- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why does the US cling to a two-party system?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:07 am to Slippy
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:07 am to Slippy
Billions of dollars is the answer. Any grassroots party would be legitimately destroyed. Also other parties that can get a small percentage of the vote are paid under the table to split the vote. Basically it boils down to money and I will throw incompetence in there as well. For example the Libertarian Party could have been a viable third party this election cycle but they go and pick a retarded incompetent shitheel like Gary Johnson.
0
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:43 am to Slippy
The centrists get primaried. Cucks, ya know.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:45 am to Slippy
Because if a third one challenges the status quo, weaponize the IRS
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:46 am to Slippy
quote:"The people with the money" already control both parties. Why would they want to start a third?
So what's the answer? Is it because the people with the money don't want to risk it on a startup?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 7:06 am to Slippy
Think the problem is a combination of no legitimate third party candidate coupled with the "throwing away your vote" mentality.
You need the former to have a chance to conquer the latter. Ross Perot came close then he became Ross Perot. That's all it will take a polarizing figure that can unite support but decides to run third party or independent. Would have to be Personally wealthy also because right now Third Party can't generate enough funds to compete.
So a wealthy, charismatic, popular candidate willing to spend enough of his money to compete with the two party system.
Hmm that's a tall order. How rich is the Rock for real?
You need the former to have a chance to conquer the latter. Ross Perot came close then he became Ross Perot. That's all it will take a polarizing figure that can unite support but decides to run third party or independent. Would have to be Personally wealthy also because right now Third Party can't generate enough funds to compete.
So a wealthy, charismatic, popular candidate willing to spend enough of his money to compete with the two party system.
Hmm that's a tall order. How rich is the Rock for real?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 7:07 am to Slippy
It'd a clever distraction to keep the masses occupied while lobbyists and the establishment do as they please in DC
Posted on 6/15/17 at 7:55 am to Breesus
quote:Good thing the establishment doesn't have the money and the power to control the vehicles that could be used for distraction - like the media and politicians, amirite?
It'd a clever distraction to keep the masses occupied while lobbyists and the establishment do as they please in DC
Posted on 6/15/17 at 7:58 am to Cooter Davenport
quote:
o one is clinging to anything. It's not a choice made by the public. It's a fundamental consequence of a single member district, first past the post, winner take all electoral system. This is an established fact, like conservation of momentum - not an opinion. It's like 1 + 1 = 2. Political Science 101. If you want to have more than one political party, you HAVE to change the way our elections function on a basic level. We functionally cannot have a viable 3rd or 4th party in our electoral system. We can have a 3rd party emerge and REPLACE one of the existing 2, but one cannot come about and survive alongside them for more than a couple cycles. It's a functional consequence of how we structure voting here. To get multiple viable parties we'd have to switch to another system, like proportional representation.
All of this. People saying it's corruption or "clinging to power" are misguided or ignorant
Posted on 6/15/17 at 8:19 am to Slippy
not that anybody cares but if you want a real answer to your question it's that we have a president and that president has a veto. it requires 67 votes to overcome that veto. when jackson discovered that he could essentially enact and shape legislation with that veto we very quickly organized ourselves into a duopoly.
if we had a parliament and a prime minister we could have multiple parties we don't.
even if a third party candidate managed to win a congressional seat they'd still have to caucus with one of the parties to elect a speaker.
no children the answer is to find one of the two parties that most closely represents your political views and compromise. that's our system because we have a president and a house and a senate.
if we had a parliament and a prime minister we could have multiple parties we don't.
even if a third party candidate managed to win a congressional seat they'd still have to caucus with one of the parties to elect a speaker.
no children the answer is to find one of the two parties that most closely represents your political views and compromise. that's our system because we have a president and a house and a senate.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 8:24 am to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
o one is clinging to anything. It's not a choice made by the public. It's a fundamental consequence of a single member district, first past the post, winner take all electoral system. This is an established fact, like conservation of momentum - not an opinion. It's like 1 + 1 = 2. Political Science 101. If you want to have more than one political party, you HAVE to change the way our elections function on a basic level. We functionally cannot have a viable 3rd or 4th party in our electoral system. We can have a 3rd party emerge and REPLACE one of the existing 2, but one cannot come about and survive alongside them for more than a couple cycles. It's a functional consequence of how we structure voting here. To get multiple viable parties we'd have to switch to another system, like proportional representation.
