If America Had A Multi-Party System

Many thanks to Ridge Wallet for sponsoring today's video. Pick up your own right here: www.ridge.com/...
Use code: MONSIEURZ for 10% off your order.
What if the United State abolished the Two Party system, as well as the Winner-Take-All, First-Past-The-Post, Majority system, and replaced it with a Proportional Representation Multi Party System? What would this breaking of the political Duopoly mean for the country? How many parties would form from the several factions which make up the Democrat and Republican coalitions? And who would rule the US?
_____________________________________________
#AlternateHistory #MonsieurZ #Election
New Videos Every Wednesday At 2:30 PM EST
______________________________________________
Donate To The Channel: / @monsieurdean
______________________________________________
Website:
USofZ.com
______________________________________________
Music Used:

[@MonsieurDean]

Many thanks to Ridge Wallet for sponsoring this video! www.ridge.com/MONSIEURZ We have new videos every Wednesday at 2:30pm EST. Don't miss them, and please like & share the video if you enjoyed it! Become a channel sponsor: kzbin.info/door/QR_kmeb0lBEk1Zj_9LWDHAjoin Buy official shirts: modernmediamerch.com/search?q=monsieur+z Join our "Discord Server": www.usofz.com/forum Pick up a copy of our novel: www.amazon.com/Am-Uncle-Sam-Dean-Mosley-ebook/dp/B07WNG95QH

[@darealpoopster]

iMpOsSibLe, MoNsIeUr Z iS a FaScIsT, hOw CaN hE sUpPoRt MuLtIpArTy SyStEmS?

[@danielduvernay3207]

I like the way you took this on, you started from the beginning of the colonies, and I'm sure that many others as well as myself appreciate that level of commitment.

[@oththakom9327]

Zero party system next?

[@aaale376]

You forgot the Italian Party :(

[@mountainman8589]

As always, I dig your videos. This would be one that I could absolutely see you digging into in a much more in-depth, broader thought experiment over a longer video. Do you think a multi-party system would be better or worse?

[@ApostleOfDarkness]

*Laughs in One Party System*

[@thatoneportuguese6843]

Ooooooooooooof

[@youngdon6348]

China LOLOL

[@danorott]

The most stable of them all.

[@matheusdemello2323]

What if the USSR had a two party system?

[@ximrade4287]

@@youngdon6348 Ur mom LOLOLOLOLLOOLLLLLLL

[@SeanSmith-lv7wl]

You should make a map of where in the US each party would most likely control, and/or some kind of quiz your viewers could take to see which new party they’d align with.

[@jacksauce]

That would be so epic!

[@sergeantsalamander]

I'm 100% on board with this. Something like the Masaman viewer census would make my Christmas, lol

[@caesaraugustus7990]

I'd love this!!

[@codybrox4693]

I’m with the south neo confederates party

[@ProGremlinPlayer]

That'd be cool to see

[@forgbiye7683]

Ah yes, my favorite political party: the Dallas Cowboys.

[@herencia2j321]

Go Cowboys

[@mwmwmwmwmw.]

@@herencia2j321 no

[@pugfather]

@@herencia2j321 *CowGirls

[@hackman669]

You mean the Dallas Cheerleaders of America right?

[@corvianthedarktemplar3035]

@@mwmwmwmwmw. you are being sent to the gulag

[@fabiodemon884]

Italy, having about 30 partys and only 7 that are quite important

[@nashestylez]

just like poland - we have like 15 different eligible parties in sejm (lower house of parliament in poland), but what we have is just a two party system under a mask of choice.

[@CrackBeaver]

What are the 7 Parties that you think are relevant?

[@Nico_420]

@@CrackBeaver democratic party, Salvini League and 5 star movement.

[@CrackBeaver]

@@Nico_420 2/3 of those weren't in the video and plus that is only 3, not 7.

[@popowazhere]

“Only 7” 7 would be an American dream, 30 overall is like a fever dream.

[@WaltherPPK909]

Founding America: Alright guys - no political parties America 2020: lets see how many parties we can fit in this thing

[@jornzwaagstra1150]

well 2 parties or 20 parties doesn't matter since both cases go against that statement and if you gonna break a rule you might as well break it well. right? not that i know what is good for america all i know it works kinda well in the netherlands

[@argo9750]

Well, technically the more parties there is the situation is closer to having no parties as the parties get smaller and act more like individuals. Having no parties is essentially having as many parties as there is voters in the country.

[@WaltherPPK909]

@@argo9750 bruh what are you smoking

[@argo9750]

@@WaltherPPK909 just an air humidifier, I am really not into that kind of stuff.

[@camerondavies1233]

@@WaltherPPK909 he's right tho

[@niklaslow3254]

Laughs in Germany having infinite parties but the same chancellor for 16 years

[@cola98765]

I'm sure many people would like this stable government in their country as Germany does... 8 chancellors in last 70 years, and only 4 changes in what party do they come from. With this attitude you guys are making more long term investments and for how strong Germany is, I haven't heard anything about those stupid campaigns that promise or change stuff just to win the next election.

[@usuariosarcastico512]

@@cola98765 Probably a consequence of the monarchist culture that was supressed after World War 1 but never really vanished, it just became hidden inside this forced republican parlamentarism they have.

[@cola98765]

@@usuariosarcastico512 true... same as Russia and China still act as empires

[@erdalinonununbeni5270]

Laughs in Turkey having over 100 parties but the same guy is running since 2002.

[@syhuhjk]

@@erdalinonununbeni5270 Turkey is a radical country

[@ola-ks3rg]

*Laughs in Israel's multi party system, where although there are multiple parties, the same prime minister is democratically in power for 20 years help me please*

[@merkavamkivm3373]

כן.

[@ls200076]

Sounds nice

[@benlea8934]

Gotta love Bibi

[@ola-ks3rg]

@@benlea8934 otherwise you get hit by his supporters.

[@biggusdickus9057]

@@ola-ks3rg by missiles.

[@harrissyed1417]

I'm all for a multi-party system in America. Had Ross Perot won the 1992 presidential election, he would have inspired more Independents and third parties to varying degrees of success.

[@hanszimmer9224]

In a multi-party system the left tend to get more votes, whereas in the two-party system the right gets more

[@harrissyed1417]

@@hanszimmer9224 Examples?

[@hanszimmer9224]

@@harrissyed1417 It's stated and explained by Prof. Ian Shapiro. If you have time check his lecture at Yale: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eHXUp618jpxlo8k

[@GustavoHenriquedsl]

@@hanszimmer9224 Who cares? Regardless of whether it's left or right, if it does a good job for the people, doesn't matter. Doesn't matter the political orientation

[@hanszimmer9224]

@@GustavoHenriquedsl Well, Prof. Shapiro also talked about a study which shows significant results that poor people are always even more poor after a leftwing government period. which I found quite interesting

[@Y2ANJ]

I like how the conservative party just adopted the Dallas Cowboys logo as their own.

