Should the U.S have a multi-party system?

I think it's fine the way it is, where the third-party candidate serves to drag down one candidate's vote count, enabling an underdog to win in a plurality upset.

 

Yeah, we've got more than just two parties, but there are many factors that I'm too lazy to explain that make them so weak.

Both Democrats and Republicans have also worked together to make it very difficult for third parties to have any influence, and they've done it in many ways.

 

Capitalism is a set of systems designed to keep any one group or person from gaining too much power, because humans will get as much as they can no matter who they are (power corrupts). So without the ability to gain direct power, they get it by other means. This is one of the loopholes in our system that has allowed too much concentration of power (in the two parties). Problem is, once they have the power they have it unless the masses do something about it. And it doesn't look like we will (we are part of the masses, Hi everybody! *waves*)

---------- Post added 10th Aug 2014 at 10:25 PM ----------

Hey! guess what? You can't be an independent anymore because we've been taken off the registration. You can now only be "unaffiliated". Our color was purple and we had 2 seats. They squashed out the threat before it could even get its foot in the door.

Also, the vote isn't counted like "1..2..3..4.." it's counted by who has a larger blue or red area on the map. Neat, huh?

SO lets say that there's 10 people in a small area who are voting blue, but 2 people who live far apart voting red. The little spot is counted blue and the big area between the two people is counted red. Red wins. This is my understanding of it, but if anybody wants to point out of it isn't right I will be very happy.

 

the two main parties are a big part of our problem in this country. There are many smaller ones, I myself side with the Libertarians anymore. The first thing we should do is take away the power of the big parties. To do that all spending on campaigning should be capped at $1000. That would provide enough to build a web site with your policies, and beliefs. The people who care will research them anyway. At that point anyone can run regardless of party affiliation, or not.

Next step is repeal the 12th amendment to the constitution. Returning elections to the way the constitution was written in the first place. This would remove the electoral college, and put us on a popular vote again. The other thing that would be removed is the Presidential candidate selecting his vice president. Under the original un amended constitution, whoever got the most votes on election day becomes president, who ever got the 2nd most becomes vice president. That would almost always result in the VP being of a different party than the POTUS, even if the parties survived the first suggestion.

---------- Post added 10th Aug 2014 at 08:33 PM ----------

Budweiser,
Each state is counted on a popular vote, your 1,2,3,4... The winner of the state gets the electoral votes for that state. Electoral votes are based on population, and are calculated by the number of senators from your state (always 2) and the number of representatives from your state (calculated by the most recent census, and always totals 535 for all states together).

So no it is not the largest red or blue area, it is popular vote per state, and weighted by population of that state. In my last post I suggested repealing the 12th amendment, which would remove the electoral college and go back to a national popular vote.

 

As someone who currently works in a political campaign for a Member of Congress, that's just ... not possible. I wouldn't be against capping campaign spending per se, but $1,000 is far too low. Not even close to being a realistic number.

There are so many things you need to run a good campaign so people know who you are (that's most important) and where you stand on the issues. That stuff isn't exactly cheap. Hell, yard signs, or just general office supplies would be way over your proposed limit. Starting a campaign is almost like starting a business. There's lots of little things you need and you've got to have far more than $1,000.

 

$1000 is enough to pay someone to build your web site, and that is about it. It would definitely equalize the field and remove all power from the parties, since almost anyone who wants the job could come up with $1000.

 

Even so, our democracy must represent the views of our country. Two parties can't represent 300 million people well enough. We're a diverse population that has beliefs from all over the political spectrum. In order to represent people that side with one of the third parties, we need them in our congress. To attain that, we need a multi-party system with proportional representation.

 

Not always.

It was way over that for us and our opponent.

