The US doesn't want to be a two-party system

[CTLawGuy]

A two party system is actually very unnatural. It presupposes there are only two positions on anything or two philosophies available.

The reason we have it is because of our winner-take-all, plurality-wins electoral system. Third parties are discouraged when their very presence (if significant) helps the greater of the two major evils at the expense of the lesser.

So people who would be in the third party are instead mashed into their lesser evil party, even though they may have major differences with others therein. That leads to the hostile factionalism that is often seen on DU, between progressives and the DLC.

The Dems are especially factionalized currently. You can tell by the number and strength of candidates in the presidential primary. In 2000, the dems were relatively united under Clintonism and were slowly recovering from 1994. There was only a small divide between the centrist dems with progressive allies who were then aligned with the not yet corrupt DLC, and the anti-Clinton leftist faction who backed Bradley. Gore won easily.

Contrast that with 2004. Since 2001, the DLC has swung very far to the right and adopted a course of following * in the wake of Sept. 11th, upsetting progressives loyal to Clinton/Gore. The Iraq War alienated many progressive DLC allies, such as myself, who backed Gore. The war is easily the most significant cause of disunity among Dems. With Dems broken and leaderless, there were 10 candidates for president in contrast to 2 in 2000, with most of the supporters of the other 9 holding their nose to vote for the winner.

The point of this discussion is that our 2 parties are nothing more than holding companies for a bunch of united factions, necessitated by our electoral system.

Obviously, even in a multi-party system, not everyone agrees with each other, but the discord is not to the extent it is here, where Zell Miller and Dennis Kucinich are in the same party.

I think the US wants to have 3 major parties. A progressive party for the Kucinich, Dean factions and for progressives who supported other candidates, a right wing party which will consist of fundies and their big business allies, and a centrist party comprised of the DLC, southern dems, and moderate republicans.

The benefits of this are very strong actually. With three strong parties it is unlikely that one of them will control Congress outright. So:

1. Government will cease to be a rubber stamp of one party's agenda, since rule will have to be done by agreement and cooperation between two parties.

2. If leaders become entrenched or corrupt, change is as easy as destroying the coalition. Realign with the other party and a new government forms with new leaders.

3. The new centrist party will likely act as a regulator on the agenda of Congress. The party in power rules at the pleasure of the centrists(most likely). If they get too extreme, the centrists will bolt to the other side. Under the current system, centrists are divided between Dems and Republicans, and are dependent on those establishments for survival. They are ill equipped to perform this regulating function wihtout their own institutions.

4. In our current system, governments stay in place for decades, the only way to get rid of corrupt leadership in Congress is for the people to act in concert and change the majority. This is very rare, as people may not like Tom DeLay, but they like Joe Shmo (R) from their district. And it can only be done every two years. Under the 3 party system DeLay could have been dethroned in an instant whenever the centrists pleased.


Parties would be stronger, more coherent and more natural if centrists formed their own party. But maybe it would make DU less interesting.

[meow2u3]

1. The US needs a four-party system

One party composed of economic and social liberals, the majority of DUers.
A second party composed of economic liberals and social moderates and conservatives. That's the party I'd join.
A third party composed of economic conservatives and social liberals, a.k.a., DLC types or Rockefeller Republicans.
A fourth party composed of economic and social conservatives, the current repukes, who would be a small minority.

[CTLawGuy]

Dupe

NT

[CTLawGuy]

5. Very interesting analysis

I think it would be your party which would be the smallest though. In my opinion they would collapse into the centrist party. The repukes through their corrupt fundie leaders have the fundies trained to think that unvarnished capitalism is right, even if it doesn't help the average fundie personally. The problem is economic issues are dwarfed by the concern for social issues. They think "abortion" and nothing else when they vote. It would be hard to pry them from the GOP grass roots network, becuase they just don't care about economic issues.

[Burning Water]

2. Maybe the United States

needs a multi-party system. But it does not want one. The proof?? Numerous attempts have been made to organize viable 3rd and 4th parties. All have failed.

[CTLawGuy]

7. they can't

the system won't let them. forming a third party helps the greater of two evils. Our electoral system won't let the body politic do what it wants to do.

[Burning Water]

13. On the other hand,

the Republican party started as a third party. As it grew, one of the top two parties (I think it was the Whigs)was destroyed. Leaving a two party system.

I actually like the two party system. It moderates the extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. You think Bush is an extremist? Think what he could be if there were not some moderate Republicans to provide some restraint.

[CTLawGuy]

17. why would they provide restraint against a man they depend on

for political survival? It would be better restraint if the Republicans did not have control alone in Congress.

[TankLV]

22. Hahahahahaha hahahahahaha! That was great humor!

"moderate Republicans to provide some restraint'

Yeah, they are SOOO influential now - all 2 of 'em - they are considered "moderate" because they are not like their other nazi party members.