[@herencia2j321]

The Jerry party. Jerry Jones would be their candidate.

[@jimboonie9885]

Lul

[@alexie832]

Men of culture UwU

[@HatterTobias]

And the Socialists' logo being the exact same logo, except that the background is red rather than blue

[@thatguychris7824]

It's just a star, the Cowboys don't own Blue Stars

[@danielduvernay3207]

The donkey symbol for the democrats looks like the pepsi logo

[@leeionicatlas6461]

ok so im not crazy

[@ortherner]

So i’m not the only one

[@XX_MelobraacRedux]

Nice insight... but seriously, I like your style!

[@ortherner]

@Evidential Please remove the “Me:” from your comment it’s cringe

[@thealt8038]

It is hard to argue with his assessment

[@prathamsingh1481]

Then C-SPAN would be more fun. I can imagine the hilariously wacky fringe parties that could form.

[@shayne-1880]

You should check out the Rhinoceros Party in Quebec

[@targettoad691]

Kanye and the Birthday Party

[@samuelforesta]

We boutta have the Zionist ultra Jewish Party vs. the neo Nazi party.

[@prathamsingh1481]

Alt C-SPAN : Tensions between the Volkish Fasco-Classist Macro-Socio-Juche party and the Ethically Nonbinary TransSocialism Union came to a head over the new Bestiality legislation proposed by the Progressive Communal Accelarationist party. The senate minority leader James Matthew of the Catholic Techno-Nationalists asked for calm.

[@jpfr624]

They have a lot of this is Australia and honestly its amazing

[@AT-yn9dm]

"I'm not going to vote for third party, they never get any votes."

[@endergamer794]

ever heard of the spoiler effect maybe?

[@gljames24]

End first past the post

[@donaldtrumplover2254]

End the electoral college

[@bromatath4901]

Sounds like a prisoners dilemma to me

[@TrampConnoisseur]

@@donaldtrumplover2254 then the minority wouldn’t get any say in the government. That sounds like a terrible idea

[@unclesam5230]

WHAT IF AMERICA NEVER HAD POLITICAL PARTIES LIKE GEORGE WASHINGTON WANTED

[@dokidoki777]

Ah yes, the one party system. Hail our glorious Premier of America!

[@unclesam5230]

@@dokidoki777 no HAIL TO THE CHIEF OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC!

[@vboi5697]

EVERYONE IS A INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE

[@jeanlannes5930]

i think it was inevitable

[@SEAZNDragon]

Remember political parties did not exist in America's early days and evolved out of people of mutual interest joining together. I imagine if somehow political parties somehow still did not exist you will have politicians defining themselves by those interests. The biggest difference will likely be the lack of official coordination a party apparatus brings (ie. no fund from party HQ to help some struggling politician in a difficult race). Also (ideally) more fluidity in political stances with no pressure of being a good party member.

[@PK-rg9lx]

Imagine being able to belong/subscribe to multiple parties proportionally. Most people would probably be in a couple different ones

[@samuelpatrick5050]

Thats called being independent, like myself. Though i side most with libertarian ideals, i cant get behind absolving taxes. Theres alot i can go into on those kinds of issues, but this is just a comment

[@nicolaierikqvist-lygumtoxv3144]

Being a member of two parties at once is usually not allowed in the party rules

[@samuelpatrick5050]

Im an American. The fuck are rules?

[@nicolaierikqvist-lygumtoxv3144]

It wasnt meant for you. But party rules are important No matter what your opinion on freedom is

[@samuelforesta]

I'm choosing the Jewish Party

[@genghiskhan6809]

Strangely, this system is so far from Washington’s wish, that it ultimately horseshoes back around into functioning the way that Washington would’ve wanted.

[@fionnharman3741]

horseshoe theory 🤮🤮🤮🤮

[@unovasfinest2623]

I straight up disagree. Too much disunity to effectively serve the people. Which Washington probably wouldve wanted

[@nobutternotes]

horseshoe theory is shit but I agree with this

[@unovasfinest2623]

@@nobutternotes i dont think so. Too many parties, and alot of the proposed ones operate off of your literal identity rather than your political beliefs. As a black person, i think a party centered specifically on the fact that it serves "black issues" really essentializes the black experience while not being able to truly encompass it for every black person. Im a socialist, a Christian, a supporter of LGBTQ rights, and an environmentally conscious guy. That puts me at odds with liberal and conservative black folk by default. The fact that we're all black would never unify us in my eyes because thats not a good place to draw political lines. Meanwhile alot of my actual political values allign with most socialists, regardless of identity. Because of my IDEOLOGY. So having a a few extra parties to better represent people's ideologies is fine, but adding new parties based on your literal identity is dumb.

[@jamesrosewell9081]

@@kreuner11 horseshoe theory is a centrist belief

[@TheOtherWhiteNerd]

I love how even this video is flagged with "The AP has called the race for Joe Biden."

[@danielbojkovski723]

Just incase

[@aroventalmav888]

They really wanna hammer that home. I'd rather they go sit on a cactus.

[@danielbojkovski723]

"Like it or not, hes your president" remember that

[@domehammer]

Yet we still don't know who the president is going to be. Media acting like it elects the president.

[@aroventalmav888]

@@domehammer I have a feeling it will be war either way. Either Trump wins and the radicals go to burn down everything in sight or Biden wins and his policies alienate massive chunks of this country.

[@Hannodb1961]

