Why is our system producing 2 weak canididates?

cawacko said:
We love to talk about our democracy yet are quite content with the two parties basically colluding to keep out any competition. So that creates a culture and mindset where people say "if you vote third party/independent then you are throwing your vote away" which only adds to the two party's power.

Now I don't know that the European system is the answer either. I love the idea of the No Labels party which is a bi-partisan mix of people. Of course with a group like that many of us will find some positions we like and others we don't (likely far more than we do with whichever party we are currently a member of) but if given a shot it will allow people to determine are they as fed up with the two party system (as many polls claim) or is it a case of the grass is greener and in reality the status quo is fine?
Click to expand...

The issue I would have with this is you could never be certain who they would appoint to positions in government where such things as their view of the "living" constitution or strict interpretation matters. So you can vote for someone that seems sane but who appoints folks because of their intersectional value rather than their intrinsic value and expertise... and you would never know before they got into office.
 
BidenPresident said:
you deserve to be killed
Click to expand...

Yeah, at some point I will likely add a rule about this kind of thing. If someone "nutjobby" (some folks with schizophrenia believe an ad on TV is an order from God and just buy whatever it advertises, for instance) decided to follow up on your suggestion I'd wind up having to fulfill the requests of another subpoena and I'd rather not.
 
Damocles said:
The issue I would have with this is you could never be certain who they would appoint to positions in government where such things as their view of the "living" constitution or strict interpretation matters. So you can vote for someone that seems sane but who appoints folks because of their intersectional value rather than their intrinsic value and expertise... and you would never know before they got into office.
Click to expand...

Polls have shown for awhile people are unhappy with the two party system and want another alternative. It is certainly possible though that given another alternative they decide they don't like it (maybe for the reason you laid out) and determine the current system works best.
 
Damocles said:
Yeah, at some point I will likely add a rule about this kind of thing. If someone "nutjobby" (some folks with schizophrenia believe an ad on TV is an order from God and just buy whatever it advertises, for instance) decided to follow up on your suggestion I'd wind up having to fulfill the requests of another subpoena and I'd rather not.
Click to expand...

WHY DON'T YOU STOP THESE STALKERS

Yakuda has been stalking me two years. iF YOU REFUSE TO STOP IT, WE MUST DO IT
 
BidenPresident said:
WHY DON'T YOU STOP THESE STALKERS

Yakuda has been stalking me two years. iF YOU REFUSE TO STOP IT, WE MUST DO IT
Click to expand...

Is that what you call it when folks ask you questions like, "So, you think Biden shouldn't be questioned?" Yeah... A bit of introspection is in order here, friend.
 
Jarod said:
Its pretty close to objectively clear that, unless something significant changes, our viable options for president will both be very weak.


The vast majority of Americans believe both likely candidates are poor choices and express that they would like better choices...


What is it about our system that produces this effect? Why wouldn't we get better choices and what systemic changes can/should we make to get better presidential and other political choices?




To me a huge part of the problem is cultural idea that these choices are binary. There are in fact a huge number of passable condonations of issue stances and ideologies that we could present and have a robust debate over, but somehow we are stuck in this binary choice where almost always certain issues must be packaged with other only tangentially related issues.

Does Pro-LIfe always have to travel with lower taxes? These two ideas are not very well connected, but they seem to ALWAYS travel together. One could argue that the party that wants less government would want lower taxes and LESS regulation over abortion. Why does prayer in school run with less funding for education?

I can make an argument both ways why these issues are/are not naturally bundled together, so why are they so tightly bound? Is it marketing?


What can we do to create more options and a better mix of positions.

I believe our DEMOCRACY would be stronger if we could break this system of binary choices and get a better mix of issue bundling and more than two sides of every issue represented.


The European Parliamentary system seems to be one option, where after an election several parties often have to build a power sharing coalition and build a government. Any thoughts on this or other ideas?
Click to expand...

Two parties work just fine for me. More than two parties...things get even more fucked up than with two.

The kind of democracy we have...is not an easy thing to run. Anyone supposing it can operate easily and appreciably better than it is right now is dreaming.

Dictatorships run efficiently. I much prefer what we have to a dictatorship.

We do not need lower taxes...we need much higher taxes...especially on the rich. We cannot run a country such as ours on the cheap.

Pro-life is not pro-life. Never has been...never will be. Pro-life is anti-choice...and anti-female.
 
And Joe Biden is a fine choice. Not the best...but a fine one.

Anyone even thinking of voting for Trump, no matter what the reasoning, is a traitor to America.
 
cawacko said:
His question is asking why we are in a position with two unpopular candidates. And that discussion can be had without reference to the particular individuals. It's possible to say this is just unlucky circumstance and it's not normally like this and therefore no changes need to be made to our system. But I think it a legitimate question. A lot of people may be in agreement that our system needs changing but have disagreement over what that change would entail. For me at least, I think it a worthy discussion.
Click to expand...

