Big Think

JW Kopp on January 7, 2008, 8:09 AM

Until people stop identifying themselves with a D or R and start actually looking at the people running for office we will always be voting for card board cut out politicians. Special interests on each side of the political spectrum have more to say than they should and the common man gets left in the dust.

JW Kopp on January 7, 2008, 1:09 PM

Until people stop identifying themselves with a D or R and start actually looking at the people running for office we will always be voting for card board cut out politicians. Special interests on each side of the political spectrum have more to say than they should and the common man gets left in the dust.

Barry Deutsch on January 7, 2008, 1:32 PM

I think a lot of people are orphaned by the two parties and I think they are distinct. I, for example, will never feel comfortable with the nanny state approach of the Democrat left and I am decidedly threatened by the religious fanatacism of the Republican right. And, I have watched so-called moderates in both parties pander to those fringes. We need a viable centist party to stand for what I think of as mainstream values.

Barry Deutsch on January 7, 2008, 6:32 PM

I think a lot of people are orphaned by the two parties and I think they are distinct. I, for example, will never feel comfortable with the nanny state approach of the Democrat left and I am decidedly threatened by the religious fanatacism of the Republican right. And, I have watched so-called moderates in both parties pander to those fringes. We need a viable centist party to stand for what I think of as mainstream values.

Richard Dudley on January 8, 2008, 11:17 AM

The two party system severely limits options and creates polarization where little existed. A better option is to allow selection of first second and third choices. Such a system has been investigated, will allow the emergence of more parties, but still avoids the "no one got more than 50%" problem. This will allow better representation which can also avoid splitting votes for similar philosophies. – Richard

Richard Dudley on January 8, 2008, 4:17 PM

The two party system severely limits options and creates polarization where little existed. A better option is to allow selection of first second and third choices. Such a system has been investigated, will allow the emergence of more parties, but still avoids the “no one got more than 50%” problem. This will allow better representation which can also avoid splitting votes for similar philosophies. – Richard

Thuce Seven on January 9, 2008, 6:29 AM

The political marketplace of ideas is a free one. The candidates offer policies in return for public support. The parties reacted to a moderation of the electorate by moderating their own platforms.

One could argue that two parties are actually too many parties! Abolishing the party system would allow candidates to offer a broader range of policies that might not necessarily be the "party line."

Thuce Seven on January 9, 2008, 11:29 AM

The political marketplace of ideas is a free one. The candidates offer policies in return for public support. The parties reacted to a moderation of the electorate by moderating their own platforms.

One could argue that two parties are actually too many parties! Abolishing the party system would allow candidates to offer a broader range of policies that might not necessarily be the “party line.”

Taylor Englander on January 10, 2008, 6:27 PM

I have proposed a 3 President system in my first "Big Idea"; feedback about my idea are welcome!

Taylor Englander on January 10, 2008, 11:27 PM

I have proposed a 3 President system in my first “Big Idea”; feedback about my idea are welcome!

Richard Marks on January 14, 2008, 10:12 AM

What we call the two party system is really two amalgamations of state parties. Does the Republican party in Alabama have more in common with the Democratic party in Arkansas or the Republican party in Massachusetts?

Richard Marks on January 14, 2008, 3:12 PM

What we call the two party system is really two amalgamations of state parties. Does the Republican party in Alabama have more in common with the Democratic party in Arkansas or the Republican party in Massachusetts?

Chris Brummel on January 14, 2008, 10:27 PM

Both parties do their best to stay exactly where they are; and until we have run-off voting at the local level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) to break down a two party system, we will never get close to breaking anything down at a national level.

But even then, Democrats and Republicans are especially effective of suppressing run-off voting initiatives off of local ballots.

Chris Brummel on January 14, 2008, 10:27 PM

Both parties do their best to stay exactly where they are; and until we have run-off voting at the local level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) to break down a two party system, we will never get close to breaking anything down at a national level.

But even then, Democrats and Republicans are especially effective of suppressing run-off voting initiatives off of local ballots.

Chris Brummel on January 15, 2008, 3:27 AM

Both parties do their best to stay exactly where they are; and until we have run-off voting at the local level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) to break down a two party system, we will never get close to breaking anything down at a national level.