I'm South African, and in the last 25 years, I've lived through a time of political transition from the fptp system to the proportional system, so in my case, this is not speculation, it is reality. Here is what I have learned. 1) Old loyalties die hard. Despite the proportional system giving people the option to vote for parties that more closely align with their principles, it will take about a generation or 20 years before most people in the electorate finally gets it. The two dominant parties will continue to opperate as large tent parties, while using fear mongering to keep people in the fold. They would focus less on policy, and more on the "dangers" of dividing your side by voting for other parties. The arguments they'd use will be 100% legitimate for the fptp system, but completely irrelevant and dishonest for the proportional system. None the less, they'll keep using it for as long as people keep buying the propaganda. 2) The mode of successful politics in the two systems are directly oposite to one another. Under the fptp system, two parties hold a monopoly on power, and they keep it that way by being fluid on everything. There is no place for a principled politician in this system, you move in which ever direction you believe the electorate is moving. People complain about politicians breaking their promises, but this is baked into the system - these politicians are on top precisely because they're making and breaking promises and being ambiguous about everything. Whenever a politician is too clear on anything, he will loose more support than he wins, so he says whatever is best for his own carreer at that time and place. Not that he needs to worry about it, because his only viable oposition does exactly the same thing. 3) In the proportional system, the above mentioned approach to politics is suicide. With a wide range of viable oposition parties, simply being "the other guys" is not good enough to win over disgruntled voters anymore. You actually need to stand out between the multitude of options. That means you need a clearly defined niche where you dominate. Parties will need to be very clear on who and what they stand for, and they will need to stick to those principles. Any amount of flip flopping will chase voters away to other parties that have a more steadfast reputation. This also means that no party can ever reach 50%+, but it is also the only way to win and keep your support base. So each party will have to identify suitable coalision partners: parties with which they have enough agreement with in order to govern together. No party will get 100% of what they want, but will have to negotiate with one another in an exchange of give and take to get the best deal for their voters. And since voters voted for very specific niche parties, rather than some nebulous giant party that tries to be everything to everyone, its also much clearer what the population actually wants. 4) The traditional parties that dominated under fptp will whither away and die. Old habits die hard and the old parties will continue to operate as if they still exist under a fptp system, and they will get away with it, because the first generation will continue to vote like its a fptp system. But as more and more disgruntled voters discover that voting for third parties actually yield better results, the mainstream parties will continue to shrink. The only thing holding these traditional parties together is the believe that they hold a monopoly on power. Once they loose that power, they loose the only thing that keeps them together, as their factions will defect to other parties. It will take decades for these dinosaur parties to die, but once they're over the edge, the implosion can be over in a matter of weeks. As a South African and an Afrikaner, I am very glad we have the proportional system, because it keeps me engaged in the political process, despite being a small minority. We have a voice. Under the old fptp system, politics would be dominated by two parties that does not have my interest at heart, and I'd be reduced to voting for the party that causes the least amount of damage for me. Yes it also allows a voice for more radical and extremist parties, but those parties usually do not play nice with others and remain isolated on the fringes. Our country is on the verge of the final disintegration of the old traditional parties and the rise of niche parties and coalision governments, and I'm looking forward to a more representative future.

[@willm.7439]

Very well-thought and informative post!

[@Hannodb1961]

@@willm.7439 Thank you for reminding me of this post. As an update: Last year November we had municipal elections and for the first time the ANC came in under 50%. Coalision governments have become the norm in municipalities, and it seems that finally, after 27 years, people, politicians and commentators start to understand how this works.

[@mattmurphy5805]

Very true. I think the US and South Africa can learn a lot from each other.

[@mosterchife6045]

The proportional system sounds even better now lol

[@Hannodb1961]

@@mosterchife6045 Watch our 2024 elections. Its going to be.....interesting.

[@DamianBattleforged]

Let's give the parties their own animals. Libertarians - Rattlesnake Dixie - Alligator Black - Black Panther Spanish - Bull Labor - Draft Horse LGBT - Unicorn Conservative - Lion Christian - Lamb Nationalist - Eagle Green - Sea Turtle Communism - Bear Socialism - Wolf? Maybe an eastern dragon? Ant would seem degrading.

[@dannydacheedo1592]

Maybe bees for socialists

[@notalek8510]

Libertarians have a porcupine right?

[@historyman9436]

Fun fact: america already has multiple Parties, they Just Go under the Radar bcus the Big sharks are too big

[@SNB_1985]

😔

[@saintpoli6800]

Libertarians did well with getting over a million votes, that means something

[@historyman9436]

@@saintpoli6800 yeah, America is finally getting Out of this predicament

[@saintpoli6800]

@@historyman9436 Hopefully Milfy JJ gets us out of it (͠≖ ͜ʖ͠≖)

[@1310beth]

The first past the post system in the US kills smaller parties. The ranked choice system is gaining momentum and exists in some areas already and would help greatly

[@Dan-kr9bm]

10:03 "Socialists" and Social Democrats forming a single united party is not a thing.

[@seanwaddell2659]

Not even any actually socialist politicians in America just people claiming to be

[@Dan-kr9bm]

@@seanwaddell2659 They cant be with the current political system.

[@seanwaddell2659]

@@Dan-kr9bm Tru

[@seanwaddell2659]

@Nazbol Jedi Just out of curiosity are you unironic NazBol?

[@jarskil8862]

Americans dont understand that social democracy and Socialism arent the same. Social democracy is capitalist system while Socialism is opressive form of goverment.

[@Christian-iu3lo]

This is less speculation and more of a commentary on the current political factions that exist in the US

[@theluftwaffle1]

I can’t see this being controversial. Nope not at all.

[@SpoodDadoo]

Dixie flag’s gonna sink the ship

[@EnterpriseC14]

Well Monsieur Z's alternate realities are more space batty, and filled with misconception, compared to Alternate History Hub.

[@theluftwaffle1]

@@EnterpriseC14 better than whatifaltist lmao.

[@Matt-uk7zq]

@@theluftwaffle1 i actually really like whatifalthist, but he can be very b r o a d at times and thus confusing to me at least. Also, I still don’t understand his connection with Stoicism, or rather what it even fucking means in the end.

[@seanwaddell2659]

@@theluftwaffle1 Not a high bar, Mr. Z’s could really do with a better understanding of different politics in order to properly represent them

[@foxfrightdario5175]

He basically just made the US Version of Japan's prefectural flags but with Party Logos.

[@RodrigoroRex]

Japan's prefectural flags are awesome. I wish american states adopted that kind of design language. Most us state flags are horrendous

[@RodrigoroRex]

@@Emigdiosback For me it's Arizona, Alabama, New Mexico and Colorado. But yeah they're pretty boring, and most of them are super complex (lots of detail, like california's bear). I like flags that you can draw

[@evancombs5159]

@@Emigdiosback I hate how often Indiana's flag gets lumped in with the state seal flags.

[@ragglerock2682]

US state flags are ass

[@demun6065]

@@RodrigoroRex I just googled Japan's prefecture flags, and they're boring single print symbols with random colours behind them. There's no story behind the flagsm they're just random. American flags are way better.

[@craftthemoon]

I’m ready for the Appalachian Party. In coal we trust

[@nycyg]

in lung cancer we trust

[@craftthemoon]

@@nycyg amen

[@jimboonie9885]

In nuclear and renewable power we trust

[@pieter-janvanopstal2930]

In global warming we trust

[@karlisulmanis3810]

@@pieter-janvanopstal2930 yes

[@RoderickVI]

Just to correct a small but significant detail, Economic Liberalism = deregulated free market economy. If you mean Economic Progressivism, or Dirigism, then Economic Liberalism is the furthest there is from that.

[@mr.starfish4965]

Agreed. Economic Liberalism is what is currently in the US.

[@axelnils]

@@mr.starfish4965 Well, free trade is i still an important part of economic liberalism

[@nickvliet4614]

@@mr.starfish4965 not even close

[@mr.starfish4965]

@@nickvliet4614 I know Wikipedia isn’t the best place, but you can get general ideas with it when it comes to political ideologies. Wikipedia says, “Economic liberalism is a political and economic philosophy based on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production.” I’d consider the US to support a market economy and private property in the means of production.

[@mr.starfish4965]

@@axelnils Yeah. The USA generally has free trade.

[@misterhydra7285]

“look at me brother” “no”

[@TiffinVStorm]

May I ask what that tree party is? I'm afraid I don't know.