All of this. People saying it's corruption or "clinging to power" are misguided or ignorant
So basically, you're saying the establishment set up this game for them to win. But anyone who believes it's corruption or "clinging to power" is misguided or ignorant.
That's some solid irony right there.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 8:59 am to TX Tiger
quote:
the establishment set up this game for them to win.
try the framers of the constitution. they had no idea how that might manifest itself 230 years ago. the fact is that they created a very powerful chief executive. he's our king, the senate was originally appointed by the states to be our peerage.
you didn't see the rise of multiple parties in the UK until the reform act of 1832 that severely limited the power of the house of lords and they've been limiting that power ever since to the point now like the crown it is essentially a figure head.
you want multiple parties? strip the senate of it's power and make the president a figure head.
congratulations paul ryan is our prime minister......happy?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:01 am to Slippy
we rely on a SMD system, which means 2 parties
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:22 am to Slippy
Not THAT long ago, the more moderate candidates from each party were the ones getting nominated. So few probably saw much reason for a Centrist party.
Both sides have gotten more and more to the far end of their spectrum in the past 16-20 years. I'm sure each side will blame the other, but regardless of who "started" it, the simple fact of the matter is that both sides are incredibly guilty of it.
That said, there have been multiple attempts for a third party to break through, but the true death knell was in the late 70s, early 80s when non-partisan groups lost control of debates and instead the two big parties, Republicans and Democrats, took over for them.
Debates used to be run by the League of Women Voters, and it allowed for an Independent to have on-air time in 1980. In the late 80s, they left and were replaced by the Commission of Presidential Debates, a nonprofit corporation founded jointly by Democrats and Republicans in 1988. It was '88 where any pretense of third party candidates having a prayer was dropped. It took a monumental grassroots effort in 1992 for Perot to get that far (and the fear, because of his level of support, that if they didn't get him that the people would vote for him as he might look better without a direct comparison). Neither candidate wanted that either.
The biggest issue of anything considered "Center-Right" or "Center-Left" is that they would have to PROVE that they are, because Republicans and Democrats both claim things that would place them at the "Center-X" of politics, and it isn't until they get into office that they're less "Right" or "Left" and more "My money comes from X" and "My money comes from Y".
You want to fix politics?
1. Remove first-past-the-post voting, and allow for tiered voting
2. Remove ALL lobbying - make it a crime
3. Remove cronyism - one should be qualified for a job, not be the person who contributed the most cash
4. Reduce overall federal power
5. Rinse and repeat at the state level
6. Rinse and repeat at the local level
This won't happen. We're talking about a system that has so thoroughly brainwashed the American populace that the loudest voices have ZERO interest in discussing anything. They're just shouting for the sake of shouting, using insults and lumping huge groups together in place of understanding a damn thing.
Both sides have gotten more and more to the far end of their spectrum in the past 16-20 years. I'm sure each side will blame the other, but regardless of who "started" it, the simple fact of the matter is that both sides are incredibly guilty of it.
That said, there have been multiple attempts for a third party to break through, but the true death knell was in the late 70s, early 80s when non-partisan groups lost control of debates and instead the two big parties, Republicans and Democrats, took over for them.
Debates used to be run by the League of Women Voters, and it allowed for an Independent to have on-air time in 1980. In the late 80s, they left and were replaced by the Commission of Presidential Debates, a nonprofit corporation founded jointly by Democrats and Republicans in 1988. It was '88 where any pretense of third party candidates having a prayer was dropped. It took a monumental grassroots effort in 1992 for Perot to get that far (and the fear, because of his level of support, that if they didn't get him that the people would vote for him as he might look better without a direct comparison). Neither candidate wanted that either.