But even then, Democrats and Republicans are especially effective of suppressing run-off voting initiatives off of local ballots.

Chris Brummel on January 15, 2008, 3:27 AM

Both parties do their best to stay exactly where they are; and until we have run-off voting at the local level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) to break down a two party system, we will never get close to breaking anything down at a national level.

But even then, Democrats and Republicans are especially effective of suppressing run-off voting initiatives off of local ballots.

Sarah Loeb on January 15, 2008, 6:55 PM

The two party system forces the public to simplify their viewpoints and narrow themselves into one or the other. I believe parties force candidates and members into certain beliefs and are too constraining in general.

Alyssa McMurtry on January 15, 2008, 8:50 PM

Can anyone tell me which Democrat co-authored the Patriot Act? I would be very interested to know.

Jared Hoover on January 15, 2008, 10:46 PM

Both parties are led by similar people differing quite weakly on small nuances of so-called "beliefs." These parties are gravitating toward the moderateness and the moderate voter for fear of alienating a group of Americans, when they need to realize that having the gravitas to be more independent minded would at least lend them the respect (if not the votes) of a majority of citizens.

Sarah Loeb on January 15, 2008, 11:55 PM

The two party system forces the public to simplify their viewpoints and narrow themselves into one or the other. I believe parties force candidates and members into certain beliefs and are too constraining in general.

Alyssa McMurtry on January 16, 2008, 1:50 AM

Can anyone tell me which Democrat co-authored the Patriot Act? I would be very interested to know.

Jared Hoover on January 16, 2008, 3:46 AM

Both parties are led by similar people differing quite weakly on small nuances of so-called “beliefs.” These parties are gravitating toward the moderateness and the moderate voter for fear of alienating a group of Americans, when they need to realize that having the gravitas to be more independent minded would at least lend them the respect (if not the votes) of a majority of citizens.

Steven White on January 16, 2008, 9:06 PM

The two parties aren't enough. But even if the Democrats ran to the left and the Republicans ran to the right ideologically and ditches the corporate control, we would still have majors problems. Many of these issues have become ideological failures not so much structural failures.

Look at Kucinich. He wants to give black people reparations for slavery, which ended over one hundred years before I was born. Look at affirmative action in general and who benefits and who loses. Look at abortion which Dennis knows is wrong, esp. after the fetus is viable and could just be taken out of the womb and live. But the Democrats insist on being pro-third trimester abortions.

I'm on the far left too on most issues. But trade is a difficult issue and we have to consider the foreign poor. Abortion of viable fetuses is just wrong. And continuing to live in the past with reparations is just absurd and wrong and frankly racist. Those issues prevent me from voting for him.

Steven White on January 17, 2008, 2:06 AM

The two parties aren’t enough. But even if the Democrats ran to the left and the Republicans ran to the right ideologically and ditches the corporate control, we would still have majors problems. Many of these issues have become ideological failures not so much structural failures.

Look at Kucinich. He wants to give black people reparations for slavery, which ended over one hundred years before I was born. Look at affirmative action in general and who benefits and who loses. Look at abortion which Dennis knows is wrong, esp. after the fetus is viable and could just be taken out of the womb and live. But the Democrats insist on being pro-third trimester abortions.

I’m on the far left too on most issues. But trade is a difficult issue and we have to consider the foreign poor. Abortion of viable fetuses is just wrong. And continuing to live in the past with reparations is just absurd and wrong and frankly racist. Those issues prevent me from voting for him.

Alex Tanner on January 18, 2008, 9:29 AM

I call it the wealth party

Alex Tanner on January 18, 2008, 2:29 PM

I call it the wealth party

Ben Siferd on January 20, 2008, 12:18 PM

If you have more than two parties like we do in Canada than you can have minority governments. Than meas that there could have been a party with 34% of the vote than two other parties with 33% each. That means that 66% of the country didn't want that party.

Ben Siferd on January 20, 2008, 5:18 PM

If you have more than two parties like we do in Canada than you can have minority governments. Than meas that there could have been a party with 34% of the vote than two other parties with 33% each. That means that 66% of the country didn’t want that party.

