The GoP?

[Patine]

What you're describing sounds more like "partisanship" to me, and I don't see how that's specifically linked to there being two major parties? I've lived in both Canada and the United States, and honestly I've had trouble seeing any real major differences, except people here tend to be a bit more passionate, and of course Congress works a little different from Parliament.

I'm talking about the difference between only two parties being viable or significant, and a more healthy multi-party system. Outside a few small Oceanian countries, there are no sovereign nations with contested, electoral, representative, constitutional systems of government that have no political parties active in their electoral and government process.

 

[sophie]

The how do you explain H.R.1, the first item passed by the Democratically-controlled Congress [and ingloriously sat upon by Mitch McConnell]?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text

Never was going to get out of the Senate. It remains to be seen if they actually do something similar when/if they have the Presidency/Senate. They sure as hell didn't in 2008-2012.

Alternatively, look at how the Democratic Party treats actual, transformative policy necessary for reshaping the unjust structure of this country, viz., Medicare For All or the Green New Deal, or any kind of conversation about fundamental housing reform, or union protections. It's one thing to talk big when the voting public's eyes are on you and there's no risk of followthrough, but when the Dems actually have the opportunity to do something profound (like they always promise they'll do), they don't follow through with it. And that's not because the Dems are "incompetent," it's because they are, in economic, ethical, and ideological terms, exactly the same as the Republicans, just less frequently explicitly horsehockey to LGBT and brown folks (intentionally omitted from this list: poor folks).

 

[Lexicus]

They sure as hell didn't in 2008-2012.

Complacent fools that they were, they didn't think they needed to. Bear in mind that people are still being paid money to write articles about how demography is going to allow the Democrats to win every election ever in the next twenty years.
If the Republicans win the 2020 election there may never be a free and fair national election in the United States again.

 

[Patine]

I am baffled as to how you can read my post as a defense of a two-party system, let alone a self-righteous defense of same. A certain phrase you're very fond of springs to mind:

Oh, I don't know. Calling such criticism "misguided," and saying such critics "don't understand what they're criticizing," SOUNDS like such a defense to me.

 

[Lexicus]

Oh, I don't know. Calling such criticism "misguided," and saying such critics "don't understand what they're criticizing," SOUNDS like such a defense to me.

Yeah, because what they're really criticizing 99% of the time is either first-past-the-post voting or, as @MaryKB rather astutely pointed out, simple partisanship which exists in all sorts of contexts. My actual position is that proportional representation and FPTP voting each have their points and I'm pretty much agnostic between one and the other.

People who talk about the "two-party system" act as though Democrats and Republicans are part of some kind of actual conspiracy to shut out other parties and that other parties could easily be viable if it weren't for this bipartisan conspiracy; the reality is that third parties are virtually never viable because of first-past-the-post voting.

 

[Patine]

Never was going to get out of the Senate. It remains to be seen if they actually do something similar when/if they have the Presidency/Senate. They sure as hell didn't in 2008-2012.

Alternatively, look at how the Democratic Party treats actual, transformative policy necessary for reshaping the unjust structure of this country, viz., Medicare For All or the Green New Deal, or any kind of conversation about fundamental housing reform, or union protections. It's one thing to talk big when the voting public's eyes are on you and there's no risk of followthrough, but when the Dems actually have the opportunity to do something profound (like they always promise they'll do), they don't follow through with it. And that's not because the Dems are "incompetent," it's because they are, in economic, ethical, and ideological terms, exactly the same as the Republicans, just less frequently explicitly ****** to LGBT and brown folks (intentionally omitted from this list: poor folks).

Complacent fools that they were, they didn't think they needed to. Bear in mind that people are still being paid money to write articles about how demography is going to allow the Democrats to win every election ever in the next twenty years.
If the Republicans win the 2020 election there may never be a free and fair national election in the United States again.

