Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There will probably always be a two party system. It's not entirely bad, but it would be nice if the parties weren't so rigid (and terrible at running a country).
I fully expect Libertarians to be a dominant party within the next 20 years. Will they still be called Libertarians? I doubt it, but maybe. My guess is they'll just invade the Republican party and change their platform entirely. We're also seeing the Democratic party turning into the Social Democratic party, which is the left wing party is most European nations.
I don't expect the terms Democrat and Republican to go away. I have no idea if the term Libertarian will stay when they've absorbed the Republicans, though I suppose a certain Republican values will remain even after the Libertarian take over, so they won't really be libertarians, they'll just be more in line with libertarians. Which is a good thing if you ask me. When I don't want to vote Democrat, I often find myself voting for a third party that won't win an election, but if the Republicans become more likable and libertarian, they may just have a new supporter (me).
I mean, this thing will crumble ......then maybe we will have a different system upon rebuilding. Until then, the Ds and Rs have things locked up!!!!!!!
There will probably always be a two party system. It's not entirely bad, but it would be nice if the parties weren't so rigid (and terrible at running a country).
I fully expect Libertarians to be a dominant party within the next 20 years. Will they still be called Libertarians? I doubt it, but maybe. My guess is they'll just invade the Republican party and change their platform entirely. We're also seeing the Democratic party turning into the Social Democratic party, which is the left wing party is most European nations.
I don't expect the terms Democrat and Republican to go away. I have no idea if the term Libertarian will stay when they've absorbed the Republicans, though I suppose a certain Republican values will remain even after the Libertarian take over, so they won't really be libertarians, they'll just be more in line with libertarians. Which is a good thing if you ask me. When I don't want to vote Democrat, I often find myself voting for a third party that won't win an election, but if the Republicans become more likable and libertarian, they may just have a new supporter (me).
With a few libertarians like Rand Paul becoming Republicans as TEA Partiers (partially because of how loud they got when Ron Paul got into it.) I don't know what will happen with the moderate Republicans because I see them pushed out of the party more and more. I am one of these moderate or Rockefeller Republicans that are turned off by how the conservative wing of the party and even economic libertarians are. The way the Republicans are now and seem to be going they are the Party of Lincoln in name only.
The question is what do the Republicans do if they lose presidentially again. They can win easily with house and the Senate when Democrats don't show up for midterms with conservative or moderate messages and platforms but presidentially the moderates go too right and make 47% comments which no matter how true they are, just shouldn't be said in the day of cell phones while a conservative would be dejected from most of the nation if they make the rape comments or take the Goldwater stance. I know conservatives on here don't want a moderate candidate and I argue besides Rand Paul, no conservative could legitimately have a chance.
I voted against Obama and for Romney in my two presidential elections. I have voted Republican and if a conservative like Ted Cruz or Mike Lee is nominated, I'll have to vote against them and if Hilary is the Democrat nominee, I'll vote third party not that it matters in Arizona, it has been a red state in virtually every election.
Both parties have a vested interest in ensuring things remain status quo, so that doesn't help. What really screws the 3rd party candidates is that you must get on the ballot state-by-state, not in one big Federal filing. That means the 3rd party candidates, who don't have established political machines already in place spend much of their time, energy and money on is just getting on the ballot 50 times. Then add in that the debates, where most voters form their decisions, are free to exclude 3rd party candidates. Then of course there's the lack of coverage when an outlier is included in the debates and of course the lack of media coverage, or down right mockery from the media and "no" there will never be room, for a strong 3rd party.
This quote is from the article linked.. "While Republicans and Democrats are campaigning already, third parties are scrambling this summer to master the intricacies of ballot-access laws in each state just to get their presidential candidates on the ballot.
"The time, money and energy spent getting on the ballot is more than the time, money and energy spent once we are on the ballot in most of these states," said Phil Huckelberry, co-chairman of the Green Party's ballot access committee."
A viable third party would necessarily have to have a full dossier of experience and perspective. They cannot expect to survive on a few notable personalities and a small handful of issues. Moreover, to ascend they would necessarily have to stake out space which is not otherwise occupied. Why should anyone support the weaker of two parties that come closest to their political perspective when they can support the stronger of the two? Consequently, third parties will invariably be the home of small handfuls of extremists that bleed off from one of the two major parties.
Regarding the Electoral Collage, the best reform I have ever heard IMHO is the one where every electoral vote was assigned to a congressional district, and the two senators' electoral vote went to the state. Therefore each congressional district electoral vote would go to the winner of that district and the overall state winner wold get the two senatorial votes. That would mean a lot of minority parties throughout the USA would at least get a few votes and would change the dynamic of the EC.
I'm not sure where the unintended consequences would fall. Radical gerrymandering?
You would need a party formed by major players from each party. As someone said, it would never be as dominant as the other two parties. However, if it only held 30-40 seats it would become the defacto Kingmaker.
Regarding the Electoral Collage, the best reform I have ever heard IMHO is the one where every electoral vote was assigned to a congressional district, and the two senators' electoral vote went to the state. Therefore each congressional district electoral vote would go to the winner of that district and the overall state winner wold get the two senatorial votes. That would mean a lot of minority parties throughout the USA would at least get a few votes and would change the dynamic of the EC.
I'm not sure where the unintended consequences would fall. Radical gerrymandering?
The one thing I could see is that there are more rural districts who are more Republican while more dense urban areas are more Democrat. Just look at New York State with how more rural New York has more republicans than democrats but yet urban areas like NYC are Democrat. I see that methods being to strong to Republicans based on existing gerrymandering.
The way I would do it, the percentage of votes in the state determines how many electoral votes from the state you get. You beat your opponent 70 to 30, you get 70% of the electoral votes, your opponent gets only 30%. I feel that is a much fairer system than your proposed idea and the existing all or nothing model.
Why can't any strong third political party emerge?
Did the Rep. and the Dem. lock the system?
It only takes people willing to vote for a 3rd party.
Sadly though, most are completely caught up in the false narrative of Left vs Right, Red vs Blue, Conservative vs Liberal, etc. They don't realize that beyond a few irrelevant wedge issues, there is essentially no difference between the two parties in national elections.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
