A Third Party - A Christmas Present?

[MorkandMindy]

Yes, it's a political present.
I like it, a lot.

The standard-bearer of the Democratic Party, the Washington Post no less, has published an article stating that we need a third party.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/01/break-up-two-party-system/

 

[gaara4158]

Heck yes. We need to break up the two party system, but it will only happen if we dissolve our first-past-the-post electoral system. If we don’t do that, any third party will only ever siphon votes away from its closest adjacent first-party competitor, handing victory to the opposing party. Personally I like the idea of ranked choice voting, which circumvents this problem by awarding votes in order of preference rather than on an either-or basis.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Yes, the existing system produces polarization, and on top of that, a lot of people vote in a tribal way - us vs them.

Did we win or they beat us? It's about tribal identity on top of the greatly exaggerated differences between the two parties. It's often not about which party is better or worse but about winning or losing.

 

[Sketcher]

A third party is only likely to significantly take voters from one of the two, so the party that isn't split would take all if there were three parties. We need four at least.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The two-party system seems so entrenched that many people don't think about what they want but just work backward from the final choice between the two parties believing that is the only real choice to make.

But 2024 may end all that. By now it has become painfully evident that neither party will do much for the average person.

There have been enough bailouts in the last two decades to see that when the chips are down, both parties do the same thing. In 2008 G. W. Bush bailed out the banks. In 2009 Barrack Obama bailed out the banks.

And most of the money from the COVID relief packages went to the very rich. Both parties voted the same: all Senators present voted for the CARES Act, and 99% of the Representatives did too.

 

[Desk trauma]

Another option of two would be wonderful, now if some third party would do the boring work of building an organization that starts with local politics and works up from there rather then wasting time running for offices they have no hope of winning.

 

[MorkandMindy]

If there is a chance to break the two-party system then 2024 is it.

Polls have indicated that Andrew Yang's Forward Party is equally attractive to Republicans and Democrats.

It includes fairness and simplifying bureaucracy so will appeal to Republicans, and I hope those will appeal to Democrats too.

Andrew Yang also appeals to a large number of people because he is not a Washington insider, in with the lobbyists and out of touch with the common people. He has succeeded in business and is a very capable person, oh and is under 80.

 

[Occams Barber]

Heck yes. We need to break up the two party system, but it will only happen if we dissolve our first-past-the-post electoral system. If we don’t do that, any third party will only ever siphon votes away from its closest adjacent first-party competitor, handing victory to the opposing party. Personally I like the idea of ranked choice voting, which circumvents this problem by awarding votes in order of preference rather than on an either-or basis.

Australia uses a preferential (i.e., ranked choice) voting system for local, state and federal elections. In some elections there is a choice about whether or not you rank candidates ('optional' preferential).

Like the US we have two dominant left/right parties. The preferential system has the effect of opening things up and allowing minor party or independent candidates a chance at a seat. This can mean that a major party will be forced to form a coalition with one or two independents to get a voting majority. This forces parties to negotiate and compromise. It ain't perfect but it seems to be more effective than first-past-the-post.

If I was a US voter I'd think I'd be mostly concerned about the use of a filibustering and the gerrymander. Both appear to wildly anti-democratic.

OB

 

[MorkandMindy]

Another option of two would be wonderful, now if some third party would do the boring work of building an organization that starts with local politics and works up from there rather then wasting time running for offices they have no hope of winning.

That is exactly what the Forward Party has identified... pretty much word for word, and is developing right now.

I voted for Yang in the Democratic Primary because he was the only candidate who understood modern, post-1975 that is, economics. The others were back somewhere in the 1920s.

It is surprising how many people don't know which stage of the Industrial Revolution we are in right now. Or how much of government expenditure is funded by income tax (officially 49%, most likely will be less). Or how much of UBI will come from income tax (0%). Or how many conflicts the US is currently involved in worldwide.

 

[Desk trauma]

That is exactly what the Forward Party has identified... pretty much word for word, and is developing right now.

Wake me when they win some local or state offices.

 

[MorkandMindy]

...
Like the US we have two dominant left/right parties. The preferential system has the effect of opening things up and allowing minor party or independent candidates a chance at a seat. This can mean that a major party will be forced to form a coalition with one or two independents to get a voting majority. This forces parties to negotiate and compromise. It ain't perfect but it seems to be more effective than first-past-the-post.
...OB

Yes, first past the post means our parties don't have to try very hard, they just have to beat the other party, by a little bit.

 

[Desk trauma]

If there is a chance to break the two-party system then 2024 is it.

What differentiates 2024 from any other election cycle for third parties?

 

[MorkandMindy]

What differentiates 2024 from any other election cycle for third parties?

It appears that both parties are weak - neither seems able to provide an attractive new candidate, and as unpopular as Donald Trump became, Joe Biden has managed to be worse.

The public now are talking about picking the least bad rather than the best candidate. This is a recognition that the two-party system is not producing good candidates.

I would say not just the Washington Post but also the public are open to considering someone who would be less bad than either of the two party's offerings.

 

[MorkandMindy]

As people think more about UBI we will collectively understand the opportunities it opens up. And soon not just the full-time economists but even the general public will realize it is not a question of if, but of when.

 

[Sketcher]

Australia uses a preferential (i.e., ranked choice) voting system for local, state and federal elections. In some elections there is a choice about whether or not you rank candidates ('optional' preferential).

I would like to see this for primaries. If we'd had this for the 2016 primaries, Donald Trump would not have been President because his campaign's divide and conquer strategy for the Republican primary wouldn't have worked.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Another option of two would be wonderful, ...

Do you mean two more parties? If we retain the current voting system, people could divide between the two new parties detracting votes from both new parties.

With just one new party I think the Forward Party has a good chance.
If Yang doesn't win, the US will lose.

It is good to have the name 'Forward' and the associated slogan 'not left or right but forward.'

Also, Andrew Yang has an honesty that is usually absent from politicians.

And there is an additional bonus: ending the Blue / Red polarization, which has become a danger to national unity.

 

[Desk trauma]

If Yang doesn't win, the US will lose.

Then we loose. His party isn’t going to go from not exiting to holding any real power in one or two election cycles.

 

[Pommer]

Though it would require fiddling with the Constitution, we could go with a parliamentary system that is more amenable to having multiple parties and building coalition styles of governance rather than this constant “war” within Congress wherein the minority party is in constant opposition (I blame Newt Gingrich) to the majority.

Granted, this is a “feature” of a parliamentary system, too, but it is designed that way, whereas ours has been forced into this mode.

 

[MorkandMindy]

It would be useful to have some opposition on important issues. The Senate voted 98 in favor of the war in Afghanistan with 2 not voting and none opposed.

If the lobbyists want it then everyone they control votes for it and suddenly we notice that there is only one party.

As long as the lobbyists run the show the public have no say.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I would like to see this for primaries. If we'd had this for the 2016 primaries, Donald Trump would not have been President because his campaign's divide and conquer strategy for the Republican primary wouldn't have worked.

I see your point.

If two candidates will have similar policies, and one is different,

then the candidates with similar policies will share votes, and the contrary candidate may win.

You have a strong reason for transferable votes.