[@misterhydra7285]

@@TiffinVStorm cascadian independence, or something like that

[@TiffinVStorm]

@@misterhydra7285 Thank you.

[@TheJediAndTheNinja]

Could you imagine the electoral map it would be super awesome imagine the amount of colors the map would display on the news

[@oceanweatherandmapping9414]

We would most likley wouldve had disbanded the Electoral College system by that point

[@Abu-Talha-Al-Kurdi]

US: The country of freedom ! Two party system: Allow me to introduce myself

[@trankuill]

The country of the free: -No free higher education -No free healthcare -No free elections Perfect Just Perfect

[@jarskil8862]

@@trankuill Those have nothing to do with freedom. China has wide social programs, but can you exactly call it free country?

[@Abu-Talha-Al-Kurdi]

Ninja's Last Will Oh yeah absolutely , compared to Central Europe the us is a joke

[@Abu-Talha-Al-Kurdi]

Jarski l China has always been a ruthless one party dictatorship

[@trankuill]

@@Abu-Talha-Al-Kurdi There was a period in the interwar times where China had a Democratic government, but it didn't last long

[@achistorian6978]

What if The Roman Empire collapsed during the third century crisis ?

[@abdelrahmanwael2551]

That's a good one

[@Burgermeister1836]

Super Sassanids

[@tonit4233]

Basically no Aurelian.

[@jimboonie9885]

We die

[@sosopwsi829Jjw9]

Best case scenario - We become 800 years more advanced Worst case scenario- the comment above mine

[@oliverlam6072]

What if Thomas Jefferson kept in the part of the declaration of independence that condemned slavery, tearing the US apart based on the issue of slavery after achieving independence?

[@usuariosarcastico512]

Weak US gets conquered by the UK, the Southern States become a buffer between the UK and Spain, maybe other revolutions happen and this time Canadian states becomes independent along the reconquered ones, or the revolution fails and the lands are slowly given more political representation and become loyal like Canada is today.

[@Maulstrum97]

the colonies fall apart and are reconquered in the war of 1812

[@Nephalem2002]

@@usuariosarcastico512 Why do you think this? If the USA didn’t have Slavery(or Racism for that matter), you’d arguably be stronger.

[@kingdomofbird8174]

@@Nephalem2002 pro slavery fight against anti slavery, making british reconquest easier

[@nachopouso8770]

*Ross Perot has entered the chat*

[@RodrigoroRex]

Hero

[@nachopouso8770]

@Crusader Knightz 393 Yeah the first past the post system isn't the best in my opinion

[@jaydeep.adhikary]

He would have won if he had not dropped

[@bruhtv5862]

Ross Perot was our hero

[@travcollier]

Perot... I knew a few folks who worked for him. They all though he was a psychopath.

[@casual_ice_consumer4148]

The only way out of this now would be to adopt ranked choice voting or another system of voting.

[@darken2417]

Or.... maybe..... a system of universal non-voting?

[@seanwaddell2659]

Score voting is far more based

[@gabesteinberg6244]

@Μαριος Μεργουδης Would you allow an alternative national service for those who may be unfit for military service? Or does any kind of military service count, instead of just combat service?

[@seanwaddell2659]

@Μαριος Μεργουδης I think it should be required mil service/public service, and for both genders, yours heavily favors straight marriage. Like why force her to have kids just to vote? Just have everyone complete service to earn the right to vote. Don't even need the age thing b/c of how long service is.

[@seanwaddell2659]

@Μαριος Μεργουδης Bruh, I’m a Natalist too, but that far too much regulation with people’s lives, especially to predicate constitutional rights upon. Just properly incentives it rather than forcing women to have them, thereby having more stable families. Why not make men’s votes predicated on that too? Hella cringe sexism aside, biologically speaking we’re equals in every respect. Women are moderately statistically weaker but that’s barely noticeable especially if you want stratocracy. The family unit is more stable when the relationship is loving. Not if it’s a farce. Hell statistically Gay/Lesbian marriages with children are more stable, don’t enforce your values on people who don’t want them. Age thing ignores the differences between individuals, brain maturity varies from 16 to 30. This mental maturity is only in the prefrontal cortex, where impulse control is. Voting isn’t something that can be done on a whim. It’s long term decision making in which even high schoolers are equal and even better in many occasions.

[@zipzap8791]

10:20 socialists like guns,,,, we don't want them taken away we like that part, and that's a big thing that lefties like myself and liberals tend to disagree on.

[@lazer_kiw1]

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" -Karl Marx

[@the99throgue25]

Exept the fact that every socialists country banned or heavly regulated guns the moment they got in power.

[@the99throgue25]

@@lazer_kiw1 actions speak louder then words. People whome held power following marxs idealogy where the most extreme gun grabbers in the modern world.

[@lazer_kiw1]

@@the99throgue25 True, at least in the USSR I know it was. Just saying though, that goes directly against what Marx said and a lot of lefties would also agree with marx there. I would argue gun control is less a characteristic of socialist governments than it is a characteristic of authoritarian governments (Which most historical socialist governments were)

[@the99throgue25]

@@lazer_kiw1 I would agree its more a characteristic of authoritarian governments. However most socialists are authoritarian in the way they achieve there goals. Very few are voluntarists or are willing to coexist with a decentralized system where each province or states chooses there own economic system. (This system is what American libertarians are pushing)

[@thehighscalls]

*Laughs in Philippine Multi-Parties*

[@thehighscalls]

@Christian Calderon IDK, I am not Filipino. But I am aware of their existence.

[@vernedictb.valentine2057]

Rest of the world

[@mauterra1837]

*Laughs in Venezuela with a false democracy*

[@jastinlao3137]

As a Filipino its hard to explain why there so many political parties

[@SirFaceFone]

I'm guessing it's because most Filipinos care less about ideology/policy and more about who's the most charismatic, or if the politician is from their hometown. It's not a coincidence there's a lot of former celebrities that are now in office.

[@johnpannebaker5757]

This makes me think of the election of 1912, and what would have happened if Roosevelt hadn't been shot, finished campaigning, and won the presidency under the Progressive Party.

[@andrewgeer2167]

Social Democrats aren’t for the abolition of capitalism tho

[@jarskil8862]

Social democracy is Captalist system. Thats why even right wingers are pro social democracy, atleast in Finland.

[@matthewdaugherty2656]

Not every socialist is a Democrat

[@andrewgeer2167]

@@jarskil8862 exactly

[@diegokiwi1854]

@@jarskil8862 because it's center. So the right would still choose it.

[@TsdsxSansTSSunStone]

Neither is social democracy (social democrat), which is what Bernie sanders technically is but he calls him self a democratic socialist.

[@LSSD1292]

imagine a second American civil war with all those parties as different factions

[@loganclark7551]

That would be cool as a multiplayer game where you get to choose one of these groups as your faction

[@LSSD1292]

more like a hoi4 mod will be better than a standalone game

[@shadysam7161]

History books would be quite a bit larger.

