Author: Why the two-party system is destroying America

[@v-for-vieira]

It’s really hard not be cynical about democracy, while lobbying and corporations campaign donations are legal

[@ongoinglife]

America's Real Divide is NOT Left vs. Right. It's Democracy vs. Oligarchy ! - www.NationOfChange.org/2019/07/10/americas-real-divide-isnt-left-vs-right-its-democracy-vs-oligarchy/

[@pyotrkropotkin406]

Danillo Vieira Those issues aren't due to democracy but legalized corruption in the US. Those are very different things.

[@leovolont]

Hi Danillo, Not only do we have to worry about money influencing politics, well, we have to worry about money influencing EVERYTHING. For instance: Freedom of the Press. Okay, who decides who is a journalist? Who owns the Media Companies. Nobody elects Media Companies. Nobody elects Journalists. Nobody gets to go over Movie and TV Screen Plays. How many times do you go to the movies and think 'even little punk schitty characters must be making $250,000 a year to afford these parties, cars, flats, the restaurants they lounge around it'. Really, everything in our lives is an Indoctrination Pickle. Really, just talk to people and see what they say. People are actually hynotized and talk in rational paradoxes all the time. They don't know the Truth. they know what they've been told. the thing they get wrong the most is about the Mafia. The Cops are the bad guys. The Mafia doesn't shoot witnesses. Why? Because everybody just tells the cops "I didn't see nothin". Why would the mafia need to shoot anybody. In those neighborhoods the Mafia are the good guys. If you have a problem, you don't call the cops. You neighbors kids play their rock and roll too loud. To talk to Mr. Alphonso and people reach an understanding. Take a look a neighborhood with a Strong "Family" Presence and a neighborhood that just has cops. The White Picket Fences are Family. The cops are the ones with the dumps and the slums and the ghettos. That is what I mean. Everything the Media shows us is some kind of a lie.

[@0Cruik0]

This is why I'm supporting Andrew Yang, his idea for Democracy Dollars ( a $100 voucher for everyone to fund a political campaign of their choice) could wash out private money by making it too expensive to compete with the rest of us. Lobbyists deal in amounts of $100,000-300,000 individually, with DD you could raise millions as an individual just by getting a thousand or so people to give you their yearly $100 DD voucher.

[@throwaway5926]

@@0Cruik0 I like Yang and this is an interesting idea. Is this actual money though? Because this would mean an added expense to the budget of $100 x voter, no? That can get pricey quickly, and it would fluctuate quite a bit.

[@Gkuljian]

It's not left versus right. It's have-nots versus have-yachts.

[@daffodilunderhill7066]

have-nots versus have-yachts LOL I am so stealing this!!

[@Gkuljian]

@@daffodilunderhill7066 I stole it from Max Keiser.

[@daffodilunderhill7066]

@@Gkuljian Well, thanks for passing it along. This is the first time I've heard it and hopefully not the last. :)

[@evaman0182]

This deserves an up-vote, kudos good sir

[@MonicaG_]

@Glow Worm brother you are on track BUT you are missing some Crucial points.

[@Dr.Grafenberg]

One thing this guy left out is the fact that if we have 10 major parties it'll be a lot harder to buy all of them then just our 2 party corporate system we have now

[@Kipperbob]

I live in Ireland, we have a lot of party's and we still have a corporate bought government, They still get bought, its just that the pot of money gets spread thinner.

[@seanm.1813]

The key to understanding the political system in the states is there's little difference at the top, world of difference at the bottom

[@kkay3784]

Yes! Thanks for that.

[@hermitant9]

Wbk lol

[@Gloriath1]

"Is the two-party system destroying America?" Yes. You're welcome.

[@paredown.]

Yes to ranked choice voting.

[@josh77577]

ranked choice voting is bad for progressives

[@Nunyabusiness40]

@@josh77577 Is this a joke

[@josh77577]

@@Nunyabusiness40 nope. Rank choice voting makes it easier for centrists to win. Think about it. There are only a couple progressives in a race with a bunch of centrists running against the progressives. In rank choice voting even if the progressive gets the most votes on the first round all those other centrists' votes will come together in the additional rounds.

[@sean7139]

@@josh77577 That's not ranked choice voting. You're thinking of what the Iowa caucus does. Rank choice voting allows you to rank your candidates 1-whatever and they are weighted so the winner reflects something all people want

[@mrm7058]

Why not proportional representation?

