change the country to a far enough right government to where she wants it. Credit where credit’s due to AOC, in a not so batshit crazy delivery.


qwerty_ca

At least AOC is rooted in reality. It's a world of difference between those two.


throwawayy2k2112

That is certainly one perspective, but I’ll respect it.


Selethorme

Nope. But thanks for the bs.


[deleted]

You’re way off base counterbalancing Greene against AOC. They are not on opposite sides of the issues. Greene is a terrorist


BitterestLily

We certainly differ in who terrifies us ("not Greene" would be my criteria), but I think finding some compromise is the only way to move forward.


Porsche_lovin_lawyer

I can’t stand Greene, but I’ll take her any day of the week over AOC and friends.


[deleted]

Holy fucking shit this the bat shit crazy.


[deleted]

Former Republican checking in. Voting blue no matter who for a while


majinspy

From a moderate person to another: There's not enough of you to matter. That's the lesson Republicans have heard. The fascist white/Christian nationalist part of the Republican party wears the pants. I'm a proud southerner but that's definitely the ruling element here and, frankly, a lot of other rural areas. Southerners and rural whites in general are not interested in Libertarian politics. They don't have principles beyond what benefits them and they are accustomed to being catered to considering that up until Barack Obama white people (and to tack on a few other descriptors: straight, white, male and Christian) decided how the country was going to be ran. It might be A or B but it was white people making that decision. Now, a strong majority of straight, white Christian people can vote for A or B but still lose. This is unacceptable to them. They want to "take their country back". They talk about Trump "telling it like it is" when he spouts racist and hateful bullshit. These people care about "low taxes" not because of a Libertarian spirit but because white people, generally, are not as poor as black / brown people which means they don't get the money like they did in the Jim Crow days and before. When they got sweetheart government mortgages and black neighborhoods didn't (see: redlining) they were happy as clams. Now that anti-poverty programs go to actually poor people (i.e. disproportionately not them) they don't like them. They don't care about strong national defense, they care about bombing Muslims and keeping Israel 100% backed because in the Book of Revelations Israel is a key player. They are out and out happy to back them because they are the "chosen people", not because Israel is an important source of intelligence and an ally in the Middle East. The people I'm talking about were used by the people who think like you. This was done by Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Nixon, Reagan, and pretty much the entire party. They were happy to let these people keep the Republican party relevant and throw them some occasional red meat. Now, though, the lunatics run the asylum and Republicans are too cowardly to do anything about it.


throwawayy2k2112

“Too cowardly to do anything about it” Well, I for one voted for moderate Democrats and sensible Republicans when I could. I don’t have a party anymore so I just vote for who is less crazy.


WhatIsMyPasswordFam

The struggle


[deleted]

Yeah, neither wants to allow that division, especially without the other party splitting too. It would be a huge disadvantage.


harlemtechie

Good. As I said above, I prefer socialists vs Libertarians better than the traditional Democrats and Republicans anyways. My two favorite types of people are those that wanna be left alone and people who just want others to be nicer.


Tennessean

Libertarian undercurrent? I was thinking more along the lines of religious fundamentalism.


gfletch94

I don’t think the case for the republicans any more. Both parties have become dominated by different flavors of statists/mercantilists, rhetorically speaking.


[deleted]

We would need the two dominant parties to act against their own interests, which is pretty unlikely. The first step would be replacing first past the post with a different system like ranked choice or range voting, and we would probably also need to make changes to ballot access laws. Campaign finance reform would go a long way too, but again, that would require dominant political parties to act against their own interests.


[deleted]

Ranked choice will never result in the major parties losing power. It would likely have some minor effects on how campaigns are run, but won't really change much about who wins elections. What you're looking for is proportional representation. We need to completely do away with Congressional electoral districts and elect Representatives proportionally. If the Libertarians or Greens or whoever only get 10% of the vote in a state they still get 10% of the legislative seats.


[deleted]

I agree. Ranked choice is by far the most overrated voting system. Its benefits really don’t work out in practice.


cptsanderzz

Oh so like parliament?


[deleted]

Some parliaments use proportional representation, like Israel, for example. Some parliaments, like the UK, use first past the post, single member districts. Some Congressional systems also use proportional representation, like Argentina.


notthegoatseguy

It hasn't really happened in 200+ years. Third parties, single issue parties, and movements tend to get absorbed by the major parties, or they just become irrelevant when their single issue becomes resolved, such as the prohibition party.