[@hackman669]

@@loganclark7551 Yeah fun game. Keep the violence on screen okay.

[@cameron7886]

"In a polarized two party system you can have a situation where 51% of the population tramples over the rights of the 49" *laughs in electoral college*

[@pramitvyas3747]

Ah yes a system in which 40% can rule over 60%

[@Zorro9129]

Imagine if we had an electoral college within every state as well.

[@darkbringer1440]

If you understood the system you'd know that the "trampling" is only possible with a vast majority and even then requires an extended period of time.

[@cameron7886]

@@darkbringer1440 I am a PhD student in american politics and I have no idea what you're trying to argue edit: are you trying to say that infringements on rights essentially are impossible because there are institutions?

[@Armyjayden33]

@@Zorro9129 we do

[@cooperdavis9663]

3:21 the Jreg fandom: "Showtime..."

[@TinyBearTim]

Meanwhile in England a guy dressed in a Elmo costume gets voted for

[@ducksareurlords3782]

Don't forget lord buckethead, who is a character from a bad Star Wars parody.

[@potatomahonman5008]

Reminder that the Netherlands literally has a boomer interest party

[@xhinted690]

And two Muslim interest parties. Oh, and one for the cows.

[@nathanoher4865]

Tf

[@clydesteele2925]

What if the USSR and PRC went to war in the *1970s over that Zhenbou Island incident?

[@themoreyouknow7418]

Boom (probably)

[@reillycurran8508]

We'd see China and some of the USSR get nuked, and depending on the state of both parties after that exchange, either China would back out or immediately overrun Russia the same way the Russians overran Germany.

[@themoreyouknow7418]

@@reillycurran8508 wouldn’t that make them a bit overstretched, given the size combined with climate?

[@genghiskhan5701]

USA: *Grabs popcorn*

[@theebs1]

@@reillycurran8508 What would the U.S.'s role be in the war?

[@PMoney-sk7kb]

14:24 Finally, a Half Life party

[@dennisshaykevich3451]

This is an amazing and surprisingly fair breakdown of how the US might break down in the multiparty system. I think there is one extra point that you might want to make: In countries with a proportional voting system, the individual parties tend to have a party-list of candidates in which politicians are ranked by who is going to be awarded seats by proportion. For example, if a party wins 20 seats, the first 20 on that list get in. This often works for smaller and/or homogenous countries where policy is the sole focus, but as established that isn't the case in the United States. Geography plays just as important of a role in politics in the US as policy, which is why almost all the voting processes in the US are based on geographic divisions. If this isn't taken into account in such a theoretical voting system, it could lead to massive disenfranchisement for particular individuals. For example, let's say party X does particularly well in the city of Las Vegas, enough to get it a few seats of national representation. Now party X may have done well there do to some social equity proposals, which in a desert city like Las Vegas, would include easier and cheaper access to water. However, if party X was based in a city like Chicago, those few seats may be award to people from that city, which being next to a massive body of fresh water, may not consider "water access" as a particularly important aspect of the social equity policy, leaving a good chunk of Las Vegas unrepresented. Plus in the US, there's a big idea of "if you don't like how government is going, contact your representative". In this system, who is YOUR representative? It make it harder to have your personal voice heard in that regard. I'm not trying to tear down this idea, I just thing that that might be an issue worth discussing.

[@jebthegodemperor7301]

A dutchman would say they are ALL your representative.

[@ethancoltrane5754]

I personally prefer Single Transferable Vote for this reason. It combines the larger amount of information on your ballot that you get with Ranked Voting, while keeping the proportionality of Multi-seat constituencies.

[@kassiogomes8498]

As a Brazilian: They are all your representatives.

[@federationprime]

All hail the Mormon governor, 5 wives and magic underwear for all!

[@dangersnail5839]

Hail Deseret

[@skgroovin915]

I live in Utah, and lean conservative, I can't fucking STAND the Mormon governor here. The new guy won't be much better either. Dammit.

[@dangersnail5839]

@@skgroovin915 at least you don’t have newsom like us Californians

[@skgroovin915]

@@dangersnail5839 true dat

[@stupidnotfunny]

@@skgroovin915 maybe leave 😳

[@PagoAoE2]

I am all for a multi-party system. As a libertarian who almost always votes libertarian party, It would be great to have a multi party system. I could finally feel represented.

[@falpsdsqglthnsac]

Being lgbt myself, I don’t think there would be a so-called “lavender party.” The lgbt community is a hodgepodge of liberals, socialists, right-libertarians, and even some conservatives. I don’t see a viable party forming unless it’s single-issue, and even then, there’s so much exclusionism and infighting that even that may be difficult.

[@FOLIPE]

Yeah, one-issue parties aren't really common speaking in the world. I think Americans let themselves believe groups like Lgbtq would have their own party because they see everything through a racial lense, but that is unlikely, just as I'd say it is not very likely Hispanics would have their own party.

[@madpig7120]

For blacks people it might be tho. Remember the blacks panthère

[@kam2894]

based lgbt right-libertarians.

[@falpsdsqglthnsac]

@@kam2894 don't get too excited, i've only met like 2 or 3

[@kam2894]

@@falpsdsqglthnsac make that 5. and i’ve actually met a lot, you’d be surprised

[@Vincent-rq2hy]

Yes, Id love to see this become reality haha

[@ashmikray]

Ikr

[@MinecraftMasterNo1]

It is a reality. Anyone can go start a party RIGHT NOW. Look at Green and Libertarian. Just because no one wants to vote for another party does not mean you can't start one

[@Wyliecoy0te]

The USA would need to proclaim a convention of states to change the constitution.

[@shayne-1880]

@@MinecraftMasterNo1 Unfortunately due to the Spoiler Effect neither ever will have a chance unless some sort of ranked-voting or approval-voting were to be achieved

[@hackman669]

US then would become Australia and some European nations.

[@thetristanfrantz]

Here's how I would've split it: Left-wing factions: Democrats Progressives Greens Socialists Right-wing factions: Republicans Federalists Libertarians Dixiecrats Big tent: Reformists Alliance party

[@seanwaddell2659]

Where are the neocons at Also not socialists unviable in America, specially after red scare, maybe social or labour like socdem

[@rabbittris]

@@seanwaddell2659 wasn't Bernie a socialist.

[@seanwaddell2659]

@@rabbittris Nah, he claims to be but his policies are state capitalist and welfare. Socialist would be if he wanted to democratize workspaces, increase labour and trade union rights, democratic planning of the economy, worker coops, and stuff. Like if he wanted democracy in McDonalds or something. He’s more Social Democrat, keeping capitalism just with a stronger welfare state and more government regulation. Universal healthcare, public funded college, etc. Isn’t socialist at all, just state capitalist. It’s as socialist as Amtrak or your electricity and water

[@rabbittris]

@@seanwaddell2659 ah I see.

