Two-party systems are antidemocratic

[Felya]

For the bazillionth time, we don't have a two-party system. There is nothing inherent about the design of our system that mandates two parties. Is our system designed to whittle down choices to "winner" and "loser" with no 3rd place or runner-up nods? Yes it certainly is. But there's nothing actually stopping the system from having a multitude of parties.

Yeah okay it's not inclined towards that outcome but fuck, the people who are in office are there because we put them there. We have just as much power to put someone else there. Whoever we want!

Actually, the mandate to appear on all state ballots is 5% popular vote, in previous election. A third party candidate, that doesn’t appear on ballots in every state, simply can’t win.

What electoral delegates represent 3rd parity in every state? In principle, we do not have a two party system. In practice, we do have a two party system. We just have a very steep barrier for 3rd parties, that makes the principal moot, to the effect.

[Sunseeker]

Actually, the mandate to appear on all state ballots is 5% popular vote, in previous election. A third party candidate, that doesn’t appear on ballots in every state, simply can’t win.

What electoral delegates represent 3rd parity in every state? In principle, we do not have a two party system. In practice, we do have a two party system. We just have a very steep barrier for 3rd parties, that makes the principal moot, to the effect.

Yeah but we're not talking about electing a president. We're talking about electing representatives. Who only have to appear on one ballot in one state, which usually just requires X number of signatures.

[Felya]

Yeah but we're not talking about electing a president. We're talking about electing representatives. Who only have to appear on one ballot in one state, which usually just requires X number of signatures.

There are extreme differences and difficulties that are unique per state. Even Ross Perrot, who did get around 20% of popular vote, wasn’t on the ballot in every state. The next year he was, but was an afterthought in Clinton v Dole, pulling 8%. Nader as a result gave it a shot the next time and... well... this is where reality set in. Neither Ron Paul or Bernie Sander or Trump, ran as third party, despite their antiestablishment rhetoric.

[kaid]

For the bazillionth time, we don't have a two-party system. There is nothing inherent about the design of our system that mandates two parties. Is our system designed to whittle down choices to "winner" and "loser" with no 3rd place or runner-up nods? Yes it certainly is. But there's nothing actually stopping the system from having a multitude of parties.

Yeah okay it's not inclined towards that outcome but fuck, the people who are in office are there because we put them there. We have just as much power to put someone else there. Whoever we want!

Acutally it does. With the electoral college system being what it is if you had three or four valid candidates actually capable of winning electoral college votes basically all you accomplish is making sure none of them get to 270. If you manage that then the house of reps picks the president and the senate picks the VP. So instead of increasing democracy you effectively throw all the peoples votes out the window completely and let the house of reps pick whoever they want as president.

[anyaka21]

The two big accomplishment of Trump and Obama... are ACA and tax cut on the wealthy. They both had control of Congress at the time, Trump used his so democrats don’t block his tax cut to the rich, while Obama spent it on ACA. Saying they are the same is absurd...

you forgot the biggest problem with ObamaCare, it completely pandered to corporations. It defined full-time as something over 30hrs per week. So what did big corporations do? They made everyone work under 30hrs. Thus those companies no longer had to offer insurance. Further, by cutting peoples hours they made less money and couldn't afford ObamaCare.

It completely pandered to big corp.

[Kallisto]

For the bazillionth time, we don't have a two-party system. There is nothing inherent about the design of our system that mandates two parties. Is our system designed to whittle down choices to "winner" and "loser" with no 3rd place or runner-up nods? Yes it certainly is. But there's nothing actually stopping the system from having a multitude of parties.

Yeah okay it's not inclined towards that outcome but fuck, the people who are in office are there because we put them there. We have just as much power to put someone else there. Whoever we want!

You use a version of fptp in voting for all levels of government. While you can have 101 parties the practice of fptp makes it so only two are viable. One on the right side of the national divide, one on the left.

A third party does nothing more than to split the vote. Anyone that doesn't get how fptp is defacto 2party is a liar or just too stupid for politics.

[Puupi]

It would be if it was designed that way.

But this is naturally how the party system has worked itself out in the US, it's a consequence of democracy. There are plenty of other political parties - Greens, Libertarian, DSA etc. etc. etc. but they don't have the power or influence of the major ones.

This is democracy. It's messy. It's scary. Sometimes, it can be pretty dumb. It's not a perfect system.

It's as democratic as China or how East Germany was.

They also have multiple parties.

[DarkTZeratul]

you forgot the biggest problem with ObamaCare, it completely pandered to corporations. It defined full-time as something over 30hrs per week. So what did big corporations do? They made everyone work under 30hrs. Thus those companies no longer had to offer insurance. Further, by cutting peoples hours they made less money and couldn't afford ObamaCare.

This is illogical. Very few companies would employ people for more than 30 hours per week if they didn't need to, and equally few would cut someone below 30 hours if they needed them to work more.

I also struggle to see how "this law forced corporations to do something they didn't want to do, so they found a loophole to get out of doing it" is "pandering to corporations."