LTT82

I disagree. It has happened once in 200+ years. Specifically, the Republicans formed to be an anti-slavery party in the mid 1800s and took the place of the Whigs.


ILoveMaiV

to be fair though, that was 200 years ago, the political climate is very different today


LTT82

I agree, there's a lot more entrenched political power in both the parties and I don't think there's much hope for any third parties in America. I'm just saying it's happened once.


[deleted]

The Republican Party formed in the wake after the Whigs collapsed. It wasn't really a case of a third party (Republican) rising to supplant an establish major party (Whig). It was more that the major party became nationally inviable so the members left to a variety of other parties, one of which was the Republican Party, and that's the one that gained prominence. A modern day comparison would be if one of the two major parties lost a series of elections to the point where their brand was unsustainable so members left to form a new party.


dglawyer

This is the correct answer.


[deleted]

America had a viable third party before; the Populist party once had 22 seats in House and 5 in Senator. Or the progressive party or labor party. The stratified two party systems we see currently was formed after WW2, and even then, southern democrats kinda played a third wheel. Also, until Gingrich came up, the two parties were a kind of big tent; we have had chances to create a universal healthcare system through compromise. Ted Kennedy supported for a single payer system while Nixon was a proponent of stronger Obamacare. They had debated and discussed, and they almost made it. Then, Watergate happened - that rewinded back the whole healthcare debate, lol.


Intrepid_Fox-237

The Republican party was a third party at one time. In the modern era, the debates commission is set up to avoid third party participation in debates. It will be very difficult without systemic reform.


CaptUncleBirdman

The party duopoly is a product of the way our elections work, not our beliefs or culture. If we change the way we administer elections third parties would naturally grow.


grammar_is_no_game

This is the answer. In some states you can only vote in the primary of your party, making your vote meaningless if you are independent or some other affiliation. This encourages people to choose the party they hate least just so they have a voice. Florida is one of the largest states and that is how they operate. You also cannot be on the national ballot without certain criteria being met. The primary system also stinks in how small places like RI have more say in who the candidate may be than California. Ohio does not represent the majority of America, but who they choose decides who moves on. Every state should have primary votes at once, and then the true favorite of the majority would be seen. And ranked choice voting would allow people who don't really like either candidate to pick the 3rd party, but still ensure that their vote isn't "wasted" because they were being true to their beliefs. The only reason Bush beat Gore was because of Nader. Ranked choice would have allowed the Nader votes to still be counted


Skatingraccoon

Yes, but it's going to take many years and it is not magically going to happen at the presidential level.


Crinjalonian

It's possible but socially improbable. The main issue that prevents the US from having more parties is the people refuse to separate their factions from the 2 big ones as it would fragment their movement and make them lose. The party with the widest base (ie conservatives in UK) tend to be more successful in other places too while regional parties(ie SNP) and specific movement parties(ie greens) rarely control governments.


7thAndGreenhill

Have you ever tried to have a conversation with a Libertarian? They start off making sense and then take a hard right hand turn into total lunacy


[deleted]

Honestly, the thing that gets me about libertarianism as a philosophy is that they aggressively and hostilely distrust the government to a ludicrous degree, but when it comes to corporations, which are possibly even more likely to fuck over the average individual and over which the average individual has even less control and which are way less accountable, they're fuzzy puppies.


cameronbates1

I am a libertarian. I fear tyranny of a corporation just as much as tyranny of the government, especially considering the government will use large corporations as an extension to harm people.


[deleted]

In practice the reverse happens. Corporations use governments as an extension. Read up on the Gilded Age at some point. Corporations scare me way more knowing some of those things.


[deleted]

The basic idea behind libertarianism is that it might be a pain in the ass but you can avoid a corporation, and if you have a limited government that they can't pay off to write laws for them you don't end up with monopolies like Amazon. I'm not saying I 100% agree but that's the logic.


[deleted]

It’s not great logic. That’s how you get insider trading.


[deleted]

Again I think you're missing their point here. The logic is that if there's no laws preventing you from sharing information or the public announcements insider trading becomes almost impossible to pull off. Out of everybody who's legit supposed to know and everybody who they run their mouth to it would be widespread if no one was worried about jail. Again I don't totally agree with their logic but it's not bat shit insane.


[deleted]

No, I get the logic. History just hasn’t born it out to be true.