Two big things the United States should get rid of entirely to move forward, dump it's worst baggage and it's biggest, high criminals, and have a real chance of bettering itself as a nation outside of just racking up national GDP and building a huge military (which has only had two flat-out, unqualified military victories since the end of WW2 - Grenada and Desert Storm, which are barely worthy of being called wars). And these two things are the Republican Party of the United States and the Democratic Party of the United States.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So if he crashes and burns hard and takes the GoP with it, is it worth it?

If it can destroy winner take all FPTP then the outcome is absolutely worth it. If it doesn't then it barely matters.

I figure that Republicans have an even shot at re-electing Trump provided the economy dosnt implode.

Probably better than even. Democratic field is still pretty split and incumbents have an annoyingly consistent track record. Last time an incumbent lost was Bill Clinton's first term. That's pretty crazy, but unless something big changes between now and next election we probably see that streak extend.

Fair enough. I vaguely remember the 92 elect ion.

I remember hearing bits and pieces of it, but I was ~half the legal voting age so it was a bit early to be considering such.

Not any more, really. The GOP of the last 20 years has lurched so far to the right that middle of the road would be several towns over from them. I don't think it's really useful to describe the Democrats in terms of Republican-lite anymore.

Is that really the case? It seems to me that the left has become further left than the right has lurched right, but part of this might be a selection effect (going far right is socially ostracized more so than far left).

To give illustrative examples at the top:

• Compare George Bush (or even his father) and his patriot act stuff to Trump. Aside from the degree of bluster, how much has really changed with their respective policies?
  
• Compare Bill Clinton to Bernie Sanders...this seems to be a significantly greater difference in platform.

Not many of their policies these days would have flown just 10 years ago, much less 20 within their own ranks.

Please give some examples. The patriot act + war on terror was more than 10 years ago and was egregious, with damage lasting until today. What would fly now that wouldn't in 2004?

The REAL needed thing to improve American political culture and give American voters REAL choice in elections is to break the corrupt and rigged power of the whole political Duopoly and create a functional and heathy(er) viable multi-party system. Until then, the U.S. political culture and system will continue to be one of the five worst in the First World, alongside Japan, Singapore, Portugal, and Hungary.

I don't know enough about Japan, Singapore, or Portugal's specifics. What have they done to be in this company?

None of them are running on platforms of open racism, misogyny, corruption and handing over the state to corporate interests.

True, some of them are instead replacing "misogyny" with "misandry" and keeping the others though.

I don't really understand complaints about "two party system," I mean isn't it similar in most places? Americans also have the Green Party, and Libertarian Party, and Independents ... but in Canada isn't it always sort of a back-and-forth between the Liberals and PCs? And in the UK, don't you mostly have either Labour or Conservatives? I'll totally admit my knowledge isn't the most thorough, but it seems that way to me at least I don't really see a lot of differences.

There's a pretty good YouTube video on it using animals as voters to illustrate the problems. The gist of it is constrained platforms and packaging of policies such that pretty much everyone is guaranteed to be unhappy about something. Another serious issue is that there's no way to avoid electing a self-serving cretin if two self-serving cretins win primaries...behavior primaries often reward in the US. If you don't have FPTP winner-take-all, people could readily pivot to more decent candidates. Under the current system that's impossible.

The present setup is also the reason gerrymandering is even worth doing. Destroying that incentive by making it worthless would be useful by itself.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They sure as hell didn't in 2008-2012

They only had the House until 2010 and they also lost their supermajority in the Senate at that time as well.

And the run up to 2010 saw the Democrats burn through absolutely all of their political capital to pass the ACA. Flawed as it was, that was as far as the electorate was going to go on the issue at the time. And they were rewarded for that effort by piss-poor turnout that handed the House to the GOP. I'm hesitant to just give Obama a pass for the legislative failures after 2010 but at the end of the day, the GOP leaders really did meet on inauguration night 2009 and decide their entire agenda was making sure he was a one-term President. Once the Dems lost control of Congress, there wasn't a whole lot he or the Dems could do to get their agenda passed. They weren't willing to suspend the supermajority rules in the Senate (LOL) and the House Republicans weren't willing to pass anything (even their own agenda!) beyond endless ACA repeals.

