Is a moderate party viable?

[Speedwell]

Given the existential nature of the issues that divide the political left and right in the United States, I don't think it's even possible to define a "moderate" political platform, let alone form a party. This is no longer a discussion about whether a 25% or a 55% income tax rate is the appropriate one.

How do you see it? Christian Nationalists vs. everybody else?

 

[Newtheran]

How do you see it? Christian Nationalists vs. everybody else?

Well, I prefer not to use labels when discussion as wide a range of issues as this would entail, but if you insist upon them I would prefer civilized people vs. barbarians.

 

[Percivale]

Well, I prefer not to use labels when discussion as wide a range of issues as this would entail, but if you insist upon them I would prefer civilized people vs. barbarians.

In my experience either party is about equally likely to consider the other one barbarians

 

[comana]

Interesting. What state is that? I know in Florida we have to be one of the two. Independant is basically a wasted party when it comes to primaries.

Colorado also offers registered as Unaffiliated the option choose. This is new as of 2018.

 

[durangodawood]

It has been tried before. But the country always reverts back to a two-party system.

Yes.

The actual mechanics of USA voting and representation naturally devolves to 2 parties in any game-theory analysis.

 

[durangodawood]

Why the so-called "biggest democracy in the world" only has 2 parties, is something I have found to be baffling all my life.

It makes zero sense.

???

It makes total sense when you examine how our govt is constituted and how first-past-the-post voting games out.

Basically, in the typical case, a third party vote is a throw-away, and worse still, will typically benefit your political opposites.

 

[Percivale]

Yes.

The actual mechanics of USA voting and representation naturally devolves to 2 parties in any game-theory analysis.

A simple change to approval voting would likely be enough to change that.

 

[durangodawood]

A simple change to approval voting would likely be enough to change that.

Yeah there's a number of different voting regimes that would break the 2-party game to different degrees.

Given the massive discontent with the 2 parties on offer, I'm surprised this idea remains dormant. But if there's one thing the 2 parties agree on even more than they disagree on everything else, its: lets keep the door shut to other parties.

 

[DogmaHunter]

???

It makes total sense when you examine how our govt is constituted and how first-past-the-post voting games out.

Basically, in the typical case, a third party vote is a throw-away, and worse still, will typically benefit your political opposites.

It's a throw away vote precisely because the 2-party system is so deeply entrenched in that society.

We have 13 parties. 7 to 8 of which are traditionally "the biggest".
Voting on any of them is never a wasted vote.

Parliament coallitions here typically include 3 to 5 different parties.

 

[FireDragon76]

Third parties work best in European-style governments that depend on building political coalitions to have majoritarian rule. The US does not have a system focused on majoritarian rule, but plurality.

Something like this happens already within our own political parties, however, because each party has different interest groups and they try to broker for power within the party. But this isn't always obvious to the uninformed, it can look like Democrats and Republicans are monolithic, when in fact as has been pointed out, they are "big tents". Historically, Democrats have been the most "big tent" as far as politics goes, though in recent years perhaps the tent is less broad than it was.

 

[durangodawood]

It's a throw away vote precisely because the 2-party system is so deeply entrenched in that society.

We have 13 parties. 7 to 8 of which are traditionally "the biggest".
Voting on any of them is never a wasted vote.

Parliament coallitions here typically include 3 to 5 different parties.

No, its not just a cultural thing. Its about the structural differences in the system.

Parliamentary systems are typical party-slate proportional across the whole country. So a party who gets even 5% could still end up represented and possibly part of a coalition.

For US Congress, each seat is its own first-pass-the-post contest.

 

[Albion]

Yeah there's a number of different voting regimes that would break the 2-party game to different degrees.

.

Maybe, but some of those that were instituted allegedly in order to promote what you are speaking of only served to make the two-party system more like a one-party system.

Take the Top Two system of voting that is now the law in California and some other places. The result is that all the minor parties are frozen out of the general election except for rare exceptions and are confined to running their candidates in the primary elections only. Over a quarter of the voters in California reportedly say they wont vote at all for US Senator since the only choices -- thanks to Top Two -- are two liberal Democrats.

