Which party or mix is best for the US?

[anomaly]

The United States likes to brag that it is a democratic country. In my mind, this would mean that there is choice. But when we come to politics, there is hardly a choice at all. In a two party system, the two parties naturally move to the center, since that is where the majority of people are. Some people are radicals, some are reactionary, but these views get absolutely no representation. Third parties have a terribly difficult time rising in this country. Germany, on the other hand, or Spain or France has a much system, IMO, because 3rd parties can rise much more easily. So in the USA, instead of a government by the people for the people, we now have a government by the lawyers for the moderates!

 

[Pacridge]

The United States likes to brag that it is a democratic country. In my mind, this would mean that there is choice. But when we come to politics, there is hardly a choice at all. In a two party system, the two parties naturally move to the center, since that is where the majority of people are. Some people are radicals, some are reactionary, but these views get absolutely no representation. Third parties have a terribly difficult time rising in this country. Germany, on the other hand, or Spain or France has a much system, IMO, because 3rd parties can rise much more easily. So in the USA, instead of a government by the people for the people, we now have a government by the lawyers for the moderates!

Well if the results of your little poll are any indication, a lot of people say they would like to see more options. But from I what I can tell that's just lip service. IMO that's something people have been saying for years and yet in the end they return to the polls and vote one of the two main parties. The last serious third party candidate was Ross Perot (sp?) and I think, after spending millions and millions of his own dollars, he got somewhere around 12% of the vote.

 

[anomaly]

Well if the results of your little poll are any indication, a lot of people say they would like to see more options. But from I what I can tell that's just lip service. IMO that's something people have been saying for years and yet in the end they return to the polls and vote one of the two main parties. The last serious third party candidate was Ross Perot (sp?) and I think, after spending millions and millions of his own dollars, he got somewhere around 12% of the vote.

Well actually the reason people in the USA never vote for the 3rd party candidate is that they figure that he can never win, so why waste my vote on him? I might as well vote for the party that most closely represents my views. But, what if your vote for that 3rd party candidate did matter? Proportional representation, it is called. This means that if 20% of people vote for part A, and 80% vote for party B, party B would not outright win by majority. Party A would represent 20% of whatever the people were voting on. I think it would go something like this: There would be two elections for whatever we were voting on. Of course, the presidency or governor electoral system wouldn't change much, but the house or Senate could. We would first vote for only parties, and these parties would then get proportional representation in whatever we were voting for. Lets say, for example, that parties A, B, C, and D were 'elected' into the Senate by people. These parties would then put two party reps against one another to see who got the Senate seat. That sounds a little rough, but I think that's pretty much how it would go.

 

[HighSpeed]

The United States likes to brag that it is a democratic country.

Come to think of it, the U.S. gov't is a form of a republic.

 

[Pacridge]

Well actually the reason people in the USA never vote for the 3rd party candidate is that they figure that he can never win, so why waste my vote on him? I might as well vote for the party that most closely represents my views. But, what if your vote for that 3rd party candidate did matter? Proportional representation, it is called. This means that if 20% of people vote for part A, and 80% vote for party B, party B would not outright win by majority. Party A would represent 20% of whatever the people were voting on. I think it would go something like this: There would be two elections for whatever we were voting on. Of course, the presidency or governor electoral system wouldn't change much, but the house or Senate could. We would first vote for only parties, and these parties would then get proportional representation in whatever we were voting for. Lets say, for example, that parties A, B, C, and D were 'elected' into the Senate by people. These parties would then put two party reps against one another to see who got the Senate seat. That sounds a little rough, but I think that's pretty much how it would go.

Sounds a lot like what I understand the Canadian system works like.

 

[anomaly]

Sounds a lot like what I understand the Canadian system works like.

Well maybe the US should start following Europe and Canada, instead of going in the exact opposite direction as them.

