This is an issue which is usually rather disregarded or ignored, but what do you think of third parties? In the USA, they usually aren't taken seriously. However, in virtually every other developed democratic country, they are a reality.

So do you think the USA is headed for a serious three-or-more party system? Do you think it should be? If so, which third party?

Me, I wholeheartedly support it, because only having two seems to lead to moral degeneration on both sides of the aisle.

However, Americans don't challenge it, because the candidate of one or the other of the two main parties is the the "lesser of two evils."

As for which party I support? I personally support the Communist Party, as I find the Democratic Party to be misguided on several critical issues such as war.

2165021
I don't think so, the two-party system has been there since our foundation.

Though that doesn't necessarily mean it'll always be Republican or Democrat.

2165021 Well since the US election is a first-past-the-post system, the electoral system tends towards two parties rather than three. Other developed countries use Alternative Vote (which is proportional voting of a sort where you can rank your party preferences) so they get zillions of parties.

Be careful what you wish for, though, a fragmented party system can be even worse for governance. Can you imagine getting a budget through a Congress that has 5 parties? The US system is made for gridlock, unlike other constitutions, so adding more parties might not be the best idea.

Moral degeneration doesn't come from two parties, although it's a possible contributing factor. I think it more comes from the fact that we select our politicians from a small group of elites nowadays.

I am personally in favor of retaining 2 parties (any change needs to come from the electoral system, e.g. having compulsory voting), but if I had to choose one party, it'll probably be some form of socialist party (Greens, maybe?). Communist party... urgh (I live quite close to Communist China )

2165021

I'm a Moderate.

Silver out!

2165042
Not as much as it is now. No less than four candidates got electoral votes when Lincoln was elected.
2165065
I don't mean Chinese Communism, I mean original Marxism. That's a great group of logic, though.
2165069
A Moderate?
On the Internet?

2165096

What? Is that bad?

Silver out!

2165096
Yes, but it's always been between two rival parties; back to the split between Jefferson and Hamilton at it's foundation.

Washington warned us about political parties dividing us...

2165104
Mind-boggling.
The Internet is the HQ for all the radicals.
Not to mention the moderates themselves are declining...
2165138
That's true, but just because it's how it always has been doesn't mean it's how it always should be.

2165096 Well, of course, you're assuming that original Marxism works. But to each his own, I guess.

I also forgot to mention that in the US, the executive branch is separate from the legislative branch, so unlike in European countries the President is not necessarily the leader of the majority party in Congress. So only the strongest of presidents will be able to get things done unless he gets a majority in both Houses - or even worse, he'll start abusing executive orders in order to get things done.

That's what happened to Russia in 1993, and that's why we have a Putin in charge of that country now.

2165147
It isn't how it should be, but because of the basic acts of mankind, it will be. Like the rules of the internet: they don't have to be followed, but almost everyone will for some reason.

Washington's ideas were wonderful, but it ignored how divided people were. Like how Marx's ideas for a utopia were perfect on paper, but ignored the basic desires for man: to gain money and material endlessly, the desire for power, the desire for people to become greater than others, etc.

No matter how idealistic an idea is, it can't ignore reality.

2165147

Why are moderates declining?

The middle ground not exist anymore?

So...are you saying I've been in enemy territory for years?

Good...maybe I can be of some use then.

Well, I AM in the military so facing down an enemy was going to be inevitable anyways.

Silver out!

2165177
Indeed, to each his own.

And yes, executive orders are an alarming method. The executive branch has been getting much stronger.
2165197
That's true on the first count, but I have a whole host of arguments for Marxism. You can either agree to disagree, or, if you're bored, I can list them for you.
2165199
Essentially.

2165213

Well damn...

I'm still alive though so I MUST be doing something right.

Silver out!

2165227

2165065
You live close to China?

2165213
Go ahead and do whatever you feel like doing.

2165231

I've seen your avatar everywhere, but I don't know what it means? Is it a new trend?

Silver out!