And, based on my voting history, I share your opinion. But pretending this election is not about Trump is putting your head in the sand. And pretending that Trump would have anything approaching a normal presidency is also head in the sand material. The man is prepared, on DAY ONE to turn the military on protestors. And that's just for starters. We cannot let that happen. And a third party centrist candidate would absolutely help Trump. It's bad enough that Jill Stein can't let go of her personal ambitions long enough to save the country, Cornell West can't, I just hope like hell that Manchin and Hogan don't go there. Actually, I might vote for Hogan, but Manchin basically wants to destroy the environment for his rich coal buddies. I think he's awful.
 
Concart said:
And, based on my voting history, I share your opinion. But pretending this election is not about Trump is putting your head in the sand. And pretending that Trump would have anything approaching a normal presidency is also head in the sand material. The man is prepared, on DAY ONE to turn the military on protestors. And that's just for starters. We cannot let that happen. And a third party centrist candidate would absolutely help Trump. It's bad enough that Jill Stein can't let go of her personal ambitions long enough to save the country, Cornell West can't, I just hope like hell that Manchin and Hogan don't go there. Actually, I might vote for Hogan, but Manchin basically wants to destroy the environment for his rich coal buddies. I think he's awful.
Click to expand...

Here's how I'd present it. This board does not lack for threads/discussions on Trump, Biden, the horse race, who should win etc. That's pretty much a 24/7 thing. One thread talking about our system is not taking away from all those other discussions on Trump, Biden the horse race et al.

This is just my opinion of course but not every thread/discussion has to revolve around the 2024 Presidential race. That can still be a dominant thing while others subjects get talked about. I personally think it's a great question asked in the OP because there's not just a right or left wing answer we would default too. It's a worthy topic imo.
 
Damocles said:
Is that what you call it when folks ask you questions like, "So, you think Biden shouldn't be questioned?" Yeah... A bit of introspection is in order here, friend.
Click to expand...

Some Repubs are admitting the "impeachment' is political They have no evidence. So you could do some soul-searching.
 
Damocles said:
Yeah, at some point I will likely add a rule about this kind of thing. If someone "nutjobby" (some folks with schizophrenia believe an ad on TV is an order from God and just buy whatever it advertises, for instance) decided to follow up on your suggestion I'd wind up having to fulfill the requests of another subpoena and I'd rather not.
Click to expand...

Speaking of ads... Please do something about the ridiculous amount of ads on mobile.
 
cawacko said:
Here's how I'd present it. This board does not lack for threads/discussions on Trump, Biden, the horse race, who should win etc. That's pretty much a 24/7 thing. One thread talking about our system is not taking away from all those other discussions on Trump, Biden the horse race et al.

This is just my opinion of course but not every thread/discussion has to revolve around the 2024 Presidential race. That can still be a dominant thing while others subjects get talked about. I personally think it's a great question asked in the OP because there's not just a right or left wing answer we would default too. It's a worthy topic imo.
Click to expand...

I agree it is. What worries me is that it goes from the theoretical to the possible. I don't think Manchin will run. I also think we HAVE a centrist candidate running. His name is Joe Biden, he is the President of the United States. This notion that Biden is some kind of radical left wing Democrat is laughable. He is an FDR Democrat, he connects with the people in those states that are the most important. Watch him speak to union workers and then tell me he's senile. You can't. I would like to see more coalitions form, but they can do so with the current structure. We both know that we got Trump because of Jill Stein. Wouldn't it make more sense for those groups to coalesce into a functioning coalition? If not, why not? The problem isn't that we only have two parties, because in fact, we have many more. The problem comes down to one thing..... money. And that's the reason I voted a couple of times for third party candidates in Minnesota, because there is a five percent threshold for receiving funding. I wanted to throw my vote to the idea that the party (in this case, the Independent party, which was frankly very centrist) should have access to matching fund campaign money. But most of these parties fail because their ideas are not in line with the American people. And that is exactly as it should be.
 
cawacko said:
Polls have shown for awhile people are unhappy with the two party system and want another alternative. It is certainly possible though that given another alternative they decide they don't like it (maybe for the reason you laid out) and determine the current system works best.
Click to expand...

People? How many? We have as many parties as you want. The problem is they are too small and have no chance. We have the Reform Party, Libertarians, Green Party, Socialist Party, Natural Law, Constitution Party and others.
 
Nordberg said:
People? How many? We have as many parties as you want. The problem is they are too small and have no chance. We have the Reform Party, Libertarians, Green Party, Socialist Party, Natural Law, Constitution Party and others.
Click to expand...

What people are talking about are viable parties but one big reason we don't have those is because the R's and D's coordinate to keep them out, hence the term duopoly we so often here. You can see it playing out right now with folks saying No Labels needs to be taken down. You rigged the rules so they can't even have a chance to compete makes it a little disingenuous to say "they are too small and have no chance".



Support for Third U.S. Political Party Up to 63%

https://news.gallup.com/poll/512135...independents,Republicans and 46% of Democrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top