Misha Vargas on January 21, 2008, 8:20 PM

Just commenting to agree with captphatsidy and rgdudley about instant-runoff voting.

Until you have a preferential voting system, you cannot vote for a third party candidate; you must take into consideration other peoples votes, or risk wasting yours.

Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and other politicians with strongly divergent positions (e.g. Pat Buchanan and The Chicken Man) should support instant-runoff elections. And so should anyone who feels unrepresented in the debates up on the stages and in the media.

Misha Vargas on January 22, 2008, 1:20 AM

Just commenting to agree with captphatsidy and rgdudley about instant-runoff voting.

Until you have a preferential voting system, you cannot vote for a third party candidate; you must take into consideration other peoples votes, or risk wasting yours.

Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and other politicians with strongly divergent positions (e.g. Pat Buchanan and The Chicken Man) should support instant-runoff elections. And so should anyone who feels unrepresented in the debates up on the stages and in the media.

Amyellen Leib on January 31, 2008, 11:11 AM

I feel that we really only have one party now, dressed up in different clothes on social issues, but in the end, all driven to pander to corporate America.

I would like to see ALL people who want to run for office, regardless of party affiliation, have equal and open access to state their platforms. As it stands now, the money begets the money.

Amyellen Leib on January 31, 2008, 4:11 PM

I feel that we really only have one party now, dressed up in different clothes on social issues, but in the end, all driven to pander to corporate America.

I would like to see ALL people who want to run for office, regardless of party affiliation, have equal and open access to state their platforms. As it stands now, the money begets the money.

Anna Matsen on February 2, 2008, 8:25 AM

Right on, Kucinich!

The question, of course, is how do we get away from the two party system? It's one thing to tell the electorate "Hey! Take third party candidates seriously! Vote for them!" That hasn't worked. What WOULD work would be if we changed the structure of funding for elections, and if debates between people other than Democrats and Republicans were nationally televised. Changing the system to a true democracy is gonna take real election reform that makes it so that ideas, not funds, are the biggest factor in electibility; and it's gonna take a responsible media that shows not just one side, not two sides, but many, many sides of EVERY issue of PRACTICAL importance to the American people. That's what we, as citizens, should be campaigning for.

Anna Matsen on February 2, 2008, 1:25 PM

Right on, Kucinich!

The question, of course, is how do we get away from the two party system? It’s one thing to tell the electorate “Hey! Take third party candidates seriously! Vote for them!” That hasn’t worked. What WOULD work would be if we changed the structure of funding for elections, and if debates between people other than Democrats and Republicans were nationally televised. Changing the system to a true democracy is gonna take real election reform that makes it so that ideas, not funds, are the biggest factor in electibility; and it’s gonna take a responsible media that shows not just one side, not two sides, but many, many sides of EVERY issue of PRACTICAL importance to the American people. That’s what we, as citizens, should be campaigning for.

Jen Something on February 9, 2008, 1:29 PM

Ya! Tell the truth!!! Refreshing! THE TRUTH!!!!

You get a 'get out of hell' free card!

I like you and Ron Paul.

Constitution, truth, honesty….

Jen Something on February 9, 2008, 6:29 PM

Ya! Tell the truth!!! Refreshing! THE TRUTH!!!!

You get a ‘get out of hell’ free card!

I like you and Ron Paul.

Constitution, truth, honesty….

Jen Something on March 18, 2008, 6:26 PM

There is a youtube debate and guess who is not invited….
Ron Paul you know, another guy telling the truth. This is worthy of RICO fraud by the media it is fraudulent conveyance and actionable deception! Stay true to you Dennis! Your a good man.

http://www.youtube.com/youchoose

Jen Something on March 18, 2008, 10:26 PM

There is a youtube debate and guess who is not invited….
Ron Paul you know, another guy telling the truth. This is worthy of RICO fraud by the media it is fraudulent conveyance and actionable deception! Stay true to you Dennis! Your a good man.

http://www.youtube.com/youchoose

Luke Allen on June 5, 2008, 6:25 AM

The third party in America: Socially liberal and financially conservative. Get the Democrats out of our wallets. Get the Republicans out of our bedroom. OR stand to lose all your money and rights.