[@Vollpflock]

Greetings from Switzerland, which has the best democracy in my eyes.

[@MrPotatochips4]

And a wonderful culture all round.

[@josh77577]

agreed. Kyle Kulinski thinks his idea is unique lmao. His direct democracy Idea. Little does he know that has already been implemented in Switzerland where you can vote directly on policies.

[@debralegorreta1375]

Nice watches and pocket knives too.

[@ghenulo]

Und ein neutrales Land?

[@onnol917]

too bad about the nazi gold though but in respects to their people yeah man

[@tiredox3788]

We need a 5 party system and give Republicans and Democrats a run for their money.

[@timbingen4772]

At least 4 and ranked choice voting.

[@josh77577]

@@timbingen4772 rank choice voting is bad for progressives and good for centrists. Why would you want that system?

[@goji059]

More pigs at the trough.....THINK about what you're saying

[@timbingen4772]

@@josh77577 Because it does represent more of the populations political views. Personally I don't think there are that many centrists. I could be wrong. I'm an Independent. Many people confuse that with centrist. We actually have views across the political spectrum. We just detest both establishment parties. I consider myself an Independent but I am more of an economic populist. I am looking at it from my perspective. My choices until Bernie have always been the lesser of two evils in the two party system. In this election I would be able to vote for Bernie, Tulsi, or Yang. They are all a little different, but I would take one of them over any establishment candidate. It would give me a broader choice of candidates that I could live with. All three would probably fit in a little different category or party. That is my take on it.

[@tiredox3788]

@@josh77577 Becuase it's a democracy

[@SpringwaterParkcc]

The founder of Canada's universal health care system, 1962, was T.C. (Tommy) Douglas. He was the provincial and federal leader of our 3rd party, CCF and then NDP. In 2004 he was named the "Greatest Canadian". Just ask his grandson: Kiefer Sutherland.

[@reforest4fertility]

Les Stewart Huh, you’d think from reading this now that the NDP would have held and kept federal power, by now at least. What causes the critical mess of CDNs voting for Mr. Delay or Mr. Deny, to quote Jagmeet Singh?

[@reforest4fertility]

Ryan C Yeah, like everywhere nearly our deference has let fascist power accrue. I think Ireland and 2 other “western” nations got past the 1st past the post into some form of proportional representation.

[@SpringwaterParkcc]

@@reforest4fertility Some parties were never meant to hold power. Most CDNs appreciate a well-supervised minority government; that allows for progressive issues to penetrate the walls of Ottawa/provinces. As St Leonard says: "It's good to have a crack, that's where the light comes in." (sort of) lol

[@reforest4fertility]

Les Stewart “Some parties”, we’re talking about the NDP, which has held and holds power in some provinces, but never federally. By saying “never meant to hold power” by who? Probably the Libs & PCs-come arch- cons. Cuz 3 parties ensures there’ll always be at least 2. The 2 lesser gang up on the top dog keeping it at least two parties. In the US the 2 parties have morphed into 1 fascist monolith. Canada has a “friendly dictator” until it doesn’t, making CDN politics like Russian Roulette. Mulroney-bang! Harper-bang! When is all this banging gonna wake us up?

[@reforest4fertility]

Mercb3ast Hmmph. I suppose you’re right. I live left - I meant west, but hasn’t the NDP won a premiership east of Saskatchewan or Manitoba. Not Quebec or Ontario, but on the eastern seaboard? I would think those people, who me from the west, I’ve noticed and appreciated those folks are the most hospitable magnanimous in the country. I’d think they must have gone NDP at some point, no?

[@BZ-pe4le]

Israel's partisanship also negates the fact that almost 5 million Palestinians under Israeli rule can not vote for any representation.

[@dukedematteo1995]

Would those 5 million people want to be citizens of Israel? Doubt it.

[@BZ-pe4le]

@@dukedematteo1995 Which is why if they got a vote they'd probably overturn everything that makes the state a jewish ethno-state...

[@alveolate]

non-jewish israelis are also routinely rendered invisible whenever bibi talks about the "jewish state"

[@mswen1983]

@@dukedematteo1995 Judging from the fact that they have asked for full citizenship in peace agreements, I would say yes.

[@6idangle]

Duke DeMatteo they ask for it all of the time

[@MrCreyescal]

No way! I wonder why they would even have a two party system? it almost seems like the perfect system to dvide a country in two. Unbelievable....whoa...

