Or more, as long as there is a proper required number of votes why limit to 4 arbitrary parties. US has too little representatives anyway. A number should be set per number of inhabitants.
While a nice sentiment, we are organized social creatures by nature. It’s always going to end up in a small amount of larger groups and that’s just how it goes. No matter how well or bad a system works, the system is still made of people and we will congregate into specific roles and ideologies just as the very cells in our bodies group together to perform larger functions.
Sure, but I can imagine the US can have larger parties from separate states or some parties that represent a group of states. With the plurality of inhabitants, climates, environments the US just seems like it would be way better suited for a system with a plurality of parties. Representatives based on inhabitants… I dunno one per 500k people or something. And STAR voting system per state instead of first past the pole.
The Nazis came to power with a minority voting support because there were a plurality of parties so they could have the most votes with only around a third of the country supporting their BS.
Ranked choice voting and multiple parties would be grand though
Works for me, but the way the government is built is for the adversarial system, which means two main parties, that’s why there’s a public funding threshold based on the amount of voters for each party. It’s because the founders felt that what basically amounts to political yin & yang will balance our government from getting too conservative or too progressive, it also goes along with Jefferson’s “Tree of liberty” quote, where civil wars were planned for by the architects of our government, meaning that they were accepting of the idea that civil wars may occur often in our nation’s history.
The easiest fix to our adversarial democracy problem is to either lower the public funding voter threshold, which would allow for more parties, or initiate national ranked choice voting, which would allow for better quality candidates while maintaining the adversarial system.
Yeah, I think the trouble with a parliamentary system is that it encourages things to splinter further and it ends up being MORE dysfunctional rather than less…
There should be 4 parties.
Right wing nutjobs - MAGA
Center-Right - Republicans/Libertarians
Center-Left - Democrats
Progressives/Greens
Or more, as long as there is a proper required number of votes why limit to 4 arbitrary parties. US has too little representatives anyway. A number should be set per number of inhabitants.
While a nice sentiment, we are organized social creatures by nature. It’s always going to end up in a small amount of larger groups and that’s just how it goes. No matter how well or bad a system works, the system is still made of people and we will congregate into specific roles and ideologies just as the very cells in our bodies group together to perform larger functions.
Sure, but I can imagine the US can have larger parties from separate states or some parties that represent a group of states. With the plurality of inhabitants, climates, environments the US just seems like it would be way better suited for a system with a plurality of parties. Representatives based on inhabitants… I dunno one per 500k people or something. And STAR voting system per state instead of first past the pole.
Only if ranked choice voting.
The Nazis came to power with a minority voting support because there were a plurality of parties so they could have the most votes with only around a third of the country supporting their BS.
Ranked choice voting and multiple parties would be grand though
Works for me, but the way the government is built is for the adversarial system, which means two main parties, that’s why there’s a public funding threshold based on the amount of voters for each party. It’s because the founders felt that what basically amounts to political yin & yang will balance our government from getting too conservative or too progressive, it also goes along with Jefferson’s “Tree of liberty” quote, where civil wars were planned for by the architects of our government, meaning that they were accepting of the idea that civil wars may occur often in our nation’s history.
The easiest fix to our adversarial democracy problem is to either lower the public funding voter threshold, which would allow for more parties, or initiate national ranked choice voting, which would allow for better quality candidates while maintaining the adversarial system.
You could argue we already have those, but the 2 groups gets mixed with one. I don’t know the words, but a parliamentary system?
Yeah, I think the trouble with a parliamentary system is that it encourages things to splinter further and it ends up being MORE dysfunctional rather than less…
See…
https://youtu.be/WboggjN_G-4#t=26s
or:
https://youtu.be/l3fAcxcxoZ8?feature=shared