 

[Fantasea]

Well actually the reason people in the USA never vote for the 3rd party candidate is that they figure that he can never win, so why waste my vote on him? I might as well vote for the party that most closely represents my views. But, what if your vote for that 3rd party candidate did matter? Proportional representation, it is called. This means that if 20% of people vote for part A, and 80% vote for party B, party B would not outright win by majority. Party A would represent 20% of whatever the people were voting on. I think it would go something like this: There would be two elections for whatever we were voting on. Of course, the presidency or governor electoral system wouldn't change much, but the house or Senate could. We would first vote for only parties, and these parties would then get proportional representation in whatever we were voting for. Lets say, for example, that parties A, B, C, and D were 'elected' into the Senate by people. These parties would then put two party reps against one another to see who got the Senate seat. That sounds a little rough, but I think that's pretty much how it would go.

If the method you propose had been in effect in the election of 1992, the result would have been this:

Clinton: Democrats 43%
Bush: Republicans 37%
Perot: Independence Party19%

Since it is reasonable to expect the Democrats and Republicans to disagree on most legislation, the swing vote of the Independence party would effectively determine which legislation was passed and which was defeated.

In this case 19% of the vote would control Congress, wouldn't it? How would that improve things?

 

[Fantasea]

Well maybe the US should start following Europe and Canada, instead of going in the exact opposite direction as them.

"The European Union (EU) is a union of twenty-five independent states based on the European Communities and founded to enhance political, economic and social co-operation."

When you think about it, Europe is imitating the US. Twenty-five states have formed the United States of Europe.

 

[anomaly]

"The European Union (EU) is a union of twenty-five independent states based on the European Communities and founded to enhance political, economic and social co-operation."

When you think about it, Europe is imitating the US. Twenty-five states have formed the United States of Europe.

Think before you speak. The EU is going to left in politics and economics (in fact, in France Marxists recently received 15% of the vote). The US is undoubtedly going the other direction. And now that the neo-conservatives control the right (you know, these are the guys who support preemptive war and some even support the idea of an American empire) it is very scary for the US to be going it alone. You misunderstand the whole idea of proportional representation. The presidency of course could not be 'proportionally divided' but the house and the senate certainly could. The system, of course, would have to be totally revamped, but it is quite possible. Say, for the senate, that the 5% of citizens vote for the Green Party. This means that there would be 5 green senators. If the Democrats get 40%, they get 40 senators, and so on. Of course, the Greens would represent the state that voted most strongly for them, or something along those lines. But I do think that if all views were able to be represented, many more people would vote for 3rd party candidates.

 

[Gabo]

Our voting system needs to be changed in a couple of ways:


1) We need to introduce the option of alternative votes.
What this means is, when you vote you choose your Primary Choice, but also may make a Secondary and Tertiary vote.

When the votes are totalled, elimination begins. The candidate with the lowest number of primary votes is eliminated. All those who voted for that person now have their votes count towards whatever their secondary choice is.

Then the next person with the lowest votes is eliminated. Anyone who voted for them gets their Secondary (or Tertiary if they've already used their Secondary) votes to now count towards the next person they chose.

And so it goes on, until the final two candidates are reached. Then everyone's votes actually go towards which of the two candidates they prefer, providing a more accurate readout.

This also makes it easier for people to vote on 3rd parties, because they know they aren't wasting their vote. If the 3rd party doesn't make it, their Secondary vote can count for one of the two Major Parties, or even for a different 3rd party.


2) There also needs to be a "None of the Above" choice in all elections. This assures people actually get a candidate they desire. If none of the candidates are desirable, new ones will be chosen and a new election cycle started.



These are just my opinions as to how to make our voting system more fair and more accurate.