And while it took forever and a day to get the ACA through - time they could have maybe spent on other issues simultaneously - they were working under the delusion that the GOP wasn't full-on insane. They spent a lot of effort and time trying to get GOP Senators to work with them and pass their amendments in hopes they could have a bipartisan bill because, well, that's how big, sweeping reforms used to work in our country. In the end they found out that the few GOP Senators working with them were doing so purely on bad faith and they all spent the next decade trying to dismantle it.

In the end we got flawed reform that sucked the air out of the room as far as the rest of their legislative agenda but it's not fair to characterize the lack of success on other fronts as purely the fault of lackluster Democratic effort.

 

[Patine]

Is that really the case? It seems to me that the left has become further left than the right has lurched right, but part of this might be a selection effect (going far right is socially ostracized more so than far left).

To give illustrative examples at the top:

• Compare George Bush (or even his father) and his patriot act stuff to Trump. Aside from the degree of bluster, how much has really changed with their respective policies?
  
• Compare Bill Clinton to Bernie Sanders...this seems to be a significantly greater difference in platform.

Most people think of Bill Clinton as he is post-Presidency, with all his NGO's and philanthropy, and retcon him as being (or just assume he was, if they weren't old enough to be there) just as progressive as a President. In truth, he was very Centrist while in office, much like his old friend Richard Nixon was.

Please give some examples. The patriot act + war on terror was more than 10 years ago and was egregious, with damage lasting until today. What would fly now that wouldn't in 2004?

A lot of people discount a comparison with Bush, because he was so insidious and calculating and lacked the charisma and bluster of Trump - and Bush was a MUCH better liar, and much better at manipulatively playing being national fears and anger like a harp. Trump is just too transparent in these areas.

I don't know enough about Japan, Singapore, or Portugal's specifics. What have they done to be in this company?.

Effectively, Portugal has just as firmly locked a two-party-system, de facto, and is considered the most politically corrupt country in the EU. Japan has been governed by Liberal-Democratic Party (a right-wing corporatist party, lest American readers be led astray by the name), which is Abe Shinzo's Party, for ever government but two (both coming to power for one term on the tail of a global economic crash) since the late 1950's. In Singapore, the People's Action Party, founded by the late Lee Kwan-yew, has won every election by the large margin since independence in the 1960's. In Hungary, Fidesz has won huge majorities solid since 2006 or so, even to the point of having, in 2010, the two-third supermajority needed by the original 1990 Constitution in Hungary to rewrite the Constitution to their liking without needing to consult the other parties or the common citizens. This Constitution gave them further advantage, if only subtly, at winning further big majorities.

 

[Zardnaar]

This is a brief rundown of the 1993 election the last we had under FPTP.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_New_Zealand_general_election

Both main parties were starting to unravel. Also has an interesting electoral map. Each electorate was roughly the same size in terms of population. 4 parties in power but in effect two as the other 2 had 3 seats combined.

Electoral reform took around ten years. I think in 81 a third party got around 20% of the vote and 1 seat.

Referendum, both parties agreed to it due to collapsing party membership. Party dues were a major source of money back then plus boots on ground in electorates.

Corporate money is a big problem, they shouldn't be able to donate or if they can it goes into an electoral slush fund for election costs.

Rather than corporate dollars the parties would need members to donate time and money.

Money helps here Labour won despite being outspent 3-1.

If the GoP does collapse and keep doing it eventually they're going to need votes from place like New York and California.

Note liberals seem to think proportional representation will help them. Our governments have been 50/50 since 1996, it drags things towards the centre it locks the hard right and left out.

Minor parties still get dominated and have to make the choice of supporting center right or left parties. If they campaign on changing the government then support it their votes tend to collapse.

You would probably have 4 or 5 parties emerge in the states if you had proportional representation. Trump could still have won he would have done some rallies in New York or California.

Well you would probably have more parties than four or five but subsequent elections would think them out since they would probably be founded by charismatic members of Congress in safe seats loyal to them over the national party.