[@doctormeatball7618]

Did this guy just say that we have two political parties here in America, *completely distinct?* The problem is that THERE IS ALMOST NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, save a small handful of wedge issues. What a chump.

[@dogbonetv4821]

only difference between dems and reps is, dems lie and try to hide it, reps lie to your face and dont care what you think.

[@doctormeatball7618]

@dendo111 I don't like sophistry, dude. Outside of guns, abortion and identity based issues, please, tell me where the differences lie between parties? Economically and militaristically, there is zero difference. What am I missing?

[@josh77577]

that's the point @DoctorMeatball! As Jesse Ventura says; "America is a 2 party dictatorship".

[@positivepumpkin3081]

Sounds like an argument in his favor for changing things up?

[@yusefendure]

He's no chump, but he is an idealist. What he's not addressing is the fact that we live in a plutocracy.

[@Dr.Grafenberg]

Not sure if this was a debate, but Lee was the winner.

[@RefurbishedPrototype]

In federal elections, each state should be a single district. Gerrymandering dismantled.

[@jef_3006]

There's a lot of value in having a federal representative who is only answerable to your city/county and it's local issues. There are other ways to dismantle gerrymandering.

[@katherinemorelle7115]

There’s a middle ground- larger electorates with mixed member proportional representation. Which is what New Zealand has.

[@SomeOne1121]

"Hi America, we're the rest of the world. Nice to meet you. So what's your deal?"

[@leealexander3507]

I think Thomas Jefferson was right. We shouldn't have parties at all.

[@Qub1]

Ideally that would be the case, but forming groups is just a human instinct, so I think a multi-party system works as a good compromise. It also makes it a lot easier to convey your message if people associate your party with a set of values. There should be just enough parties for the views to be varied enough so that people who are in each party actually like the party.

[@Kipperbob]

I agree

[@dragon8me2]

Ranked choice is the only way for it to work.

[@TheKaitastrophe]

Andrew Yang has proposed ranked choice voting in the US. It's one of my favorite policies. It allows you to vote for who you WANT to vote for without fear of wasting your vote by not using it on the "popular candidate".

[@kossnfx]

This might be the smartest, most thoughtful guest I have ever seen on this show.

[@Dr.Grafenberg]

Ryan looks good in this segment

[@Dr.Grafenberg]

@axertrybal oh

[@Dr.Grafenberg]

@axertrybal i thought i went gay for a moment

[@MonicaG_]

Underrated thread 🤣🤣

[@MonicaG_]

@@Dr.Grafenberg that would've been ok too 👍

[@chezeus1672]

another major thing that increases turnout in australia is their COMPULSORY VOTING SYSTEM. great argument you there, buddy.

[@NoExitLoveNow]

We don't have a "two party system". We have a first past the post system, which tends to result in two main parties arising.

[@brianjacobsen5762]

Freedom From Choice.! Is what you want. freedom from choice. Is what you need.! DeVo. 1982

[@stevencorley3296]

Ranked choice voting will help. So will getting rid of the electoral college

[@vu4y3fo846y]

This is exactly the type of conversation we need to have. There are many way better systems of voting that don't give us a polarized choice between the lesser of two evils. Something as simple as scoring every candidate on a ballot with 1 to 5 stars would drastically change the way our democracy represents us. Voting isn't just a cultural or economic referendum, it's a math problem. I believe that updating our democracy to one of these better systems could be just as great an improvement as the invention of democracy itself.

[@CGAcheer]

Ranked choice voting helps fix this

[@whitman4201]

THANK YOU for finally addressing this! Debating Left v Right interminably (or Dem v Republican) is simply hitting our heads against a wall again and again. Lee Drutman is absolutely right that a multi-party system of four to six parties would be far better in representing the diverse backgrounds, needs and concerns of American citizens. Paired with ranked choice voting, the way it's done in Ireland and Australia among others, it would be a huge improvement and hopefully stop the death spiral of democracy in this country. A lot of people will be skeptical about this, but if so, you can rest assured that they have something invested in the DNC/RNC duopoly that they want to protect. This is the kind of issue that I believe could become as popular as Medicare for All given time and the proper endorsement from politicians like Bernie Sanders, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, etc. Open your minds, people. This is something that is ALREADY DONE elsewhere in the world, and it increases voter engagement. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED.

