politics

Someone also needs to start a fourth party at the same time which is socially left but fiscally right. A lot of conservatives don't give a shit about the social aspect of the Democrats but just like the financial side of Republicans more so they vote that way instead.

A 4 party system is better than 3 party, and this way instead of a third party syphoning votes from only Democrats you'll have another party syphoning votes from Republicans at the same time so there's no downside.

How would elections even work if there were three parties? Doesn't there need to be a majority for the president to be declared? Or is that because of the current two party system? Does it just need to be the party with the most electoral votes, not over 50%?

If there were three parties and it ended up being 33/33/34, would the party with 34% of the electoral votes be the one to win the presidency?

Here in the Netherlands our house of representatives has 150 seats and they're filled by 15 parties, the biggest of whom has 37 seats, the second 25. People sometimes suggest that political fragmentation makes things more complicated, because usually at least 3 or 4 parties are needed to form a coalition. I don't really think it matters because I look at it this way: there are different views on things in society and compromises need to be found one way or another, it's where this takes place that's different. In one case it's on the conference of 1 or 2 big parties, in the other case it happens in parlement/government where the many small parties meet. The benefit of a many-party system is that people actually got a choice, if you're on the left and don't like what a particular party is doing, you can pick another leftwing party. You don't have that option in a 2-party system, you'll probably stick with your party despite everything you don't like about it. Here, if a party really fucks up, they're done for, a party can get 20% one election and 1% the next one. The system is more dynamic. At the same time, the actual governments usually have an overlap, like there will be different coalitions, but our center-right party has been in the coalition for over a decade now. There may be a certain charm to knowing that every other election a completely new set of people forms the government, but that also has many downsides I think. There'll be little continuity, republicans undo everything democrats have done and in 4 years we'll see the reverse. Haven't heard any really convincing arguments against political fragmentations. It's just the path towards it that may be difficult if you're in a 2 party system, because as soon as you go third party, you're hurting your side of the spectrum. What would be helpfull is if it would happen on both sides simultaneously. Can't you setup a structure where people from both sides would together commit to voting third-party?

The independent party is back!

Unpaywalled link: https://archive.ph/s09Er

he's only saying that because he happens to live in a super liberal small rural state.

know what happens in most ither states where you don't have name recognition or a party infrastructure behind you and you run for office? unless you have some sort of money reserve you can tap into and dollar bills come gushing out like an oil geyser, it's damn near impossible to not just win but get ballot access TO win. and if you do get ballot access, all you will do is steal votes from the registered democratic candidate (or the democratic candidate steals votes from you) and the republican wins.

a brilliant strategy from a man who twice ran for president as a democrat but refused to change his party affiliation. he didn't even take his own damn advice, and look at what that got us. just the fact that he didn't do this his own damn self should show how stupid an idea it actually is.

and by the way, sure he and aoc are drawing huge crowds. crowds are nothing. how many of those people vote? how many of those people get 2 more people to vote? just showing up to a rally means absolutely fuckall if you don't actually go vote and vote for viable candidates. because if your message resonates with the people enough you don't have to run unaffiliated with a major party because you would have the votes to run and win as a democratic candidate in the first place. because to be very honest, the thing that bernie is suggesting not only sounds like an exercise in liberal grifting, it also sounds like an excellent way to divide a voting bloc that when split has absolutely no chance of beating a republican ever but would absolutely lead to entrenched infighting among a group that should be united in beating republican christian nationalist fascism.

We really should be calling the "centrist" ones "Republicrats."

How would any other party get any time on a national platform to campaign, the way Democrats and Republicans do? I mean, we do have more than those two parties; but they're never included in big debates or really given any attention at all. I'm surprised I don't hear idiots saying shit like "Dude, I voted today and there was like 6 motherfuckers on the ballot instead of just two!"

"Have you tried rebranding?"

Brilliant.

Hell, run as Republicans and infiltrate.