[Felya]

It's as democratic as China or how East Germany was.

They also have multiple parties.

Ohh.... I get to share something I learned recently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public...dio_of_Armenia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Yerevan_jokes

Radio Yerevan was asked: "How many people of Russian origin live in Finland?"
Radio Yerevan answered: "There are enough to have a referendum."

[Puupi]

Ohh.... I get to share something I learned recently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public...dio_of_Armenia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Yerevan_jokes

You hadn't heard of radio yerevan jokes before? O_o

[Felya]

you forgot the biggest problem with ObamaCare, it completely pandered to corporations. It defined full-time as something over 30hrs per week. So what did big corporations do? They made everyone work under 30hrs. Thus those companies no longer had to offer insurance. Further, by cutting peoples hours they made less money and couldn't afford ObamaCare.

It completely pandered to big corp.

Hyperbole, but was the contribution they made to their employer healthcare and the employer contribution, match the insurance they could get on exchanges? Because, millions did get insurance, that didn’t have it before. The idea that people lost it, doesn’t match up with the numbers.

- - - Updated - - -

You hadn't heard of radio yerevan jokes before? O_o

No, because I was in USSR at the time. We didn’t get that sort of news...

People in Germany loved us... why would they make such jokes?

[Sunseeker]

Acutally it does. With the electoral college system being what it is if you had three or four valid candidates actually capable of winning electoral college votes basically all you accomplish is making sure none of them get to 270. If you manage that then the house of reps picks the president and the senate picks the VP. So instead of increasing democracy you effectively throw all the peoples votes out the window completely and let the house of reps pick whoever they want as president.

President this, president that. You know there are more elected offices than President right?

A plurality of parties lowers the bar to win a majority of votes in all other elections. Which increases the likelyhood that a less popular party will be elected in any one of them.

Next I'm sure you're going to tell me that 5 party systems are anti-democratic and it's only REALLY democracy if there are a million different parties and any random joe can get elected if he puts his name in the hat.

Other forms of government don't have a strikingly larger number of parties, 4 or 5, with the one on the bottom usually holding so little power as to be made irrelevant, and the top two usually being the same ones that hold the majority of the power for a long time.

You use a version of fptp in voting for all levels of government. While you can have 101 parties the practice of fptp makes it so only two are viable. One on the right side of the national divide, one on the left.

A third party does nothing more than to split the vote. Anyone that doesn't get how fptp is defacto 2party is a liar or just too stupid for politics.

There are hundreds of elections across the country, each of them has a winner and a loser, except for the fact that we as a society have enshrined two particular parties and spread them across the country, there's absolutely nothing about our system that suggests that the winner and loser have to be from those two parties.

There's nothing problematic with the system. It is, once again, user error.

[zEmini]

A big yes. Honestly there should be some type of "playoff" system that lets everyone vote from all parties. How I would do it?

1. 16 Candidates total (or more depending on variables)
2. % of registered voters in the US determines how many party slots are used. For instance 30% republicans, 30% democrats, 10% libertarians, 15% Green, 15% Independent = 4 reps, 4 demos, 2 libts, 3 greens, 3 independents. Rounding to be determined to the best interest of the people.
3. For those registered in those parties they get to pick which candidates go to the playoffs. This happens during the year before elections.
4. Now you have 4 rounds of voting. Voters Pick up to 4 for round 1. 3 for round 2, 2 for round 1 and their 1 choice for the final round.

This would cost a lot more, but personally it is money well spent.

Also like to add that there are no re-elections. 6 year terms then your out.

[anyaka21]

This is illogical. Very few companies would employ people for more than 30 hours per week if they didn't need to, and equally few would cut someone below 30 hours if they needed them to work more.

I also struggle to see how "this law forced corporations to do something they didn't want to do, so they found a loophole to get out of doing it" is "pandering to corporations."

Big companies esp like Target and Walmart, cut peoples hours down, and then just hired more people to fill in the gaps. Thus very logical. They don't have to contribute to their insurance and as thus save money, completely avoid any overtime. And how do you struggle with the thought that they didn't want to do this. It easily saves them money. It pandered to corporations because it's an easy loophole.

I'd further suggest that even Medicare For All, if done wrongly, like Elizabeth Warrens proposal, would've further muddied the waters because it would've forced corporations who had a lot of employees to contribute more. What would then happen is corporations would just make all their employees private contractors and then technically not have employees.

[DarkTZeratul]

And how do you struggle with the thought that they didn't want to do this. It easily saves them money.

They didn't want to give them insurance. That's what the law, quite literally, forced them to do. How you interpreted that as saying the law forced them to use its own loophole is beyond me.

It pandered to corporations because it's an easy loophole.

As opposed to before, where the "loophole" was that they could simply give no one insurance no matter how much they worked because there was no legal requirement to do so at all. Truly, passing this law was a divine gift to corporations by allowing them to continue not doing something they already weren't doing.