Luke Allen on June 5, 2008, 10:25 AM

The third party in America: Socially liberal and financially conservative. Get the Democrats out of our wallets. Get the Republicans out of our bedroom. OR stand to lose all your money and rights.

Gregory Wonderwheel on June 22, 2008, 1:03 PM

The political system needs to be fixed to have a fair playing field for alternative ideas of alternative parties. Right now we have two-wings of the American Business party. The single most important reform that would make alternative political philosophies and policies have a better chance is the adoption of a federal law requiring all federal elections to be conducted using Instant Runoff Voting. Then people who wanted to vote for alternative parties would not necessarily be wasting their first choice vote if they voted for a major party as their second or third choice vote.

Gregory Wonderwheel on June 22, 2008, 5:03 PM

The political system needs to be fixed to have a fair playing field for alternative ideas of alternative parties. Right now we have two-wings of the American Business party. The single most important reform that would make alternative political philosophies and policies have a better chance is the adoption of a federal law requiring all federal elections to be conducted using Instant Runoff Voting. Then people who wanted to vote for alternative parties would not necessarily be wasting their first choice vote if they voted for a major party as their second or third choice vote.

Cory Sweetin on September 18, 2008, 7:05 PM

Duverger’s Law: plurality single member districts create a two party system.

A third party isn’t viable because its possible to aid your least favorite candidate with a third party vote. In the US the two parties are so similar ideologically because we are so similar ideologically. Our classical liberal tradition is so entrenched and unthreatened by other political traditions that we don’t even realize how ideologically similar we are. The distribution of our electorate follows a more normal distribution. We’ve never had a true Communist movement or serious cries for monarchy. Most democracies have or do and so their electorates’ distributions are more sinusoidal. Thus, they have more parties representing more divergent idological niches in the electorate.

Instant run off voting won’t work in my opinion because people would be inclined to vote last in case their least favorite canidate is winning. Plus there’s issues of protecting secrecy.

I think preferential voting has more promise and would facilitate third, fourth, fifth party influence on D & R platforms. But we might also need to address the problem of single member districts to ensure that those other party agendas materialize in policy making. Any thoughts?

al loomis on October 6, 2008, 1:07 AM

or we could try democracy.

select laws, policies and plans by referendum. put administrators in charge of running the nation, and make them work in public to be sure they’re doing what we hire them for.

Cory Sweetin on November 18, 2008, 7:33 PM

To proponents of initiative and referendum based democracy:

Direct popular vote is what Madison warned against in Federalist 10 because it leads to a tyranny of the majority. A great example is the ballot initiative on banning gay marriage in California. Democracy isn’t so much about majority wins. It’s about protecting the minority from the the majority. That’s why we have a representative democracy in the US with legislatures and an electoral college. These institutions filter popular will.

Ohm Gore on December 26, 2008, 9:33 PM

I apologize if someone else posted this already, as this is a well-watched video. Personally, I support approval voting on all candidate ballots. Basically, in such a system, as voter may mark as many or as few candidates as he or she likes; for example, in 2000, a hypothetical Florida voter could have marked both Ralph Nader, who she supported, and Al Gore, who she thought had a chance of winning. The votes for each candidate are tallied, and the winner is declared for that county, state, etc. (If no one candidate received 50% 1 of the vote, then we could have the current plurality system or have a runoff election a la Georgia or Louisiana.)

This method allows for the best kind of voting, one with effects and one that expresses people’s opinions. A voter could vote his conscience, which could be a third-party, and ensure that his honest vote did not help his least-favorite candidate, since he would also vote for the two-party candidate he liked the best. Additionally, we would be able to take an accurate barometer of a particular candidate’s popularity, which is especially important in determining eligibility for federal matching funds.

If, after implementing this system, the two parties remain in power…well, that means that the American people want these two somewhat-similar groups the way they are. However, we might surprise ourselves and give a third-party candidate more approval votes than either major party candidate.