 

[Fantasea]

Think before you speak. The EU is going to left in politics and economics (in fact, in France Marxists recently received 15% of the vote). The US is undoubtedly going the other direction. And now that the neo-conservatives control the right (you know, these are the guys who support preemptive war and some even support the idea of an American empire) it is very scary for the US to be going it alone. You misunderstand the whole idea of proportional representation. The presidency of course could not be 'proportionally divided' but the house and the senate certainly could. The system, of course, would have to be totally revamped, but it is quite possible. Say, for the senate, that the 5% of citizens vote for the Green Party. This means that there would be 5 green senators. If the Democrats get 40%, they get 40 senators, and so on. Of course, the Greens would represent the state that voted most strongly for them, or something along those lines. But I do think that if all views were able to be represented, many more people would vote for 3rd party candidates.

Did you read post #32 in this thread? If so, please comment on it. If not, please read it and then comment on it.

 

[Fantasea]

Our voting system needs to be changed in a couple of ways:


1) We need to introduce the option of alternative votes.
What this means is, when you vote you choose your Primary Choice, but also may make a Secondary and Tertiary vote.

When the votes are totalled, elimination begins. The candidate with the lowest number of primary votes is eliminated. All those who voted for that person now have their votes count towards whatever their secondary choice is.

Then the next person with the lowest votes is eliminated. Anyone who voted for them gets their Secondary (or Tertiary if they've already used their Secondary) votes to now count towards the next person they chose.

And so it goes on, until the final two candidates are reached. Then everyone's votes actually go towards which of the two candidates they prefer, providing a more accurate readout.

This also makes it easier for people to vote on 3rd parties, because they know they aren't wasting their vote. If the 3rd party doesn't make it, their Secondary vote can count for one of the two Major Parties, or even for a different 3rd party.


2) There also needs to be a "None of the Above" choice in all elections. This assures people actually get a candidate they desire. If none of the candidates are desirable, new ones will be chosen and a new election cycle started.



These are just my opinions as to how to make our voting system more fair and more accurate.

Once inside a voting booth, members of our 'enlightened' electorate have trouble picking one candidate. How do you expect them to pick three?

 

[Gabo]

Once inside a voting booth, members of our 'enlightened' electorate have trouble picking one candidate. How do you expect them to pick three?

That's why the alternative voting would be optional.
If you have trouble picking one, you could always vote "None" anyways.



And the trouble most people have is deciding whether to "waste" their vote on a 3rd party, or spend it on one of the two Big Guys. Many also deliberate on which of the two Big Guys is worse.

Our voting system is a joke.
So many people just can't decide which is the lesser of two evils.

Alternative voting would make the choice easier, allowing you to show your highest preference, but still make a difference if your first preference loses.

 

[ShamMol]

The choice is simple. Each party has a particular philosophy which can be summed up in three words. One's own personal philosophies will always identify more closely with one than the other. Since the party philosophies evolve very slowly, most folks will not live to see a major shift.

So, take your choice:

Socialist-Liberal-Democrats or Capitalist-Conservative-Republicans

That's all you get.

i don't even have to say it! :monkey that is exactly what i was going to write and that it will never change unless there is some major catastrophy in the us.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I would however love to see a none of the above options. That's exactly what I chose this past election (I simply didn't vote) but how wonderful a message would it be to tell the candidates "look we don't really agree with either of you and we'd really rather have a different choice." And yes, the parties do tend to move at slug like speed, but that does not mean that we cannot begin to shoot to have candidates that are much closer to the middle, because frankly that's where most of America is (50/50 split right)

 

[Arch Enemy]

I voted for a balance of the two Major parties. I would have included the other independent parties but we need parties who press against the major one and make them re-think their plank.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I voted for a balance of the two Major parties. I would have included the other independent parties but we need parties who press against the major one and make them re-think their plank.

I agree, the independent party we have right now is nuts... they don't have a chance not because they are smaller but because they are crazy.

 

[Fantasea]

I would however love to see a none of the above options. That's exactly what I chose this past election (I simply didn't vote) but how wonderful a message would it be to tell the candidates "look we don't really agree with either of you and we'd really rather have a different choice." And yes, the parties do tend to move at slug like speed, but that does not mean that we cannot begin to shoot to have candidates that are much closer to the middle, because frankly that's where most of America is (50/50 split right)

Regardless of one's political philosophy, one of the major parties is closer to it than the other. Therefore, it appears to me that abstaining is pretty much the same as casting a vote for the candidate of the party whose philosophy is further from one's own.