[@Ezero8]

I completely agree, it's the worst thing about the American government. We need multiple parties on the left and right.

[@garyes]

"We don't need a third party, we need a first party. You go to the polls and your choices are the guy who voted for the first Wall Street bailout, or the guy who voted for the next ten. "We don't have a Left and a Right party in this country anymore. We have a center-Right party and a crazy party. And over the last thirty-odd years, Democrats have moved to the Right, and the Right has moved into a mental hospital. "So what we have is one perfectly good party for hedge fund managers, credit card companies, banks, defense contractors, big agriculture and the pharmaceutical lobby --- that's the Democrats. "And they sit across the aisle from a small group of religious lunatics, flat-earthers, and Civil War re-enacters...who mostly communicate by AM radio and call themselves the Republicans. And who actually worry that Obama is a Socialist. SOCIALIST? He's not even a Liberal. "Shouldn't there be one party that unambiguously supports cutting the military party? A party that is straight up in favor of gun control, gay marriage, higher taxes on the right, universal healthcare, legalizing pot and steep direct taxing of polluters? "These aren't radical ideas. A majority of Americans are either already for them, or would be if they were properly argued and defended. " -Bill Maher

[@Aeyekay0]

The Left's longterm goal should be to push for Rank Choice Voting. Our Revolution, Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress, and DSA should band together to focus on getting RCV implemented in states by ballot initiative. Then we can start a new party and be done with the democrats. For now we have to take control of the Democratic Party, but simultaneously push for RCV state by state, since passing a reform at the federal level is nearly impossible.

[@epluribusunumlq9593]

Lee is a fantastic modern political thinker, and his ideas deserve widespread attention!

[@sprybug]

I've been saying this for years.

[@melissasmeltzer6078]

Thanks for recognizing the socially conservative, but economically liberal!

[@basquat76]

Of course it does. Putting all people into one of the two boxes is just silly. People are all over the political line but doesn't get any representation, and it's easy for grifters to take over as we currently see and you end up with a corrupt government.

[@jefferydenton8679]

Two parties? That's a a funny one. I suppose now you're going to try and claim that there are two different military industrial complexes two different Fossil-fuel industries and two different medical industrial complexes? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@rainedyani8505]

And 2 different agribusiness industries. People should never overlook the power of Big Ag.

[@rossplendent]

"The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them." -Julius Nyerere

[@ondrej1893]

In my country you can have like 9 parties in parliament, or more, if they cross 5% they get in. But in 2000’s there was a time when two biggest parties had an agreement, essentially a cartel. It was terrible. It seems America has that by default:-)

[@ScooterFXRS]

Two party? Last I checked it was a one party, the Elitist Corporate Party. Comrade.

[@michaelhensley8203]

As a minimum there needs to be a 3rd party.

[@joeows6537]

At Occupy Wall Street we addressed the Two Party Duopoly … and the fact that at least a third party would void any two party partisan issue, forcing non partisanship.

[@TalladegaTom]

The best two party system is when your friends come over and you start a party, and then y'all head over to another party.

[@ghenulo]

Friends?

[@chadwboyer]

Saagar, let's reform the 2 parties and just go with that? We once had 3 TV channels, now we have 800. AND KZbin. That's choice. So maybe we need a little more political choice than this rotten one or that rotten one.

[@bobl.2213]

i've been saying this for Decades - How Enlightning

[@daver787]

Parties should be outlawed via a Constitutional Amendment. That would force everyone to look at issues, policies, and the people running rather than the team that they are on. People blindly loyal to a team are the problem with politics in the developed world.

[@lanemcleod5704]

Rank choice voting is great for electing an individual, not for a House of Representatives. It's still vulnerable to gerrymandering and only prevents the spoiler effect, and isn't actually Proportional like he says. If you want a functional multiparty system you need Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) like Germany and New Zealand.

[@searose6192]

I think we should have a #NoPartySystem if everyone ran as an independent on their own platform it would solve so many problems. It would eliminate tribalism in politics in the enduring sense we have now, it would force candidates to take stances on all issues, it would dilute the effect of big donors by forcing them to actually donate to each candidate rather than all the behind the scenes money laundering that happens now with donations run through parties. But *most importantly of all, it would OPEN THE DOORS FOR HETERODOXY* in American politics.

[@karlknight4678]

Well done. Someone give these people a raise!