[@seanwaddell2659]

@@rabbittris /s or

[@WasatchWind]

16:04 - I disagree with this. Since the 1890s, the leaders of our church have ceased supporting any specific party, and have stayed silent on many political matters, except on occasion, when they give counsel on their thoughts on such an issue. In these instances, such as their counsel on medical marijuana, they do not support a specific party's position, but simply say their thoughts, and leave church members to act as they see fit. This attitude towards politics I think, would lead many Latter-day Saints to not feel comfortable with a party specifically for us. I can see however, a moderate conservative group emerging that many members align to. But seeing as there are six million Latter-day Saints in the US alone, and growing, I bet Latter-day Saints could be found in many of these parties. However, given more autonomy, and considering the fact that we are hated by many very conservative groups like Southern Baptists, and hated by many liberal groups for other reasons, I can see a party forming for those reasons. In many what if scenarios, be it alternate history, alternate realities, etc, I often see us in the Intermountain west depicted as "Deseret", a massive theocracy. Students of history who study this however will find that this never could have been possible, and even then, Latter-day Saints were made up of Americans, Europeans, Hawaiians, Hispanics, etc. Nowadays, with 16 million worldwide members on every continent (especially north and south America) it would be impossible for members to unite politically, even if they are united religiously.

[@arcticelephant4721]

I could also see a single-issue Pro-life Party. They currently vote Republican, but I think many of them would hold other more Liberal beliefs.

[@anthonynorman7545]

True

[@thetrailer5050]

They would probably vote for the Christian party

[@anthonynorman7545]

@@thetrailer5050 there are a lot of not very religious people that are hardcore pro-lifers

[@greywolf7577]

I knew a bunch of people in college who were Catholic and were left wing on everything except abortion.

[@iamunamed5800]

@@anthonynorman7545 yes but if they are single issue voters that party might represent them best

[@AhJeezEnt]

The Algorithm is gunna kill this...

[@Colinop]

not really tbh

[@AhJeezEnt]

@@Colinop you right...I’m kinda shook

[@ten.seconds]

*laughs in hong kong where parties are only allowed as long as the ccp is in control*

[@f3tsch906]

One interesting topic, in my opinion, is how people view history or what history is in general. Its not really smth like "alternate history" but i think its an interesting concept high in depate with no definite answer yet. :)

[@zaynecook9235]

This man just fixed the broken political system of America in 2020

[@seanwaddell2659]

Ngl these parties would almost definitely consolidate especially the identity politics ones which have similar policies and goal

[@davilimalol4612]

Nah, he forgot the yang gang /s

[@seanwaddell2659]

@@davilimalol4612 this but unironically and w/ Huey Long Dong Long

[@Eik-gk5ps]

the identity parties would be HORRIBLE for an already polarized America...

[@bruhbutwhytho]

@@Eik-gk5ps Maybe not if they were mostly local so people would feel better represented.

[@thoremblem3625]

If we want a multi part system we need ranked choice voting

[@thoremblem3625]

@Sc0ut op the system can be called either ranked choice or instant runoff

[@thoremblem3625]

@Sc0ut op okay dude who cares they mean the same thing

[@playdischord1791]

RCV alone doesn’t give a multi-party system. You need some form of proportional representation.

[@thoremblem3625]

@@playdischord1791 I agree but rcv is a good start

[@thoremblem3625]

@Sc0ut op I did bro but who gives a fuck. That’s like if you referred to chips if you were from the UK (idk where you’re actually from) and I responded saying “iT’s CaLlEd fRiEs” who cares dude idk why you felt the need to say that

[@BigBroTejano]

T.N.S Texas Nationalist Party. Party Motto: “Viva La Texas! Long Live Tejas!”

[@problems3485]

Lol absolutely

[@absolutechad5428]

I think this is pretty good, but I doubt there would be a Hispanic party, as you stated Hispanics are kind of across the board and there is much internal division. Would they be pro-open borders? Lots of Hispanics in America don't want that. Would they be predominantly Mexican? Other cultures might not like that either and see their open borders policy as just a way to get more voters into the country. As for gays and feminists, I would think they would just unite behind some "progressive" party. Also doubt there would be an openly Jewish Party. Mormons definitely would though. Very interesting to think about, sad to think how much more interesting things could be. Very good video

[@deanvandijk9670]

To add to this, I don't think there would be a LGBTQ party either. There's not a lot of precedent internationally for functional parties like that. I think it's because 1. LGBTQ people don't make up a very large section of the population, and they are generally evenly spread (which is a disadvantage in systems that use constituencies or something like that) 2. They don't have a lot of reason to align on issues of economics and trade. 3. Their interests can generally be represented well by other parties. The Socialists, Greens, Rump Democrats, Libertarians and possibly to a degree the mainly Fiscal Conservatives will be supportive to them, whilst the religious conservatives, nationalists and maybe the labourites will be more ambivalent or even hostile (in case of the religious groupings).

[@deanvandijk9670]

Oh oops I just saw you mentioned them as well after I had sent out that massive wall of text 😅

[@maxalaintwo3578]

They're all Jewish

[@robertmartin2867]

If USA wants to encourage a multi-party system, then you should adopt Ranked-Choice Voting. It negates the need for "strategic voting", widens the Overton Window, and allows you to vote for 3rd-party candidates without endangering the "main candidate". The concept of a spoiler-candidate doesn't even exist in this system. It would mean mainstream neocons and RINOs would live in constant fear of their base abandoning them, and hence become more responsive.

[@lazer_kiw1]

10:21 "*as well as personal disarmament" "What part of 'Under no pretext' did you fuckers not understand?" -Karl Marx

[@Hrabns]

Been waiting for this video forever!!! You’re the best

[@rafaxd8178]

Actually, an indian party could be viable. Some countries have representation reserve to national native minorities (particullary in eastern Europe). So, mayne it would be a cherokee party, a sioux party, etc.

[@todisagreeitsokay1837]

yeah i am kind of interested how someone can spend days making such a video and come up with 16 different parties without mentioning that... very sad

[@rafaxd8178]

@@todisagreeitsokay1837 well, he mentioned it, but he says it wouldnt have representation (also asian parties neither).

[@todisagreeitsokay1837]

@@rafaxd8178 true... i missed it somehow cause he spent exactly one sentence on the isue and i was at work... :P but yea my bad, he did mention it

[@shzarmai]

I would like to see an Amerindian political party that unifies all Native Americans or Amerindians

[@rafaxd8178]

@@shzarmai with that, they only will get one seat in the parliament. With one seat for each indian minority (sioux, lakota, cree, choctaw, navajo, cherokee, etc.) It could be dozens of them, each one with it's own party. The problem is that there are to much indian nations in the USA, so it could be impossible. Maybe the more important and then a few seats for other minority indian groups (maybe one for the natives from Alaska and Hawaii too). Separate voting by ethnic group have the problem that you separate the people between two groups, so usually it give you the option to choose. For example, in Rhodesia in the 70s you have to choose to vote to the seats reserved for the whites or to the general seats. Other countries, like Romania, Persia, Lebanon (religious minorities), Croatia or Serbia do this practice.

