The Four Party system: a new look at party politics.

[Norbert]

Just think about things, and I would like it if the US had four parties.

Something like, from left to right.

Democratic Socialist Party: (Hillary/Obama.)

Democratic Republican Party: (Liebermann/Arnold/"blue dog" democrats.)

Federalist Party: (John McCain/Mike Huckabee/W?)

New Authority Party: (W?/Mitt Romney/former members of the Constitution party/Dick Cheney.)

That way, I think people could still have the benefits of the party system, with less of feeling like they're being dragged towards the center (or elsewhere) by the "other constituents" of the Party.

Just IMO. I hate the two-party system with a passion. Almost anything would be better.

Discuss!

 

[Bill3000]

Hillary/Obama arn't Democratic Socialist, lol. There's very little actual Social Democrats in the US, much less actual socialists; I was suprised to find out that there actually was one in the senate; he's an independent, though.

Won't work as long as we have a first-past-the-post system. Unless you plan to drastically change our election system, being dragged to the center is the most optimal choice for parties in the US.

 

[Norbert]

Hillary/Obama arn't Democratic Socialist, lol.

If Obama isn't, I shudder to think who is. You're saying the most left voting record in the Senate still makes you further right than the average "left" politician from Europe? (And don't try to tell me that the average lefty in Europe isn't a Democratic Socialist.)

The names were just the first four things that came to mind, btw.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Want 4 parties? Visit Canada.

Personally, a four-party system would be good, but it's unworkable with America's political system, as it is.

 

[Bill3000]

If Obama isn't, I shudder to think who is. You're saying the most left voting record in the Senate still makes you further right than the average "left" politician from Europe? (And don't try to tell me that the average lefty in Europe isn't a Democratic Socialist.)

We've been through this already. Obama isn't the most leftwing politition in the senate. As I said, there's a independent senator who identifies as a socialist and has more leftwing policies than him, regardless of whatever arbitrary "voting record" there is. And no, the average lefty in Europe arn't Democratic Socialists; they're Social Democrats - there's a significant difference. Social Democrats don't advocate for the transformation of the state to a socialist one, though they originated in the Socialist movement. Democratic Socialists are bone fide socialists.

You only consider him "socialist" because the american political center is to the right of most of the western world, but that's not have political labels work.

Your "Federalist Party" section is wrong; Mike Huckabee isn't in the same faction as John McCain. John McCain is a neoconservative; Mike Huckabee is an evangelist, and in european terms, a Christian Democrat. If you want a "four party system", do it under the traditional Social Democrat/Social Liberal/Market Liberal/Christian Democrat lines.

 

[Norbert]

We've been through this already. Obama isn't the most leftwing politition in the senate. As I said, there's a independent senator who identifies as a socialist and has more leftwing policies than him, regardless of whatever arbitrary "voting record" there is. And no, the average lefty in Europe arn't Democratic Socialists; they're Social Democrats - there's a significant difference. Social Democrats don't advocate for the transformation of the state to a socialist one, though they originated in the Socialist movement. Democratic Socialists are bone fide socialists.

Wikipedia has betrated me if the difference between "Social Democrats" and "Democratic Socialists" is that large...and not to stray to far off-topic, but regardless of what parties such as that of Segolene Royal "advocate", they do a pretty good job of convincing me they want to transform Europe into a series of Socialist states.

(Also, I haven't been here for a while. Didn't know we'd "gone over" Obama's voting record recently).

 

[History_Buff]

Well, a 2+ party system would do wonders for your government. It would seem silly to require it to be 4, though 4 would be a decent number.

It'll never happen without a major overhaul of the election system there though.

 

[Bill3000]

Wikipedia has betrated me if the difference between "Social Democrats" and "Democratic Socialists" is that large...and not to stray to far off-topic, but regardless of what parties such as that of Segolene Royal "advocate", they do a pretty good job of convincing me they want to transform Europe into a series of Socialist states.