1987 went from 2 parties to 6 in 1996 which thinned them to 5 after the election we're down to 4 parties now with plus one hangover left from 1996 due to being gifted an electorate seat (0.5% popular vote).

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't really understand complaints about "two party system," I mean isn't it similar in most places? Americans also have the Green Party, and Libertarian Party, and Independents ... but in Canada isn't it always sort of a back-and-forth between the Liberals and PCs? And in the UK, don't you mostly have either Labour or Conservatives? I'll totally admit my knowledge isn't the most thorough, but it seems that way to me at least I don't really see a lot of differences.

I like how primaries work ... so you really have more than 2 candidates for each position, just you have voters have some elimination rounds until you're down to just those running for each party.

In our 2 party system you have to form your coalition prior to the election. In multi party systems you form your coalition after amongst all the players after the election. The dynamic is very different. Gerrymandering and winner take all voting have screwed up that process. If you eliminated gerrymandering and allowed proportional voting, things would be much better.State election laws need more uniformity and safeguards against suppression.

 

[Zkribbler]

They sure as hell didn't in 2008-2012.

At first, they were busy rescuing the nation from the Great Recession and working on healthcare. When those were done, Republicans in the Senate were in scorched-earth mode, filibustering anything.

 

[Patine]

Republicans in the Senate were in scorched-earth mode, filibustering anything.

And abdicating their oaths of office treasonously. But no one seems to consider that the high crimes it is.

 

[MaryKB]

I feel you're getting into full hyperbole mode, and I don't feel it's constructive to label your political opponents as "traitors."

 

[Patine]

I feel you're getting into full hyperbole mode, and I don't feel it's constructive to label your political opponents as "traitors."

MY political opponents? That statement implies I have a partisan membership or loyalty or allegiance to the Democratic Party of the United States to, by default, have "political opponents" among Republicans. And you're also assuming I don't have such indictments for Democrats in elected U.S. office. This is exactly the default thinking that comes of the two-party-system being so ingrained.

 

[Zardnaar]

I feel you're getting into full hyperbole mode, and I don't feel it's constructive to label your political opponents as "traitors."

This there's also no real definition of treason and blocking the president's agenda isn't treason (see current Dem house).

In America lose control of Congress is fairly common.
That happens here the opposition can call for a vote of no confidence which probably means election time.

The parties can also roll the leaders without having to resort to impeachment.

Not sure if that's a good idea with Australias 5 leaders in 5 years and 3 leaders in 4 years in the UK.

Outside of America it's also hard for party members to get leaders they like since the caucus selects them.

 

[Patine]

This there's also no real definition of treason and blocking the president's agenda isn't treason (see current Dem house).

I'm referring to willful abdication of duties of office (and yes, Democrats do it too - they weren't meant to be excluded by omission in a grand sense) in ending all productive work of governance and keeping the infrastructure of the nation funded and workable, or at least sincerely trying, for the purpose of making unproductive, petty, and often, unpopular or purely partisan on an ideological level, points.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm referring to willful abdication of duties of office (and yes, Democrats do it too - they weren't meant to be excluded by omission in a grand sense) in ending all productive work of governance and keeping the infrastructure of the nation funded and workable, or at least sincerely trying, for the purpose of making unproductive, petty, and often, unpopular or purely partisan on an ideological level, points.

Still not treason.

Parties often do things counter productive to the county or even their own party.

Normally they get chucked out at the next election but that seems to be changing.

 

[Zkribbler]

This there's also no real definition of treason

Treason against the United States “shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
US Const., Art. I.

 

[Patine]

Still not treason.

Parties often do things counter productive to the county or even their own party.

Normally they get chucked out at the next election but that seems to be changing.

If Louis XVI, King of France, can be indicted for treason, so can a lot of U.S. elected government officials. Louis' charges mostly stemmed on mismanagement, driving up horrid debts, running infrastructure into the ground, nepotism among the high nobility, awful lopsided tax laws, and contempt for the common people in many ways. The attempt to flee at the Luxumbourg border inn was more of a "straw that broke the camel's back," incident. So many U.S. elected officials are pretty much guilty of those things too - and more.