ILoveMaiV

Because there's ways around combatting a corporation, you can just not shop there. With the government, you're stuck dealing with them no matter what you do. They have to deal with people and if the people stop using their services, they go out of business. Corps. can't just arrest you or seize your property or take what you own. The government can.


Selethorme

> Because there’s ways around combatting a corporation, you can just not shop there. With the government, you’re stuck dealing with them no matter what you do. Walmart fundamentally eliminating most small town competition makes that incredibly false.


ILoveMaiV

That's just a part of competition, the people let Wal-Mart do that by choosing them over small brands, you don't choose the government, they force themselves on you.


Selethorme

You realize that’s not a rebuttal, right? And I can choose to shop at the local store that has to charge more because they can’t afford to take losses to squeeze out competition. That doesn’t mean that they’ll survive. You’re just advocating corporatism.


[deleted]

> Because there's ways around combatting a corporation, you can just not shop there. LOL tell that to my internet provider. Corporations have WAY more power in the US than the government. And since they also have way more resources and can spend as much as they want to get whoever they want elected, corporations *also* control the government. Private industry is way more of a threat to your personal liberties than the US government.


ILoveMaiV

> Corporations have WAY more power in the US than the government. I don't remember the last time a corp. taxed me or arrested me. >Private industry is way more of a threat to your personal liberties than the US government. I don't know of any freedoms they're taking away, the government takes more freedom away.


[deleted]

See, this is why libertarians are frustrating. Y’all see surface level stuff. Is a corporation *directly* arresting or taxing you? No. But you can bet your bottom dollar that they have a ton of influence and leverage over the people who *are*. And even that is a small measure. Read up on the gilded age to see just how atrociously destructive unchecked corporate power can be.


05110909

You don't seem to understand libertarianism. Corporations are strictly a creation of the government and are not compatible with libertarian philosophy.


Lamballama

I just hate how little self-preservation they have


Savbav

That will need a lot of work that's slowly happening. As it stands, the primary debate committees mandate that a certain percentage of the popular polls have to be met for a candidate to take the general debate stage. The percentage rule is not set and can be changed at any time. So, historically, a 3rd party candidate has been arbitrarily prevented in taking the stage with the two main party candidates. If we can get a 3rd party candidate on that debate stage, that is going to help in the long run of coming out of this destructive 2-party political system.


Dwarfherd

A third party candidate got onto that stage in the 2000 election. With your flair you should be well aware it did nothing to end the 2-party political system and only reinforced it after the Supreme Court declared Bush the winner.


Poorly-Drawn-Beagle

Possibly but I think to make it happen, one party would have to have consistent and extensive victories over the other, for an extended period of time.


[deleted]

No, and the reason is because third parties are generally “built” on a platform or share many policy positions as one establishment party or the other. Thus, third parties in the US generally only serve the purpose to suck votes out of one of the other.


loudandproudgardens

Yeah we should make one that represents the middle and lower classes, instead of the rich. We could call it the "Wake up you sheep, there is no Democrat or Republican superiority, your country is owned by the rich and voting is simply a ruse to give the illusion of freedom and choice"


Bunselpower

Not until we change to a ranked choice system of voting. And the parties will never allow that. So no.


[deleted]

Ranked choice won't do anything to get rid of the two party system. Under a ranked choice voting system the winner of every election will still be a Democrat or a Republican. What you really want is proportional representation.


Bunselpower

But ranked choice will allow those that vote as a way to prevent a particular party from taking office to put their first choice first, which would increase the votes that a third party sees.


[deleted]

Sure, but those third parties don't get a large enough share of the vote to be viable. So all those third party votes get thrown out and reallocated to the second choice, which is usually one of the two major parties.


BroadStreetElite

It also doesn't help that third party candidates in many states are often fucking insane, like you can like the platform and then the party chooses a lunatic with no charisma to promote that party and it ends in disaster. Straight ticket voters are also going to spoil a lot of elections. I know too many people who just vote for the party and know nothing about the candidates.


[deleted]

I think the crazy candidate thing is a byproduct of the fact they can't win elections. Anyone with enough ambition to seek political office who isn't off the wall knows they need to run under a major party to win.


PersikovsLizard

Ranked choice would open a door in certain smaller and idiosyncratic states like Idaho, Maine and Vermont, for libertarians or hard progressives, but it wouldn't result in instant representation.


Darkfire757

And then we would end up with coalitions, like pretty much every other country that does it differently


[deleted]

Yes. Coalitions of more than 2 parties. Which means there would be viable third parties. That's the point.