The difference between Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists may not appear that large because after the fall of Communism, socialists appealed to more right-wing policies to lay in line with the right-wing trend.

A socialist state is defined as one in which the State has the means of production. A socialist state may not join the EU.

 

[Norbert]

Your "Federalist Party" section is wrong; Mike Huckabee isn't in the same faction as John McCain. John McCain is a neoconservative; Mike Huckabee is an evangelist, and in european terms, a Christian Democrat. If you want a "four party system", do it under the traditional Social Democrat/Social Liberal/Market Liberal/Christian Democrat lines.

Having read a great amount of literature on "neoconservatism", I don't think McCain is one.

And my system was loosely based on

Social Democrat/moderate "liberals" (I'm using the American definition here)/ "neocons" or members of the moderately religious right/Paleocons or "right-authoritarians".

As far as I know, despite his STRONG affiliations with Christianity, much of Huckabee's actual policy stances during the Presidential campaign place him firmly in the camp of "neoconservatism". See his ideas on labor unions, free trade, immigration, taxes, the war, etc.

 

[downtown]

We don't have a 2 party system because everybody in this country is "liberal" or "conservative". If diversity of thought was the only qualification, we would have several different parties.

But because of our winner take all system, and our federal election finance laws, its basically impossible for a new party to really develop. Thats why our coalitions are "built into" our major parties.

 

[Tycoon101]

Having a two party system keeps the status quo and prevents extremists from taking over. I like it.

 

[imperfect.la]

There's nothing in the Constitution or in the Laws of the United States that prohibit a 4 party system. By trying to force people to create one you're engaging in some sort of pseudo-communism; if the people want four parties, there will be four parties.

 

[Norbert]

There's nothing in the Constitution or in the Laws of the United States that prohibit a 4 party system. By trying to force people to create one you're engaging in some sort of pseudo-communism; if the people want four parties, there will be four parties.

Did I say I wanted to force people to create one?

(May be the first time I've ever been accused of "pseudo-Communism", btw.)

 

[downtown]

There's nothing in the Constitution or in the Laws of the United States that prohibit a 4 party system. .

Not explicitely, but the first past the post, winner take all electoral system make it de facto impossible. Because of other campaign finance laws, its basically impossible for a 3rd (or 4th) party to bankroll the needed money, and recruit enough downticket talent.

I'm not saying thats wrong or right, but if you wanted more political parties, you would have to rip up the way we vote

 

[West 36]

As a democratic socialist, I can surely tell you that the Democratic Party is no where near us.
More contending parties would be nice, very much so, but you don't just choose them, they are chosen by the people at large. And if all you can offer is the same candidates we have now in those parties, then whats the point?

 

[Shekwan]

Thats a good one, a multiparty system is pseudo-communism. I guess the reds really have taken over Europe

Wouldn't changing the voting system encourage the emergence of strong third and fourth parties? The first past the post electoral system is to blame for the two party system imho, see ''Duverger's Law''. I am aware that there are exceptions to this law, but it's pretty much as close to a ''law'' as you'll get in social sciences...

 

[JohnRM]

The people who matter like the two party dictatorship in America.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I've always liked the Indian political system. They have more than 30 political parties, which results in a lot of coalition-building to create a majority in the Lok Sabha so they can form a government. It means that no one party dominates the political process, and keeps the interests of all parties, from the right-wing free marketers to their two communist parties to the secularists to the ultra-Hindus, receiving plenty of attention.

 

[dwaxe]

Two major parties is good.

All Liberals vs. all Conservatives is great!

 

[History_Buff]

I've always liked the Indian political system. They have more than 30 political parties, which results in a lot of coalition-building to create a majority in the Lok Sabha so they can form a government. It means that no one party dominates the political process, and keeps the interests of all parties, from the right-wing free marketers to their two communist parties to the secularists to the ultra-Hindus, receiving plenty of attention.

In school we were always told Sweden worked the same way. I imagine many other European countries have this as well. Me wantee.