What are your thoughts on having several political parties ?

[DetlefK]

Hi, my first name is Detlef and I'm from Germany. I'd like to make a little survey about the US-american electoral system, because I'd like to hear some arguments and opinions about it.

As our electoral system seems (of course) "fair and balanced" to me, using an electoral college and the winner-takes-all-principle seems very odd to me. The winner-takes-all-principle prevents third parties from gaining influence in national elections. So what if your voting system would switch to regarding total popular votes? This would allow smaller parties to gain seats in both houses.

So, what interests me is:
1. Having a Choice between several parties MIGHT reduce corruption. (Too many people you would have to bribe.)
What are your thoughts on this?
2. The Democratic Party and the GOP MIGHT split up in their fractions (centrists, greens, socialists, liberals, social conservatives, big money, religious right ...).
Would that be good or bad?
3. These additional parties would complicate and enrich the political landscape of the USA. No seat would be safe and especially smaller parties would have to compete with each other permanently. To form a government, parties would have to negotiate and to compromise. The work speed of parliament MIGHT be reduced.
What are your opinions?

[Mz Pip]

1. We already do

and in 1992 one of them got 20% of the vote in the presidential election. There really doesn't seem to be much interest in a viable 3rd party alternative because if there were, there would be.

A lot of people would love to see the Electoral College abandoned but it won't happen because it would take 67 votes in the Senate to change the Constitution and the smaller states would never support it. They would feel ignored because the candidates would just concentrate on the large urban areas and forego the small rural regions.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Didereaux]

2. No prob with multiple parties EXCEPT...

That it is imperative that the third party draws sufficiently from the other two that one of the originals do not remain with a majority or near majority. If all 'centrists' from the Republican and Democratic parties left and formed a third party their would be near parity and your contention of less corruption etc probably would come close to reality. I would gladly support such a third party.

But if the twirly-eyed religious were to split off they would draw 80% from the Republican Party giving the Democratic Party a permanent majority(so too speak...that may not lead to as many wars, but history has shown that it DOES lead to massive amounts of corruption. This is true every single time one party gains control of both houses of Congress and the Executive branch simultaneously. Todays danger is that the Republicans almost control the THIRD branch as well the Supreme Court, just a hairs' breadth away and that would prove more than disasterous, it could very well lead to the collapse of the republic...and that is not hyperbole!

[mmonk]

3. I would be for it.

But the two party system has created a forced system with draconian rules to perpetuate itself and shut out alternatives.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. I am very much in favor of a multi party system here in the US

I believe it would improve participation in the political process. In countries with multi party systems, voter turnout is much bigger than here in the US.

[mirrera]

5. Good Subject!

I think we need Instant Runoff Voting in order to make it happen. Right now it is almost impossible to have a 3rd party because that party ends up either left or right wing (usually left). Voting for the third party ends up splitting the vote of the party that is closest to what the third party wants and the least wanted party gets in.

Many people want to abolish the electoral college, but it must be done everywhere if it is done, not just in a Democratic State like California (which the Giulianni Campaign is orchestrating in order to give the Republicans an advantage that does NOT reflect the will of the US Citizens).

I think if ever we had a first, second, and third choice, it would be an opening for many voices and multiple parties which would be a great thing for us.

My opinion on it.

Also paper ballots hand counted with mandatory audits.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. PR is a great idea.

The USA needs to be cleansed 'electorally'

[ikojo]

7. There are third parties in the US but there are also

many barriers to third parties entering the political fray. In most, if not all states, a third party must first gather a predetermined number of signatures in order to get their candidates on the ballot. If those candidates do not get a specified percentage of the vote then the third party will be required to collect signatures for the next election if they want to run candidates.

There is not much interest in third parties also because of the financial barriers to entry. Campaigns in the US are run in the media and the corporate media does not pay much attention to third parties. People are of the opinion that while they may agree with third, since it's a winner take all system in the US, they wont vote for third party candidates because "they can't win." The same reason most people wont vote for Dennis Kucinich even though many on DU agree with many of his stances.

If there was national Instant Run off Voting then third party candidates would stand a chance of at least being heard.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Our system is institutionalized corruption.

Plurality winner take all elections pretty much force a two party system, and the two party system, because of its stranglehold on office-holding, is trivial to corrupt given adequate funds.