[@bobby45825]

This title could easily be summed up by saying "we need a party that doesn't go right or left, but Foward". #Yang2020 #BazookaYang

[@adamdonovan4071]

let me know when a party campaigns on inventing a time machine to "go backward".

[@briankruesi6484]

Adam Donovan “make America great again” and Joe Biden’s campaign are both let’s go back to the past style of campaigns.

[@briankruesi6484]

Harmony Alexandria who are you replying to. If you are referring to Yang he is not a Libertarian.

[@umiluv]

Socially conservative but liberal economics here. I’ve been labeled by my friends as favoring the alt-right for not agreeing with identity politics. Yet they’re far more conservative with their economic views. It’s like 🤦‍♀️. Where is my party? Wtf?! Never felt represented my entire life.

[@AndreiKohler]

The much better question to ask: Is money in politics killing American Democracy? If the GOP and Dems were NOT allowed to take on any money, it is my stand that American Democracy would be just fine. Not that I'd mind an Independent Party.

[@katherinemorelle7115]

As an Aussie, I cannot recommend preferential voting (what we call ranked choice) enough. But- you cant really use our voter turnout as evidence for the voting system, because we also have mandatory voting. Which is something I think more places should have. Because voting isn’t just a right here, it’s a responsibility. Also, when it’s mandatory, it’s made easier. So our elections are always on Saturdays, we have three weeks of pre poll voting, we have mail in voting, we have people who go around hospitals and nursing homes to collect votes, and if you weren’t able to pre-vote and you’re working all day on Election Day, your boss has to let you go vote, and isn’t allowed to dock your pay while you’re gone. There is a fine for not showing up and getting your name ticked off on the roll (because you still can choose not to vote- all you have to do is show up and get your name crossed off. What you do after that is up to you. Draw a dick on the ballot, leave it blank, or vote properly, whatever). But that fine is pretty small- about $50 I think. And considering g our minimum wage is $18 or $19, it’s not much. Also, if you reply to the electoral commission telling them why you didn’t vote- like you were sick, or you sprained your ankle or something, they’ll waive the fine. But just having it there is what keeps our voter turnout between 90-95%. Could you even imagine a 95% voter turnout in America??? Also, our electorate borders are drawn up by a non biased government agency- the same agency that runs the elections. So no gerrymandering either. Needless to say, I do think our system is far superior to the American system. I know that my vote is never wasted- there’s just no such thing. No “you voted X instead of Y, so you’re responsible for Z winning!” It just doesn’t happen. It’s not perfect -I’d prefer if we also had mixed member proportional representation, like New Zealand has. Also, that’s basically how our senate is elected, and you can see there’s greater diversity of parties. But it’s definitely better than the US. Leagues better!

[@clutchflutie8750]

This is what Bernie does folks. brings out the actual smart people and they give input on stuff like money in politics and the party system. Fantastic video and conversation.

[@waynegalvin4639]

Hey I am Canadian and we have more than 5 parties and it doesn’t help when people are polarized against each other and when you have virtue signalling politicians.

[@helenmartin9150]

A granny in Australia says...it has mystified me for years that the USA has limited itself to two parties. Yang the World!

[@buckwaynemayden8063]

Lee's tie is on point!

[@aponirayn9099]

It doesn't matter if you have more than two parties if you allow lobbyist to influence them. It will be the same old song all over again.

[@ELNANNA]

I'm subscribed and it took 2 weeks for this to show in my feed including my subscription page. I can't wait for a decent platform other than YT!

[@marilyng8127]

Instead, we need a direct democracy like Switzerland. An executive branch with 6 people rotating each year. Each citizen can pass a law with 100000 signatures. This is an ineffective and expensive system. No electoral college also.

[@vlaf9]

Voting is ALWAYS a compromise, whether you have two or 8 choices. - A Canadian -

[@dorianleakey]

Here in the UK the difference we have is you vote for a local representative that belongs to a party, so you aren't directly voting for the leader, the leaders name is not on the ballot. It keeps the number of parties low, but makes it much easier to get people out. By now, Trump would possibly have been betrayed by his party in the UK and more of his supporters would be less invested in him, allowing for that to happen.

[@mistypeoples9769]

We are smart to represent ourselves. We need a Constitutional Convention so we can vote on bills ourselves. The internet is becoming secure enough, it is possible.