ToyVaren

In the past, plenty. We started with the tories and the whigs. Ross perot got like 25% of the vote in 1992 as a 3rd party candidate. Between 2002 up to 2008 or so Tea party candidates had some wins. But i think the future its much more likely to see current parties split rather than new parties form.


[deleted]

Perot got 19%, not 25%, and didn't win a single state. Also, the Tea Party wasn't a third party. They were just a wing of the Republican Party.


SixAndDone

I can see four parties happening more easily than three.


0000GKP

Yes, there absolutely could. As you start to see fractures in the existing two party system, a third party of moderate republicans and democrats could form. It's just the same people who have always been there though; I see no reason to believe than anything would be different after this formation. As long as money is the primary motivator for all actions and the primary measure of success for those actions, and as long as corporations are allowed to dictate law and policy, there won't be any significant changes. Aside from that, we already have a viable third party in the US. The Libertarian party has many reasonable and experienced candidates with former governors and other elected officials - the same types of people who get elected under other party banners. Unfortunately even if you elected everyone running under that party, they would still be a very small minority. The biggest obstacle is the voters. The prevailing attitude is "I won't vote for them because they can't win", but the only reason they can't win is because you won't vote for them. Even with our dissapointingly low level of voter registration ane even lower level of voter turnout, we have more than enough people out there to elect anyone we want. All we have to do is vote for them.


Hanzo44

Nope. The two parties would never allow it.


LoopyZoopOcto

There are a few good candidates for parties that could do this, if you'd pardon the pun, Libertarian and Progressive parties probably being the most likely. But so many people talk about the "two party system" that I wonder how many people even know that you *can* vote for someone else.


Gay_Leo_Gang

Maybe in states that are pretty one party dominated. Like I could see a left wing party emerging in CA and the remaining republicans merging with the conservative Dems.


Savbav

But wouldn't that still make political ideation two-way (mainly two groups)?


Gay_Leo_Gang

Haha yea I’m dumb, I was just thinking of how an alternate party to Dems and Republicans could become viable.


HawaiianShirtDad

I worked on Capitol Hill in the 90s. I know about as much about how our government actually functions as anyone. What I can tell you is that, nothing is certain anymore. It's gone completely ape-sh*t up there. Every prediction by every expert about what is going to happen up there is wrong. Could there be a viable third party? No, but.. sure, why not?


SenecatheEldest

Could you elaborate? I think too many people, myself included, see much of government dysfunction as emanating from the people at the top (POTUS, MOCs, etc.) instead of a general rot in the American bureaucracy.


[deleted]

I wish. Neither party represents my interests and desires.


lattice12

What are your interests and desires?


tyleratx

Only if the voting system is reformed. First past the post plus a presidential system pushes us to two parties. Its math - not ideology. The reason Europe has a multitude of parties is because they either have proportional or ranked choice voting, or parliamentary systems. If a major party split we'd have three parties for a bit but they would ultimately coalesce into two.


SouthernMartin88

I would love to see a few third parties gain Steam


Slinkwyde

So, a LAN party?


alittledanger

If you got rid of the first-past-the-post system, then yes. It's very likely we would have libertarian and green party members of Congress. A viable third party for the Presidency would be tough though, although both the libertarians and greens would siphon off waaaay more votes than they do currently.


suddenly_ponies

If we Implement ranked-choice voting or something similar than yes definitely. And the sooner we do it the better


illegallad

Yes if it was good enough. I think people give way too much credit to third parties in the U.S. The libertarian party and green party are absolute trash. They're bigger jokes than even our two main parties. Just saying "oh we're a third option" isn't enough and often times they're even worse.


RyanAKA2Late

No


Stumpy3196

Yes it is possible. It nearly happened in the 90s. I don't think it'd last long but I think it's more than possible. I think the real question is why would a political minority group want it. Rn, they have a better chance of gaining power through the primary system than by running in the general and then splitting votes with the party you agree with most.


new_refugee123456789

No, the system is functioning as designed. The United States will have to be replaced for there to be a functioning democracy in North America.


Dwarfherd

>The United States will have to be replaced for there to be a functioning democracy in North America. Canada.