Why in the world would one want to have candidates who are "much closer to the middle"? Would that not effectively produce "one party rule"?

 

[ludahai]

In Canada, if someone like a Ralph Nader gets 5% of the total vote, then his party gets 5% representation in Congress.

this could be the only way to take away some of the power of the two party system and get more representation from differing groups of Americans.

Hoot

But Canada has a parliamentary system while the U.S. has a presidential one. In Canada, the powers of the legislative and executive are fused. The legislative even chooses the executive (prime minister.) The U.S. separates the powers of the two offices. The people elect the President through the electors and the Congressmen separately.

Each system has their strong points and their drawbacks.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Because this bi-partisan country is becoming pitted against itself. The issues are no longer a compromise of minds, but an us verses you arena. Most people do not feel so strongly about issues as either party, it is better to attempt to achieve some sort of a compromise between parties than to continuasly beat dead horses around simply for the sake of staying true to what your party tells you to. I would rather have a president and house and senators that sit down and listen to issues instead of blindly following the lead of their party.

 

[Schweddy]

Most people do not feel so strongly about issues as either party, it is better to attempt to achieve some sort of a compromise between parties than to continuasly beat dead horses around simply for the sake of staying true to what your party tells you to.

I agree. But, many folks do indeed feel very strong one way or the other. Few, will do anything about them. Strickly because they believe the proverbial dead horse syndrome. We are in the middle of a crisis - or the beginning of one - depending on your perspective.

No longer can we simply define a party by values or gross exageration. No longer can we say that Republicans are for capitolism or Democrats are for the common worker. Stong advocates of both will still argue this, but these roles are changing and getting all flubbered up.

 

[Fantasea]

Because this bi-partisan country is becoming pitted against itself.

This is nothig new. The difference is that the socialist-lib-dems are watching their ship, as it were, sinking. The noise you hear is them clutching, scratching, clawing, screaming as they attack everything the current administration does, does not do, or attempts to do.

If you don't agree, simply review the biennial elections since 1994, the midpoint of the first term of the Clinton Administration. Prior to that, the Democrats controlled everything.

In just the next six years, the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House. Following that, the Republicans gained seats in both the House and the Senate. Next, GWB was re-elected and the margins in both the House and the Senate increased.

Considering that during the entire period, Democrats voter registrations have exceeded those of Republicans, what does that tell us?

Simply this. All else aside, the Democratic voters are not supporting Democratic candidates to the extent that they once did. What does this tell us?

Simply this. The policies, practices, and philosophies of the Democratic Party and the actions of the Democratic politicians no longer resonate with Democratic voters as they once did. What does this tell us?

The margin of victory in the latest presidential election resulted from millions of Democrats voting against the Democratic platform and candidates.

The issues are no longer a compromise of minds, but an us verses you arena.

That's why there is more than one party. That's what politics is all about.

What is a compromise? A compromise is a situation in which neither side gets what it believes is correct and both sides are disappointed by the outcome. What good is that?

Most people do not feel so strongly about issues as either party, it is better to attempt to achieve some sort of a compromise between parties than to continuasly beat dead horses around simply for the sake of staying true to what your party tells you to.

I disagree. People support party principles and expect their Representatives and Senators to do their best to advance those principles.

I would rather have a president and house and senators that sit down and listen to issues instead of blindly following the lead of their party.

It all boils down to this. Each party can be summed up in three words:

Capitalist-Conservative-Republican >>>>> ----- <<<<< Socialist-Liberal-Democrat​

They are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Neither will completely fulfill the ideals of every voter, but that's all there is to choose from. Folks find a level of comfort with one or the other and cast their votes in that direction.

If there's going to be any compromisem, this where it comes in.