[@mervynmorris613]

We need to abolish political parties. All of our representatives should be independents. It's a lot harder to corrupt the majority of the parliament as individuals without being found out than to corrupt a party.

[@sandermalschaert2336]

I've been saying his for years abiut the US. As a Dutchman I know we've taken it a bit far ourselves with direct representative national democracy and 15+ parties is our parlement. Still if you love freedom and choice you should be thinking about this.

[@bernlin2000]

Our two-party system would be far more robust if we actually had 2 distinct parties. Both are corporate parties, same BS.

[@troywalkertheprogressivean8433]

"...its always been aristocracy vs. democracy..." - john fugelsang

[@lynnlobliner3933]

The two reigning parties do NOT want a multi-party system so they aren't going to saw the limb off at the trunk while they're sitting on the limb (same with their salaries and benefits). They like being in charge and don't want us peasants to go out and vote someone else into office (and both parties would love it if THEIR party was the ONLY party). They each talk two parties grudgingly and behind the scenes they'd like to be the only party.

[@dougen9237]

This was great but much too short! Please ask Lee back and talk about concrete ways we can start to change over to a multi-paty system, This question is too important to discuss in one brief segment!

[@zeroxox777]

He argues overcoming two party system because 'hyper-partisanship is destroying' American democracy, but how would additional parties overcome hyper-partisanship? I'm from Britain and we have many parties; Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats being the largest for the whole of the UK but also the Greens, and then a number of national parties for Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Partisanship is probably even more viciferous here then it is in the States.

[@todjones6571]

Outlaw all parties!

[@stevenee1ply]

Krystal and Saagar, please work in the Sanders cabinet.

[@Imjustasimpleman5310]

The rest of the country needs to follow Maine & adopt Instant-runoff voting!

[@ryanmcdonnell76]

From Ireland, system works much better than the crazy American 2 party system

[@valentinecarstensen6839]

PERMACULTURE- We need to conduct a nationwide (even Global) political redistricting based on Natural Boundaries, Specifically Watersheds according to Scales of magnitude to balance for population. In this fashion accentuating the nuance of Ecology, Natural Resources, Agriculture, Economy and Human Culture. This should be constitutionally enshrined, incorruptible.

[@bearanov]

Two parties with the same handler AKA "Do you want your plate of shit with or without corn in it?

[@24hrlib]

Burn the Duopoly down by getting out and voting, participating in policy and speaking out for candidates of progress.

[@TheBoogerJames]

The biggest roadblock to 3rd parties competing in national elections is that you have to individually get put on each state's ballot. So there is 50 different hoops to jump through. If you can eliminate that, you solve a huge issue. The number 2 issue is first-past-the-post voting. You fix those 2 things and you can worry about the rest later.

[@justthink124]

If not compulsory, I think voting should be opt-out rather than opt-in, sort of like jury duty where you have to give a reason why you can’t.

[@barbar500]

US politics is too focused on candidates, not ideas. Lots of fights for nothing. And who wins at the end? A hyper Narcissus.

[@ghenulo]

When they congratulated him on his book, he was a bit rude for not congratulating them from theirs.

[@stuntman121]

He might not know they wrote a book.

[@milesobrien2694]

Maybe they gave him a copy of their not yet available to the public book.

[@joelyazell7380]

It’s not a two party system, it’s a greedy one party

[@JohnSmith-fp8il]

We switched to a proportional system in New Zealand about 20 years ago and it's been terrible. The small parties end up with a disproportionately large amount of power which they use to hold the country to ransom. The system also seems to favour the Left. If you go proportional you'll probably never have a Republican government again. Don't change. You have been warned.

[@losoriot]

very good interview and point of view

[@gabithemagyar]

The difficulty with proportional representation and ranked balloting is that it permanently effectively disenfranchises large portions of the population and areas of the country (assuming a large country with diverse local interests). It automatically favours the economic and cultural interests of urban (typically liberal) areas of the country over those of the more sparsely populated agricultural and resource based areas (largely more conservative). This is why in Canada, which has 3 major federal parties (Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic (socialist)) plus 1 regional Quebec party, the recent attempt to reform the current first past the post system went nowhere. The NDP wanted proportional representation because their share of the popular vote is greater than the number of seats they win suggests. The Liberals wanted ranked ballots because they would normally be the second choice for NDP voters, thus almost guaranteeing a Liberal government in perpetuity. The Conservatives wanted to remain with the current system because their base is largely rural and, to a certain extent, suburban and first past the post is to their advantage. After a lengthy study, proportional representation was the recommendation of a special committee, but Trudeau (the Liberal prime minister) cancelled the reform process since he wanted ranked ballot which would greatly benefit his party, He used the excuse that true proportional representation would give voice to "extremist" political opinions and parties. Any democratic system must have a mechanism to curtail the "tyranny of the majority" by balancing national and regional interests. At least with first past the post, the different interests typically alternate being in power so over the long run there is balance.