[@jamesricker3997]

Technically America has a multi-party system If you take a closer look at the Democrats and the Republicans they don't resemble classic European political parties, the more closely resemble coalition governments There are different factions in each party in the primary elections determine which faction is going to lead

[@BigBroTejano]

Hence why AOC said if this was Europe she and Biden would not be in the same party.

[@h12-p3j]

I like how he uses the pine of New England to symbolize secession or autonomy but then never mentions New England

[@IaHarbour]

LMAO I know right

[@thechicken9463]

We have more than 2 parties, they just dont have any influence

[@endergamer794]

cause of the spoiler effect with first past the post

[@ghostramen6134]

A little bit of criticism on the video: I think "disarmament" can be interpreted as gun-control by a lot of people. It is true that modern socialism is an anti-interventionalist ideology that would seek more pacifist means by abolishing nuclear weapons, but some past socialist states have made gun-control laws, and some have not. Karl Marx once said, "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempts to disarm the people must be stopped, by force if necessary". So the lines are a little blurry of gun-control under socialism. Just wanted to point that out, because it's not like socialists have a clear stance on the issue.

[@vermas4654]

Besides, socialist policies and owning a gun don't really contradict each other. On the contrary, with a more socialist country you can still accidentally shoot yourself but don't go bankrupt from it

[@PointnShootMovies]

That's hilarious. I finally found something on which Karl Marx and I agree. But, in Z's defense, modern American socialists are pretty universally anti-gun, at least when compared to the right/America broadly

[@AiluridaeAureus]

You forget the left's motto of "rules for thee and not for me". YOUR guns can get taken because you're "counter-revolutionary" for not wanting to die to institute a stalinist hellhole, and thus are not part of "the people" and thus "not human". That's how the Twitter Commie mental calculus works out, it's not violent invasion and interventionism when the USSR invades Afghanistan, but it is when those nasty Americans do, it's not gun violence to them when a rioter forces a guy wearing a MAGA hat to his knees and executes him in the street, and it's fine for the CHAZ insurrectionists to walk around with illegally obtained rifles, but you're not allowed to own a pistol, it's how it's a Nazi insurrection when the proletariat truckers protest and act annoying, because it doesn't serve the agenda, but when the leftists literally burn down buildings, assault people and attack cops it's "fiery but peaceful protest". it's how black lives matter, until it's socialists killing them, how they genuinely believe nothing Antifa does can ever be fascist no matter how much they resemble the Italian Blackshirts or NSDAP, and how the USSR can repeatedly murder and oppress the Kulaks and other workers while still claiming they're "of the people for the people, to each to their need, from which to their ability", and why every single democratic nation needs to throw their nukes in the trash, why it was so horrible for the USA to bomb Hiroshima/Nagasaki, but they ignore the USSR building the strongest nukes in history and nearly ending the world like four times over, and I guarantee you they will never want to force China or North Korea to disarm as well. Because "it's never our fault", they can't accept when something is simply, plainly morally wrong no matter who is doing it.

[@ghostramen6134]

@@AiluridaeAureus I have never said any of this and you have instead binge complained your twitter insanity onto me. I never said im against truckers complaining. I never said the USSR's intervention wasn't imperialism. I never said anything about ANTIFA or whatever go somewhere else to act schizophrenic

[@michaeljoseph5711]

Id feel like gun control would be an issue that is heavily debated on in the hypothetical Socialist Party, since there are many Leftist pro gun group, but also a shit ton of anti 2A leftists also. Maybe the Green Party will be the official anti 2A party while the Socialist Party just support an extended process and high taxes but not banning any type of firearm

[@frantisekprusa4877]

Czech republic has representative multi-party system which has lead to a lot of variety over the years, so it foes work, we have had many different coalitions parties so yeah. Only modification we made to the system is that you have to get past the 5% mark to be represented in order to make the parliament less fractured.

[@chaddog313]

Alternate history, what if Attila the Hun was president of the USA now

[@timoteoooo]

I love all the party logos you made except the green party... what is that???

[@MonsieurDean]

Their actual logo.

[@felissylvestris6557]

I think they might need a new logo

[@brandonbonett6416]

The Second best timeline First best is Obviously Teddy Roosevelt wining The Great War and taking over the universe Also p.s: How dare you forget Huey Long's America First Party! They would clearly win 900% of the vote

[@pudding_pot_pie9523]

We live in the worst timeline😔

[@savagedarksider5934]

No. The best timeline is where Archduke Franz Ferdinand never gets assassinated.

[@enrico323]

I tried to toggle a bit with the numbers and demographics of 2016 vote and it came out the following Conservatives 24.66% Green Party 17.35% Labor Party 11.29% Republican Party 11.03% Democratic Party 9.44% Constitutional Party 6.05% -5% Threshold (as in Germany) Christian Democrats 4.35% Socialist Party 4.32% -4% Threshold (as in Sweden) Dixiecrat Party 3.68% Black People's Party 3.49% -3% Threshold (as in Italy) Women's Party 1.58% Lavender Party 1.47% -1% Threshold Latinos, Jewish and Mormons below 1%. Independentists were not taken into account With any threshold, right parties are likely to form majorities, with no threshold the center-to-left coalition would make it, but it may be pretty unstable. I'll be more than glad to help in case you want to make a video out of it!

[@KDH-br6hy]

Wowwwwwww

[@waihopang3764]

We have a lot of parties which have basically the same ideologies in Hong Kong. And yes we have political parties in Hong Kong

[@Algo5_5]

China: Not for long

[@samuelpatrick5050]

You have the parties the CCP allows you to have

[@sclash2000]

True. While the West base their political discussion on various policy positions, we only have one issue - Whether you like the Chinese Rule or not.

[@samuelpatrick5050]

@@sclash2000 careful not to get the CCP controlled HK police on you. You know how well they treat alleged dissidents

[@waihopang3764]

the Hong Kong political spectrum is very weird. The DAB(the biggest Conservative pro China party) is on the right of the political spectrum but is considered left in the HK spectrum becuz it supports the Chinese sovereignty. And the Democrats are considered right cuz they "mostly" dont agree with the Chinese rule, but they are mostly parties that promote liberalism.

[@seanc4501]

Like it is now. All parties will fall under one of 2 coalitions and continue the status-quo of a dual, two party system

[@p.taylor981]

Having political parties based on identities would be terrible because it enforces the idea that you’re born into whatever politics your parents believe in

[@elin4364]

yeah and there is no way it'd actually turn out like that. Like look at countries who actually have a system like this, they dont have a party representing like minorities directly like that.

[@gery8218]

@@elin4364 yeah here in Austria we have more than 2 parties that actually matter and there is no jewish/black/female party. And that's good.