The electoral college should be abolished in favor of direct popular election of the president and vice president. The executive is not the exeutive of 50 independent states, he or she is the executive of all of the american people. States are more than adequately represented in the Senate. We need to move past constructs that barely made sense 225 years ago.

All elected national offices should require a majority, not a plurality vote, through the use of verified paper ballot instant run-off elections. Election methods need to be universally standardized and independently monitored for fairness.

Strict and very low limits on individual, corporate, union, and other organization campaign contributions, along with a complete restructuring of public campaign financing, and comprehensive lobbying reform are mandatory to remove the overt and massive corruption in the current system. Corporate personhood needs to be abolished.

A re-introduction of the Fairness Doctrine along with broadcast license based mandatory media access for all recognized candidates and a complete overhaul of the broadcast outlet ownership regulatiosn is required to abolish the corporate-corrupt stranglehold on broadcast media.

[demosincebirth]

9. The only way it would work is if we changed to a Parliamentary system

[Truth2Tell]

12. I disagree

you could have a President as executive and still have a system of Proportional Representation in Congress.

As other posters have correctly observed, our system is really institutionally designed to accommodate only two Parties.

As it stands, minority viewpoints are filtered out of our process at election time. In Germany they are filtered out in the decision making process of the elected officials. You still end up with coherent and unified policies, but you enjoy a more open and robust discussion first. Our system is pretty lame in that regard, not to mention broken.

[whoneedstickets]

25. The 'first-past the post' single-member district system

Precludes multiple parties, the UK is an example (Labor - Tory), unless they are generally regionally based as in Canada (Bloc Quebec, Conservatives Alberta).

We'd have to change to a multi-member district or Proportional representation system or break the national parties into regional ones.

[slackmaster]

10. Our system is basically designed so there will only be two parties with real power

I'd like to see some more choices.

[Odin2005]

11. I think the German constitution would be a good one to base a new US Constitution on.

You Germans have a good federal parliamentary system with the right balance between proportional representation and winner-take-all. IIRC you guys have 3 major parties (the progressive Social Democrats, conservative Christian Democrats, and libertarian Free Democrats) plus several smaller parties that join with the major parties in coalitions.

[jberryhill]

13. The original assumption was that geography was the prime determinant of collective interests

That assumption is not as valid as it was in 1789.

We were able to work out what was, for the time, a good compromise between the influence of large states and small states, the system is "broken" with respect to proportional influence of borderless communities of interest around issues.

However, what seems to be the problem spot for parliamentary systems are situations where there are two large primary groupings, so that formation of a majority depends upon the shifting priorities of small "kingmaker" groups, sometimes of extreme views, that attach themselves to one or the other of the primary groups in order to control the majority coalition at any given time (e.g. Israel). A better de-coupling of the executive and legislative functions would, IMHO, moderate that, so that the executive function wouldn't collapse every time there was a contentious crisis (e.g. Italy).

[Smith_3]

14. Very Good.

Abolish the Winner-Takes-It-All and also establish the possibility for parties to form coalitions. That way non-centrist voters can no longer be blamed for the lost election of the lesser evil.

[Froward69]

15. At first fresh out

of college i was all for different parties. after working towards such an endevour. i became apparent to me that our two party system is as streamlined as any system can get. As i am not one to wish to hamstring or bog down our government. (ecxept when it comes to rethug intentions to dismantle it. "patriot act," "no child" etc.)

[Smith_3]

20. Streamlined yes: We have one party to start wars and one party to end them.

Pretty good system. That way one party will never have to carry the full burden of the blame.

[Froward69]

23. like the lesson from south park

we are a nation that is a bully with a conscience.

[eridani]

16. We'd have to have a parliamentary system first

That is, one in which we vote for slates rather than individual candidates.

[arcos]

21. You don't need a parliamentary system to have PR...

You could very well have party lists (either "locked" or "unlocked") by (bigger) congressional districts with 3 or 5 seats each, for example. That doesn't change your system to a parliamentary one.