2165238
Classless societies have been around for a very long time. Just look at the tribes of ancient Europe and the Native Americans.

And as for not taking into account human nature? Actually, naturally speaking, humans were communist. It's not human nature, it's modern culture raising us to be so greedy.

As for the desire for power: Communism isn't authoritarian. It's democratic and egalitarian, where everyone is equal.
2165242
Yes, it's Espurr. Look it up.
2165250
Read above. It did work in practice, before modern civilization even formed.

2165295
Ancient Europe didn't have anything for the people to get. If there is nothing to get that people want, they won't be greedy. The market has things people desire.

And looking back, it has almost always come down to some power hungry fool ruining everything; not just with Communism, but every extreme party. Whether it worked in the past doesn't matter, this is the modern world and it doesn't work here; unless you're planning to send us back in time.

2165021
A third party isn't going win anytime soon at least. The electoral college is one of the things standing in the way of that. Gerrymandering, the process of redrawing electoral boundaries to ensure victory for a particular party, is also a big problem.

As for me, I don't align myself with any political or governmental group. I might if I find one I consider promising enough. I find the republicans to be insane and the democrats to be better, but still not good enough.

2165199
Well, I'm an independent moderate, too. With the way politicians are running things now, you'd think there would be more independents.

2165042
*Leans in close and whispers into ear.*

No it hasn't.

2165414
Not in law or practice, but beginning with the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans in the late 1700s two parties have usually dominated the political spotlight, not always the same ones, but it's usually. There's always been a few third parties that gained spots like governor or congress, but they've never gotten into the presidency. The only true break in political partisanism was the Era of Good Feeling.

2165238 Well I live in Hong Kong, which is China if you want to be pedantic I guess. And with the amount of Red infiltration into our broken political system, soon we'll be culturally a part of it too

2165554
I know Hong Kong is supposed to be a city-state sort of thing, but it's being heavily influenced. I know Britain didn't give it to China after they left.

Is it really as crowded as they say?

2165381 Of course they can, but it's always something easier said than done. We'll leave off the really dubious uses of executive power, e.g. going to war (because how can Congress realistically withdraw troops in the middle of a firefight?)

The problem with revoking executive orders is that the President is a) the leader and b) has the bully pulpit, whereas Congress is leaderless and generally cannot speak with one voice to save its life. Given the 2/3s majority required by Congress to revoke orders, that gives the President a lot of opportunity to convince the people that whatever he's doing by executive order, he's doing it for the good of the nation (because who has ever justified anything otherwise?)

Congress isn't totally helpless, as you said, and its resilience is much stronger than that of Russia (and stronger than most people realize, I expect). But even the most powerful of legislatures will have trouble reining in a President.

2165640 No, we're part of China. The UK gave it back to China in 1997, because in 1898 they decided to "ask" China to lease 60% of the city for 99 years, thinking that their Empire would last forever.

Well, on the more well-known areas Hong Kong is about as crowded as rush-hour Manhattan. And in the lesser-known slums... have you been to any Chinatown in the US (e.g. San Francisco)? Multiply that by like 50 and you get Hong Kong.

If you want the math, it's 7 million people (so like the population of Washington State or Massachusetts) crammed into the DC area within the Capital Beltway. And then you realize that Hong Kong is 40% countryside, so it's more like 7 million people crammed into Manhattan Island.

If you want another statistic, the average Hong Konger in 2007 had about 150 square feet of living space.

2165697 Yeah, LBJ was famous for being a very capable Congressional operator. They even gave a special name for his tactics - "The Treatment".

2165697 2165766
Johnston was another example of a good politician making bad leadership choices. Politically, he was basically a bully, but that'll get you far in that line of work...

2165766 Back in the imperialistic glory days... Oh well, every dog has his day I suppose. Just waiting for the only superpower in the world to diminish and the cycle to start again.

More on topic, my friend (he isn't an American, he's a Communist from Britain, my far right wing friend and him always fight) says that the two party system is flawed and corrupt, and that you essentially vote for the same things no matter which party you vote for under the guise of change and false promises, and that the only actual changes that would be brought about if the other party got in would be inconsequential. Personally I have no idea, I'm not an American, I'm more concerned about UKIP rising up.