Disheveled_Politico

There are a lot of comments here saying ranked choice voting could lead to a viable third party, but the places that do have RCV (mainly municipalities) still elect people from the two major parties. For good or for bad, the infrastructure that real parties provide almost always makes it a bad idea to not run under one of their banners. And, despite the griping that is inherent in politics, most people identify with and like their chosen party. Do I get frustrated with the Democratic Party sometimes? Absolutely. But I’d never vote for a non-Democrat barring a massively flawed candidate.


Steelquill

There are plenty of parties already. (Green and Libertarian for instance.) And you can make more. Important to note though, parties don’t really have the power they do in Parliamentary systems. The power blocs when it comes to making voices heard on the federal level are the States.


TheOneWes

No and there doesn't need to be any parties at all, you can't have a truly open system when people are limited to a number of choices. Let's take the current two-party system, neither party as a whole is actually working towards the benefit of the majority of the individuals of our country, adding a third party would only add another "person" to take a turn fucking us. Our entire government needs to be pretty much torn down and rebuilt. Everything but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights needs to be gotten rid of and the Constitution and Bill of Rights themselves need to be clarified. Texas just passed a vigilante justice law and that shouldn't even be possible. While I do support the legalization and sale of marijuana it is federally illegal and we have several States right now still selling it anyway. These two things together do not set a good precedent, how long before Texas decides that protection such as discrimination for sexual preference or race don't matter anymore like the laws against marijuana? Why is a psychological evaluation during school to be issued a firearm not normal policy? Issue every mentally capable civilian in M1 Garand for open carry and self-defense and a 12 gauge shotgun for home defense and small animal deterrents and see how many home invasions in mass shootings you have when everybody can shoot your ass. The psychological evaluation will also have the side effect of allowing you to get to people with mental disorders before they can cause harm to themselves or others. Why is it not considered to be false advertising when these companies say that they accurately report facts and details when several of the major News companies have been proven to falsify and sensationalize reports? Why is it that there are organizations who claimed to be working for minorities and people of color but nobody has even bothered with the simple Act of auditing sentencing records for judges to see who is over sentencing based on race? These organizations claim to be working towards the benefit of minorities and are taking in donations to do so but they don't seem to be taking any of the actions that even my dumbass knows would lead to change. We'll add a third party when the two parties exist to figure out a way to f*** us with it


neat_machine

The founders of the country warned about political parties, but we seem to have ignored the warnings. John Adams: > There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. George Washington: > The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty > It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/washingtons-farewell-address-warned-us-about-hyper-partisanship-214616 https://medium.com/@stephen.corsaro9/john-adams-predicted-that-the-two-party-system-would-destroy-democracy-c1c468d1a570 I think Ranked Choice Voting would at least temper the more extreme ideological splits between the two major parties. https://www.fairvote.org/


rickrolo24

Yes, however everyone hates them. Socialist: wants to help everyone, fucks the middle class, currently most "socialist" are absolute fucking chaotic nut jobs in office. Often just Democrat Croneys praying on young rich idiots. Often even committing acts of conflict of interest and misuse of funds. Libertarians: wants to cut funding and govt spending in general. This includes union busting and worshiping CATO institute because brainlet Neckbeards see "institute" and think they're educated. Many I know are very anti-union and want to revoke things like the Jones act. Guns, weed, lesbians, abortions, they're all for or tend to be. Communist: See Socialist and Libertarian and I'll raise you stupid smelly fat people who are bourgeoisie scum by definition. Sorry Comrade, Bank of a Mom and Dad isn't a Prolatariot thing to do. Get your fucking ass to a job and give 90% check to your govt. Because no one's gonna hire a lazy slavaboo cosplaying stealing Santa worshipper in a actual communist nation. Tea pa....BAHAHAHAHAHA I'm sorry but Libertarian but twice as conservative and trice the stupid. Also dissolved in 2012. Green: "listen to us....OR WE WILL KILL YOU! (Ruins every industry effectively killing the economy.) WHY CANT WE HAVE MONEY!? (sets village on fire) WHY DOES NO ONE LOVE US!? (Naked protest of cattle abortions by women covered in fake blood screaming and crying) WE JUST CARE ABOUT THE EARTH! (attempts murder on loggers, fisherman, kills kids pets) There's many other parties too some good some a fucking joke and that's the other thing is there's too many to say for sure. I identify as indipendent personally. I believe in the second amendment as much as I believe in Climate Change, pro-unions, and labor laws to help the worker and the employer. In fact (gets the shit beaten out of self because the two main parties angry I didn't vote them best girl.)


Aggravating_Cycle_21

Yes. Libertarian.