[eridani]

24. I still think it would require voting for parties and not candidates, though n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. I'd like to see more parties and a host of other

election reforms:

http://www.hostdiva.com/liberalchristians/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=116&Itemid=29&limit=1&limitstart=1

[struggle4progress]

18. Lots of parties is a good idea but nobody here knows how to party

I went to a Communist party once about thirty years ago, with good food and cool music, but most Americans won't party with Communists.

They'd rather party with the Republicans, which is like spending the holidays with Vlad the Impaler.

I myself started partying with Democrats. At some Democratic parties, though, the only thing that happens is everybody tries to sing We're not Republicans but we're somewhat like them except different,

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. A serious answer

and feel free to correct me, but Germany (and most of Europe) has this wonderful device called proportional representation

That was an invention of the 19th century... but the US electoral system goes back to the Constitution. In the US what we have is a winner takes all system. This means that whoever got the most votes wins, period. This also mean that by design the system is predisposed to two majority parties, and the slew of small parties we have rarely make any noise

It does happen...from time to time, and the US is ready for that right now. The last party to face loosing and the dustbin was the Whig party, which was replaced by the GOP that started running people in 1852 and got the presidency (and a civil war) in 1860

The land and freedom party managed with the Grangers managed to get people elected to the house in the ;late 1880s and the New Deal comes from them (and the US Socialist Party), so there is some cross pollination

But until the electoral system changes, the US will continue to have two major parties, and many small parties that amount to spit. There is cross pollination from time to time, especially during economic crisis, but the US probably needs a reform that will lead to proportional representation... alas John Stewart Mill was born a hundred years too late, as one of my poli sci profs used to joke.

[LWolf]

22. We have multiple parties.

What I would like to see added to that is proportional representation and some version of IRV. That would break the stranglehold the two "major" parties have on our political system, and spread the power across a broader spectrum.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

26. I believe we should have several political parties, no less than five,...

,...no more than ten or twelve.

I acknowledge the fact that,...there is a point of, let's say, irrelevance, if a leadership structure is flooded.

WOW! :wow:

I am feeling, uncertain, about the topic of "governance", all together, at this moment.

I only know that, this experiment in democracy is dead. Once again, the richest and most greedy and power-mongering are fucking a country without conscience.

What I'd love to witness is a "peoples' court" to hold government accountable. THAT IS A DREAM.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. The idea will never catch on. It's considered "too liberal" by both the parties in charge.

Besides, it wouldn't pay as well. The lobbyists would have to divide the bribes...er..campaign contributions too widely.

[MisterP]

29. and how else would reformism be crushed if one party couldn't threaten its

constituents with "the other one" winning if they didn't play along with them?

[Perry Logan]

28. I'd love to be able to vote for what I want, without worrying about "wasting my vote."

[warren pease]

30. I'd like to see a two-party system for starters...

The idea that Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner are mortal political enemies is so absurd that you'd have to try really hard to believe it. So first we need two distinct parties that actually represent different constituencies, rather than the rigged game we have now: a single party called the Business Party with two factions called Democrats and Republicans who, with very few notable exceptions, both work ceaselessly for the benefit of their corporate campaign "contributors" and to the constant detriment of anyone outside the hedge fund class.

Then we could work our way up to maybe a dozen or so parties -- one for the religiously insane, another for fans of pro wrestling, a third for ACLU supporters, and so on. All would come equipped with a well-defined agenda and present clear choices that are intelligible to an electorate weaned on the vacuous nonsense that passes for political discourse in this country.

Can you imagine a real debate in which the opinion on health care ranges from single-payer, universal-access to for-profit, corporate-controlled medicine like we now have? Rather than one that allows some half-wit news reader to ask Kucinich about his UFO experience or try to determine who's the biggest jesus freak?

And though the abominable US mass media would try to keep things on the celebrity scandal level, the candidates themselves, along with their advisers and spinmeisters, would demand that TeeVee take the damn thing seriously and report on campaigns as contests of ideologies and governing philosophies rather than fucking horse races, with the biggest horse's ass always in the lead. Well, you can dream...

Proportional representation is the only way I can think of to select a Congress that actually represents a cross-section of American political thought (if that's not an oxymoron). Instant run-offs would be the answer to voting for the lesser of two evils. And a coalition government would force the executive branch to either work with all points of the political compass or simply say fuck it, dissolve Congress and declare a dictatorship. In other words, adopt the BushCo method of governance.


wp