When push comes to shove, these imaginary "moderates" vote strict party line ALL THE TIME.

The wacko conservative fundies CONTROL the repuke party AT ALL LEVELS.

They only let a couple marginalized repuks vote against their pet project ONLY IF THAT VOTE HAS NO CONSEQUENCE TO THE PARTY LINE VOTE, and can be safely IGNORED.

This has been proven time after time.

There was even a good post on that very issue here recently.

[Burning Water]

24. There's at least

seven in the Senate. Or have you forgotten??

The country is pretty divided, and so is the Congress. But some Republicans have been breaking ranks, and it, or the threat of it, has seriously restrained the administration. IMO. I'm specifically not saying that a Democratic Congress wouldn't be better.

But, of course, you are entitled to your own reality.

[CrazyAtheist]

23. Thats why European Governments use Parliments

It allows for the people to vote for who they really want, then lets the parties organize into a coalition. If we ever moved towards it, this current situation would never exist, since progressives and libertarians outnumber right-wingers.

[sweetheart]

3. doubtful that ANY population wants a 2 party system

But i don't think your multiparty thinking is realistic if the armlock of the false party consensus were to disintegrate.
Then likely, you'd have:

a racist party,
an ultranationalist war party,
a christian southern baptist party,
a true conservative party - one that endorsed nonviolence and an end to corporate personhood.
a progressive party
a green party
a liberal party

And then you'd get the fringe parties..

Hawaiian people's party
American indian party
Alaskan indian party
marijuana party
drunken party.... just think of every special interest in the current system given the wings of their own party.
Likely most new partyes would form out of regional politics, and eventually the US would have fewer and fewer
national parties.

[sweetheart]

8. here's a link to a list of british and US parties

US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
British
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom

[CTLawGuy]

9. It still costs money and resources to win nationally

and only in larger groups can one accomplish that, so I think the natural change would be the formation of a DLC led centrist party. Other minor parties would remain the same, with almost no relevance.

[sweetheart]

14. but what holds us together?

I ran a poll some time ago on DU that if coalitions where allowed, would
persons still vote "democratic".. (given that democratic today is DLC centrist,
even if howard dean is waking up progressives).

2/3rds of DU'ers in that poll said they would not be democratic then under
the current platform(s). So, where will 2 out of 3 go? 1 might go to the
DLC party you mention. But the others will likely shift towards a national
green party and a national progressive party to fill the vacuum. THe only
drawback of the nader presidency run was the claim that it stole votes from
one side... if the votes could have formed a coalition later, there would be
many new ross perots and naders, new national parties as well.

But all of this presumes an informed electorate and gosh, it just ain't gonna
be... no rather, we'll have more ossification and disintegration of civil society
and fear-mercanitilism for the rest of our lives. And then, if we reincarnate
on this rock, it'll be an overpopulated shithole the planet over, and we'll have
moved on to an age of dictators and totalitarianism undreamed of by 20th century
thinkers.

[ixion]

4. for best representation, it should be a dynamic, multiparty system

in order to give representation to as many as possible, and the congress should be built based on the participation in any active party. This would allow for minor and start-up parties to enter the national dialogue.



Just my two cents.

[HereSince1628]

6. Unfortunately the Democrats currently ARE formally a 2 party system

Because of the way that winner take all majority rule has been created in so many American institutions...from the Electoral college to chairmanships in Congress, the 2 party system IS a natural outcome.

3 or more parties make it likely, even probable, that a candidate with a majority of 35% of the vote, a minority compared to the 65% opposition, could win. This rather strongly mitgates against more than 2 parties.

[CTLawGuy]

10. I know

I said that in the OP :)

[HereSince1628]

12. But you didn't mention that the "winner takes all" American system

has as its stable node the 2 party system. Although we started with more than 2 and still have more than 2, only 2 can really be players.

You can do game theory on this and satisfy yourself.

If we want more than 2 parties we must move to a system of apportionment rather than winner takes all. Unfortunately, the 2 parties in control will NEVER agree to that.

On edit: once there is apportionment, then coalition strategies among minor parties become viable. Just as in European parlimentary systems. If we had apportionment rather than winner takes all in all our institutions we would certainly have 3 or 4 principle parties rather than 2.

[CTLawGuy]

18. I did mention it in the second paragraph

NT

[firefox]

11. Two parties is one more than the Soviets had

So says Jesse Ventura.

Things cannot be fixed when facsist power is preserve using the two-party system. We need a direct vote for President and a majority in all elections for victory.

It is the biggest problem the controlled media shelters. And the solution is obvious as it is simple. End Largest Minority Rules.