2166231 Well, I don't really want the USA to fall, because I'm not sure I'd appreciate a Communist Chinese-dominated world. Say what you like about the USA now, at least it is (along with Britain) a liberally-minded country.

Well a three-party system isn't a panacea to lack of voter choice. You look at the UK now, and pretty much every decently-sized party has accepted the Thatcherite consensus (maybe not the Greens, Plaid Cymru or the SNP). Same goes for Germany besides the Greens. A third party only makes it more likely that a truly different party rises up; but there's no guarantee that it will materialize. Ultimately we need to change the way we choose politicians, and to me that means state funding of candidates (so no corporate money). Lawyers and rich businessmen already have enough advantages in politics besides the ability to raise billions of dollars in cash.

Why are you concerned about UKIP, by the way? Is it just the EU?

2166346 Sorry for any confusion, I didn't mean I want the US to fall, I was just saying that all the greatest countries have toppled at some point and I think that eventually the US will face that crisis and a new world leader may appear.

I'll be a honest and say I'm not a big politics man, so I don't really understand some of what you just said, but I should note that my friend Joe doesn't say a three party system is great either, though I can't remember what he actually wants other than Communism...

With UKIP, I think that they're disillusioned. They're an openly patriotic party who seek to improve our status and become a power again, but they want to do that by diminishing our standing within Europe and thus the US, if we hold little to no sway over European affairs our 'special' relationship with America won't mean much anymore. Their policies on immigration and stuff are a little extreme to me, but I don't want to get into that really, but with all the scandals and such about their now former members I just can't help but begin to view them as a more acceptable front of the BNP or something like that.

2166454 Sure, I realize the US is going to go away at some point too. Hopefully another liberal country will take its place. (India would be a good bet, but I don't think they're going to get their stuff together).

Basically, it's just that more parties doesn't mean anything if the politicians that make up these parties still come from the same group of people, e.g. lawyers, bored businessmen, toffs etc. You'll still get the same laws because... well, they're still made by the same people, gathering for Sunday garden parties in Surrey and discussing politics with similarly-minded people and their relatives. If everyone around you works in the City, of course you'll be more likely to cut business taxes!

So we need more people from different backgrounds in order to have a more representative parliament and to provide genuine choice. Labour was originally a party dominated by trade-unionists, and that is why they provided much more alternative than New Labour does.

And the way to encourage different backgrounds is to make the cost of running an election campaign fairer: state funding of elections is the best way to do that.

2166639 That sounds very similar to what my friend was saying, and it does make sense. Thanks for clearing that up. On the topic of India, they sent a rocket into space before they have a functioning sewage system...

If the US did diminish significantly, I don't know which country would fill the power vacuum. I really don't know much about the topic but I'd say China just because I always see things about how they'll soon be overtaking the US in various aspects. As long as it is a democratic and stable country with good intentions I aren't bothered which it is in all honesty.

2166689 Yeah, China is probably my likeliest bet too, though I'm not as optimistic as you. Maybe they really just want to take over Hong Kong and Taiwan and that'll be the end of their ambitions. But probably not.

From the looks of it though, the UK is about to be swamped by a tidal wave of Chinese money, since Cameron has now decreed that Chinese banks in the City can operate with minimum oversight.

So maybe they're colonizing you next

2165021

Adding extra parties can make everything more difficult but can make everything fair. UK has a two party system with the Lib-Dems tagging along as either a lone wolf or part of a coalition with one of the big parties. Extra parties can create a hung parliament. Something that was fixed when the Lib-Dems joined with the Conservatives (Causing the two parties to fight among each other due to conflicting policies etc the changing of the voting system.)

Adding extra parties can allow extremist parties to enter politics. (This is bad because usually this extra parties don't have any other policies other than "Get _____ out of my country!"

2166824 They can just lease England for 99 years, haha