And you're not taking into account how many people still don't use the Internet to get their information on candidates, particularly older voters. Our congressional district is filled with seniors, and they aren't exactly using the Internet to get information on our campaign. Again, there's just so much stuff you need for a campaign that $1,000 is nowhere near a practical cap. Staff, office supplies, rent for a campaign office(s), food for volunteers, mileage reimbursement, polling, mass mailers, yard signs, and the list goes on and on.

The real reason why races are so uncompetitive in terms of money is because of a lack of quality challengers, one huge reason being gerrymandering. When you're a Democrat trying to run against an incumbent in a super red district, large donors and the DCC aren't going to donate because they know you don't have much of a shot. And that obviously hurts name recognition. In a swing district (the few that are left), the circumstances are different and incumbents tend to draw more quality challengers who have more money due to donations. In fact, what you are proposing would probably make the problem you want fixed even worse. Forcing challengers who often already don't have much name recognition to only have $1,000 to get their name out to voters would hurt them more because incumbents already have a name recognition advantage. That would scare more people away from running.

 

Honestly? No. Mainly, because it wouldn't work because both democrats and republicans think their shit smells like Febreez and wouldn't dare vote for any other party.

2. Assuming that ballot access would be easier, we'd have 50 parties on one ballot making it 10 times harder for the average vote.

3. The argument to if the election commission is being fair as far as debate access goes, would be very controversial.

 

Screw parties, I say we all get to vote on proposed legislation with our phones using the internet. Seriously, we don't need representatives anymore, we can each represent ourselves with a mobile phone internet voting system of some kind. I've been tied up in politics for years now and I'm so sick of our congress being useless, adding another party won't change that because that new party or parties will probably be born in corruption from the beginning and nothing will change. So internet self representation for the win I say.

 

Constant referendum...Jesus help us.

 

Got a problem with self representation via freedom of choice and self governance? Why would you let someone else make a decision for you?

 

I was never good at this stuff! So it isn't totally 1234 like it should be. That's all the understanding I can take away here x.x but unless there are some BIG movements in us, the people, nothing will happen. And most people don't know enough to even join a movement... you just explained some of it to me and I'm still confused. But, we can complain about or government all day it's not like we are in a situation like north korea or syria so, I think we should be happy *Shrugs*

 

There would be an absolute impossibility of even moderate forward planning in a political system of direct democracy. Just saying.

 

Direct democracy? In this country? Talk about a disaster.

Not even 20% of the people in this country know who one of the most powerful judges in this country is (Chief Justice), let alone knowledgable enough to have a system of direct democracy.

 

Because, that's the point of a representative/senator, to voice their constituents' views. That's the whole point of democracy. But, by all means, if you want to live in an anarchic society where monkeys run around and shoot at people, be my God damned guest.

 

Okay then, keep letting people playing dress-up make decisions for you...

---------- Post added 11th Aug 2014 at 12:04 AM ----------

Well, nature has shown us that peace is a lie and always will be, there will always be chaos because to do what thou wilt is the whole of sentient law. Absolute freedom is the only way because when you have someone or a group of people making decisions for other people that's not freedom, that's manipulation and control.

 

Wouldn't we have to CONSTANTLY vote on things if that were the case? How many people would try to read and understand 5 new things everyday to vote for? a lot would just either vote for their party and not pay any attention or just vote randomly since taking the time to read and understand all of that would be either too much of a hassle or too time consuming :s am I in the right ballpark, here?

 

Well, nature has shown us that peace is a lie and always will be, there will always be chaos because to do what thou wilt is the whole of sentient law. Absolute freedom is the only way because when you have someone or a group of people making decisions for other people that's not freedom, that's manipulation and control.[/QUOTE]

Ah dear...another hippie.

If you knew the nature of the American people, who are very dependent on who they elect, you'd know that'd never work.

 

But that's the problem now, is that people are mindless zombies and just go with their parties. Don't go with someone else's views, go with yours. And if people didn't care to vote and be apart of the system to make it better, then that would be their choice to sit on the sidelines and not vote (like a lot of people do now)