[@pumpkinking5174]

Didn't need a book to tell me this. John Adams said it two centuries ago.

[@mikeaustin4138]

How to do it? Here's how. Roughly 25 states have some form of citizen initiative, so you put initiatives on the ballot in those states to change the electoral system. Once you've made that transition, you apply intense political pressure in the remaining states to change their electoral systems.

[@end3rzl33t]

Another benefit of multi-party systems is that (hyper)partisanship or can go up and down more naturally, not be kept at all time high as can often be seen in US elections. Campaign spending would come down too.

[@jason666king]

Great guest.

[@martythemartian99]

We have a multi-party system here in Australia, and the two major parties HATE IT because they find it hard to achieve absolute power. Whenever they try to push bad policy through, there are a few minor parties and independents who can stop them, or adjust the policy to make it fairer. Still a far from perfect system, but way better than having to chose between two wanna be dictators (like Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd)

[@shadowmist1246]

Multi party systems has its pluses and minuses. Here in Canada you can have a government legitimately in power with far less than 50% of the country's support.

[@glowingunknown5625]

Rather than voting for people, we should have more vote on issues! Once politicians are in office, they have no obligation to follow public opinion.

[@mickeywood3012]

Get rid of political parties, pure, direct, Democracy is the answer.

[@mickeywood3012]

@Harmony Alexandria do you really believe your voice is being heard by "our" Representatives? Corruption happens, it's a byproduct of the dynamics. How many of us will be heartbroken when our champions are hundreds, maybe thousands of miles away? then become corrupted, because of the lack of accountability. Pure direct Democracy, where you vote on the issue's through your representative is the answer.

[@toddstewart5613]

Rank Choice Voting! NYC has it now and it's on the ballot in other major cities

[@BenSalernoMedia]

The only way to break out of a two party system is to have universal ranked voting from the very top to very bottom of all state and federal elections. Strategic voting is the bane of democracy; a system that eliminates the spoiler effect, one that no longer preys on your need to vote for a lesser evil over someone you actually like, would invite people to run on all kinds of 3rd party or independent platforms. The electoral college, delegates, superdelegates and winner-take-all states in the primaries, all are safeguards against a true democracy, and all need to be eliminated, but the establishment of ranked-choice/instant-runoff voting is the only way to elect people that will be willing to dismantle those enshrined establishment boondoggles.

[@mishmash1259]

Interesting guest who clearly outlines a problem that needs to be discussed more. Here in Canada, we are continuously ruled by governments that have gotten about 35% of the vote. We have five parties, but continue to use the British first-past-the-post system. I don’t feel that is democratic, regardless of who wins. Keep in mind that in the last British election, Boris Johnson won full control of parliament and the government by getting about 43% of the vote.

[@gunterke]

I agree with the author that more than just 2 bland parties would be healthy for a country that has so much diversity. But it's not very fair to compare voter turnout in the US to Australia. Australia has (just like my own country) compulsory voting, in theory you can get a fine for not voting.

[@drsmetal2747]

As long as we have an oligarchy system of government, none this will change.

[@ianmcshea913]

Parties should be constitutionally abolished and all people run as independent candidates with independent platforms.

[@mechamania]

This was news, in the 1850s.

[@nonewherelistens1906]

I think the time is ripe for an independent party that can shift its support issue to issue. More things could get done.

[@niveusgaius]

He’s describing a parliamentary system. We give way too much power to one guy.

[@onomatopoeia162003]

It wasn't always like that.

[@kkay3784]

I agree we need more parties, but looking at other nations with numerous parties, they are in the same pickle as us here at home (thanks, Krystal). Why is that? I believe it is because the world over we have been divided between Robber Barons and everybody else. That brings us back down to 2 again, no matter where you live or however many parties are provided.

[@dariangregory6182]

Having only two bad choices is like being forced to choose between being shot with a bullet or an arrow. I'd like neither thank you very much.