 

[durangodawood]

Maybe, but some of those that were instituted allegedly in order to promote what you are speaking of only served to make the two-party system more like a one-party system.

Take the Top Two system of voting that is now the law in California and some other places. The result is that all the minor parties are frozen out of the general election except for rare exceptions and are confined to running their candidates in the primary elections only. Over a quarter of the voters in California reportedly say they wont vote at all for US Senator since the only choices -- thanks to Top Two -- are two liberal Democrats.

I'm not impressed by what people say the intent is for any different voting scheme. What matters is how the results naturally play out.

Obviously, a national party-slate system for electing the legislative body will result in more than 2 parties getting seats, as a. it makes sense, and b. its what actually happens pretty much everywhere it applies.

Ranked choice (and similar voting system variations) would almost certainly open the US and state legislative bodies to additional parties - without going to a party slate system. Count on the current 2 parties to try as hard as possible to get you and I to resist such changes.

 

[Albion]

I wouldn't disagree with you, but I have to say that there are a lot of schemes for changing the voting system that are making the rounds at the moment. Many of them are cleverly worded so as to benefit one or the other of the major parties while selling the idea that they will accomplish the opposite.

For anyone who is interested in changes in the voting system in their home state, either by the legislature or by referendum, vigilance is necessary so that some electoral wolf in sheep's clothing doesn't result.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, its not just a cultural thing. Its about the structural differences in the system.

Parliamentary systems are typical party-slate proportional across the whole country. So a party who gets even 5% could still end up represented and possibly part of a coalition.

For US Congress, each seat is its own first-pass-the-post contest.

You lost me with that last sentence.
But I'm in over my head, because US politics confuse me....

 

[durangodawood]

You lost me with that last sentence.
But I'm in over my head, because US politics confuse me....

FPTP is basically just a fancy term for winner-take-all.

The tendency there is that a vote for your absolute favorite some minor party rightist candidate will just have the effect of advancing the most popular leftist candidate (since youve effectively abstained from deciding among the 2 left & right front runners). So there's a natural strategic disincentive to vote minor party.

 

[Sketcher]

There's a difference between moderate on the scale of right/left and moderate in terms of how civil you are when discussing the issues. I have met some very immoderate moderates. A centrist party will not help us rise above the partisan games and slander we have right now.

 

[Earatha]

Is there room for a moderate party? Obviously.

In terms of political affiliation we have the two axis’s, the economic (socialist vs capitalist) and government size (authoritarian vs libertarian). Both parties are pretty settled into the authoritarian capitalist quarter of that chart. I know of very few authoritarian socialists who are active in the US today (for obvious reasons), but there are a few libertarian socialists though they aren’t in government (on second thought it can be argued there might be two who fit into that section, though just barely). There are a few libertarian capitalist elected officials, though not many.

A good portion of the electorate is NOT authoritarian capitalist in orientation, so there would definitely be appetite for other parties. Unfortunately we have a system that entrenches the current two parties, making it difficult to get more views represented.

 

[jayem]

I almost voted for Gary Johnson, but since I could not stand Hillary, I ended up voting for Trump as I did not want to waste my vote. It’s more of a vote against Hillary than a vote for Trump.

If Clinton wasn’t the Democratic nominee, I’d probably would have voted for the Libertarians.

Regarding Presidential elections, every vote for whichever candidate doesn't get a majority in your state is wasted. It's only the Electoral Votes that matter. And, IIRC, in all but 2 states, the candidate who gets a majority of the popular vote--no matter how small the margin--wins all of the EVs. It makes states, i.e., geography, more important than people. The system is an absurd and obsolete 18th century relic. It's unmitigated lunacy that we still use it to elect a President in the 21st century.

 

[Albion]

Regarding Presidential elections, every vote for whichever candidate doesn't get a majority in your state is wasted. It's only the Electoral Votes that matter.

Well, sure, but in every state, the candidate of either of the two major parties has a shot at winning those votes. The point made by Faithful Pilgrim was that if you vote third party instead, that is a vote of conscience for a candidate who, realistically speaking, has no chance of carrying the state.