[dusmcj]

15. the US needs multiple parties

in their absence, we continually run the risk of arriving at the present situation, where members of both parties find it difficult to differentiate themselves from members of the other. Sorry, that's how it is. The ineffectual behavior of the Democratic Party in 2000 (coming off 8 years of the best Presidency since FDR) and 2004 (with a pack of criminal imbeciles as opponents) should help to convince... Retaining power, and a power balance, becomes a prime motivator for entities who don't have to work hard enough to attain it.

[NativeTexan]

16. In Theory This Is Good.......

.....but unfortunately, everytime that there has been a third party bid, in recent years, it has been one that split the Democrats. Perot was somewhat the exception, except Reform only took the small percentage of the "way out there" libertarians and centrists and affected BOTH sides. And here in Texas, we KNEW that Perot was a crackpot!!

[A Simple Game]

25. Logically and by necessity any multiparty system

would have to start at the Representative and Senatorial levels. This would force coalitions to form, giving strength to the larger and sometimes the smaller minorities.

Congress would naturally want to take back many of the powers it has foolishly and lazily given to the President.

The larger parties would be forced to please their coalition partners, not the President.

[Totally Committed]

19. If you want more than a two-Party System,

abolish the Electoral College. It is an antiquated and outdated system that ensures two-Party (or in our case, due to voter fraud, ONE-Party) rule.

TC

[Doctor_J]

20. The one-party system doesn't seem to be working

so something needs changing

[MissMarple]

21. Instant run-off voting might dilute the power of the two parties.

"Notable supporters include Republican U.S. Senator John McCain, 2004 Democratic presidential primary election candidates Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich, and consumer advocate Ralph Nader. The system is favored by the United States Green Party and the United States Libertarian Party, as a solution to the "spoiler" effect third-party sympathizers suffer from under plurality voting (i.e., voters are forced to vote tactically to defeat the candidate they most dislike, rather than for their own preferred candidate)."

There's more....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_run-off_voting

[radio4progressives]

26. K&R -- Very Important Discussion - Thank you for getting this going

'Bout Time Someone started this thread!

I'm in favor of multi-party and instant runoff - that would still equate to at least three if not four major parties. I think that's a good thing.

But I'll take a Three Party system to start things off, because I think that's just about how our politics break down... (roughly)

But this undemocratic nightmare has to end before 2008. We've got to do it now.

abolish the electoral college system and we can figure out which form of Proportional Representation we want to implement, IRV some say is too easy to rig.. I don't know..

Whatever, we have to break from the current anacronistic system in place it has no relevance to our political landscape of the day.

[Silverhair]

27. Your are correct. Now how do we do it? Also, Nominated. NT

[Jeffersons Ghost]

28. It might happen and...

I'd like to see Alabama ex-Judge Roy Moore run for president on an independent ticket and fracture the ultra conservative vote away from the next Republican candidate. In a recent interview he did not rule out the possibility of tossing his hat into the presidential arena but he'll probably run for governor here, as a Republican. He might even win in a gubernatorial bid, with this Bible-belt mentality that can't see the danger in merging church and state, running rampant. There seems to be a national trend toward merging church and state, so our Ten Commandments ex-Judge will be popular in other Red areas. Maybe we could sell him on E-bay to one of the other conservative states. Does anyone want to buy a slightly used judge? His mind is in near-new condition and as best I can tell has never been used. We'll throw in an ultra-right wing constituency at no extra charge but you must pay for shipping, since they're all kind of fat and be sure to furnish pleny of churches so they'll stay in your state. Let's start the bidding in negative numbers at -$50.

All kidding aside, this is a very interesting board, thanks.

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. I agree it would be preferable -- personally I would support it...but.....

I just do not imagine it happening without first have a strong progressive majority. That's the catch 22.

In spite of everything I simply see no althernative except to work with the two-party system which means working with and supporting the Democratic Party. I wish there were other alternatives... But...


I look how the far right working from the aftermath of the Goldwater landslide defeat of 1964 changed the big tent Republicans into a distinctly right wing party; so right wing that poor old Barry wasn't even welcome anymore. But, to do this the right wing did back in general elections candidates and Presidents who were clearly not there ideological soul-mates. Richard Nixon would be a socialist wacko by current Republican Party standards. But, it was the Nixon era that gave real rise to to the longterm agenda of the right-wing.

Since we do not have a system such as exist in much of Europe which is accommodating to third parties and there is realistically no possibility whatsoever that will change anytime prior to the collapse of the current order which I do not anticipate will happen anytime soon--we have no choice in my opinion but to work with what we do have.

Furthermore any survey of actual congressional voting records will demonstrate that with the exception of the likes of Zell Miller almost any Democrat including Lieberman and definitely Clinton are still much more progressive than any "moderate" Republican.