The biggest issue of anything considered "Center-Right" or "Center-Left" is that they would have to PROVE that they are, because Republicans and Democrats both claim things that would place them at the "Center-X" of politics, and it isn't until they get into office that they're less "Right" or "Left" and more "My money comes from X" and "My money comes from Y".
You want to fix politics?
1. Remove first-past-the-post voting, and allow for tiered voting
2. Remove ALL lobbying - make it a crime
3. Remove cronyism - one should be qualified for a job, not be the person who contributed the most cash
4. Reduce overall federal power
5. Rinse and repeat at the state level
6. Rinse and repeat at the local level
This won't happen. We're talking about a system that has so thoroughly brainwashed the American populace that the loudest voices have ZERO interest in discussing anything. They're just shouting for the sake of shouting, using insults and lumping huge groups together in place of understanding a damn thing.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:41 am to skrayper
2. Remove ALL lobbying - make it a crime
In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
that's all lobbying is. congratulations you want a dictator!
In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
that's all lobbying is. congratulations you want a dictator!
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:45 am to tedmarkuson
quote:Agreed.
the establishment set up this game for them to win.
try the framers of the constitution. they had no idea how that might manifest itself 230 years ago. the fact is that they created a very powerful chief executive. he's our king, the senate was originally appointed by the states to be our peerage.
quote:Does it really matter which establishment puppet is in the White House?
congratulations paul ryan is our prime minister......happy?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:50 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Trump is third party president
THIS.
Trump is our first 3rd Party POTUS. That's why both Dems and the GOP are working overtime to Oust the Orange Outsider from the Oval Office.
Trump wants to MAGA and Drain the Swamp. Dems and UniParty Republicans Big Donors didn't pay money to watch Trump make the Big Donors poorer and less powerful without a fight.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:53 am to tedmarkuson
quote:
In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
that's all lobbying is. congratulations you want a dictator!
Fair enough. Remove money and gifts from the equation, then.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:55 am to dawgfan24348
Yes, we are serious. Trump is the Reform Outsider who beat the eGOP and Hillary. Now the eGOP and Dems work to destroy him.
Do you not understand that the Democrat agenda and the eGOP agenda are almost identical? The UniParty agenda is almost identical. You don't see this?
Let me guess, you think that the eGOP is working to oust Trump because Trump is a dangerous, clumsy, criminal, cowardly and deranged threat to the Ship of State, right?
Well then ponder this: If POTUS Trump were an outspoken Progressive, Globalist, Liberal, Internationalist and Human Rights Champion, do you believe that he'd be in ANY political trouble at all right now? OR would he be a Hero to the Mass Media?
The answer is the latter.
Do you not understand that the Democrat agenda and the eGOP agenda are almost identical? The UniParty agenda is almost identical. You don't see this?
Let me guess, you think that the eGOP is working to oust Trump because Trump is a dangerous, clumsy, criminal, cowardly and deranged threat to the Ship of State, right?
Well then ponder this: If POTUS Trump were an outspoken Progressive, Globalist, Liberal, Internationalist and Human Rights Champion, do you believe that he'd be in ANY political trouble at all right now? OR would he be a Hero to the Mass Media?
The answer is the latter.
This post was edited on 6/15/17 at 9:56 am
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:56 am to TX Tiger
quote:
So basically, you're saying the establishment set up this game for them to win. But anyone who believes it's corruption or "clinging to power" is misguided or ignorant.
So the founding fathers are included in the establishment now?
Laughable
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:59 am to TX Tiger
quote:
Does it really matter which establishment puppet is in the White House?
See the big difference between you and I is that you believe that the UniParty orchestrates things like 9/11 and other terrorism to advance their agenda.
I say that they do not. Why do I say this? I say this because it is NOT necessary for them to orchestrate such incidents. They have powerful means at their disposal to deal with Outsiders through non-violent intrigue. Trump the Orange Outsider is learning this hard lesson.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News