[@JackWhite52]

This has probably been suggested before, but what if the United States remained the classical republic it was founded as? Keep up the great work! Love watching and sharing your videos

[@jeremiahtisdell4823]

Wdym by classical Republic?

[@deathdog1392]

@@jeremiahtisdell4823 We live in a direct democracy where everyone gets a vote. Specifically what the founding fathers did NOT want. The more people who vote, the less your individual vote counts for anything. It is why only property owners were the only ones given the vote when America started. This would make it so only people who had real stake in the country would be able to decide the future. It would also weed out the unintellectual and uncaring, in the electoral system and leave it so only people who really cared about the country would decide its future. Furthermore this was intended to breed strong leaders that would take the country in the direction of freedom like the founding fathers wanted. Not towards a direction of control or pandering towards the whims of every selfish person that wants a free handout.

[@jeremiahtisdell4823]

@@deathdog1392 appreciate it

[@RoderickVI]

@@deathdog1392 You seem to not understand what a direct democracy is, or a democracy for that matter. In a direct democracy people vote directly for laws, rather than representatives, like Switzerland, or California. America is a republic, like most of the world, because it has people vote for representatives, not policy. Also, democracy has absolutely nothing to do with how many people vote. Switzerland has been a democracy since 1291 and only a select few could vote. Ancient Athens was also a democracy and only citizens could vote.

[@RoderickVI]

@@deathdog1392 As to your opinion, I appreciate it but, breeding strong leaders and republicanism don't go hand in hand. Democracy is so much more superior to republicanism on its own, but a feudal democracy is the real way to go. People should be appointed on virtue and merit, not popularity.

[@bobfred159]

...Short answer these current jokers would be in trouble 😂

[@tommiller7902]

So basically the different parties come together to form a coalition and we end up with two coalitions. We could have this system already within our current parties if factions were as prominent as they used to be.

[@nromk]

We would have two party coalitions with two parties ruling over the other parties. Like in Germany you have ucs, ucd, and spd

[@jamesricker3997]

I suggest you take a closer look at the Democrats and Republicans They function more like coalition governments than traditional political parties

[@problems3485]

@@jamesricker3997 I think that’s the thing that a lot of people miss in general

[@jesuschristus1208]

​@@jamesricker3997 "traditional" parties are also coalitions. Sometimes they split, like it happened during the First World War, where the SPD split into the MSPD (Majority) and USPD (Independent) because they had different opionions on the war. Parties aren't "one mind". There is always a left, a "middle" and a right part. The Problem with american "parties" is, that that coalition is far too big. You're a social democrat? Well, your only realistic option is Dems, but you are forced to vote for everything else the democrats stand for. Like conservatism. I mean compared to the german parliament the US Dems represent almost the entire german parliament.

[@zacharyfelder6604]

just ban coalitions? not that hard

[@problems3485]

@@zacharyfelder6604 that’s not how humans work bro

[@yungstallion2201]

A two party system is a one party system with extra steps

[@plasmawolf7960]

Christian part sounds cool. I can’t however imagine a New York party. New York is one of the most internally divided states in the Union.

[@FrogsOfTheSea]

First past the post in the UK refers to how we elect MPs, not the prime minister - the prime minister does usually require a majority, not a plurality (even if that majority is only maintained by support of a smaller party)

[@patrickyoung2479]

What if Pat Buchanan and the Reform Party won the 2000 presidential election?

[@maybeh-letsplaysmore3697]

More realistic that Perot wins in 1992 tbh

[@BigBroTejano]

@@maybeh-letsplaysmore3697 so what if a independent won in 1992. Because I keep seeing people say this but the Reform Party wasn’t founded till 1995.

[@maybeh-letsplaysmore3697]

@Chooey Sooares He was at one point leading in the polls and got 19% of the vote, that's what makes me think he could have won.

[@chaseross8900]

The Dallas Cowboys- America's Party

[@ironwolf2244]

I think a Technocrat group would form, and a party representing the Native Americans would form as well. Some of the indigenous tribes have large communities within a region.

[@crazymangoz9583]

This honestly sounds great. I’d love for this to happen. Edit: a no party system like others haven mentioned would also be great. I’d definitely take one of those choices over what we have now.

[@alsatusmd1A13]

Or a system that allows voting for people rather than parties

[@vinceontheweb]

@@alsatusmd1A13 ... also known as a "no-party system" which is mentioned in the comment

[@crazymangoz9583]

@@alsatusmd1A13 yes, which I mentioned in the comment

[@FOLIPE]

A no party system sounds great until you notice that for proportional representation you are choosing one person out of a pool of possibly thousands of candidates, and you can't have by-elections nor do you want your vote to go to waste or be forced to vote tactically

[@joni1405]

It's impossible to have no political parties. There is no such system on planet earth

[@paperbagman9445]

All these parties looking like Pokémon types

[@LP-hl3nd]

I'd be interested to see how this would actually play out on the national level and how these parties would grow and such and where they'd get most of their support.

[@JakubS]

it'd be way easier with a vote system that isn't First Past The Post

[@The-Last-Prime]

George Washington: You had one job, guys. One job...

[@RedSoxFanatic4Life]

The obvious problem with implementing a proportional representation system in the USA is that the executive branch can’t be divided based on proportionality of the vote. There’s only one person being elected President. This could, however, work for the legislative branch.

[@thrownswordpommel7393]

Switzerland has a proportionality-based executive branch. It's called the federal council, seven people with each having their own domain to take care of, so splitting the executive branch isn't completely impossible, though unlikely in the US.

[@lh2170]

While the little bit of rhetoric in this was very noticeable, you did a fantastic job and staying objective! Nice video!

[@porkchampbread9464]

Nobody gonna talk about how one of the parties on the thumbnail is the Dallas Cowboys Party

[@poogmaster1]

I think MMP (what Germany has) would be the most likely alternate system for the US. Make the proportional people happy by having around half the seats be proportional but also have some FPTP constituencies. The most like change if we kept constituencies would be to RCV I think, which allows third party voters to put their favorite choice first and their acceptable choice second

[@impostor6982]

What's the green flag with a tree The... "lebanese party" 😂 😂 😂 ?

[@IaHarbour]

Flag of New England

[@Gur7910]

You referred to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party", which is grammatically incorrect. :p Also, loved the "Except for these guys" in the Jewish one.

[@TheBloperM]

"Other religions will be too small to have a party and will join the other parties" *except for these guys*

[@bcfilms498]

What was the Pine tree one ?

[@matthewmckinnon42]

@@bcfilms498 that was meant to represent independence parties for states like California and Alaska.

[@Hyrumwolf]

Those guys already pay 50% of Democrat donations and 25% of Republican donations. They don't need their own party.

[@quackzyy5711]

Sad Progressive Party noises in the background

[@jgr7487]

a lot of what Mr Z considered different parties would coalesce into the Progressive (or Justice) Party

[@alexshone6469]

Bring back the Bull Moose party !

[@alexshone6469]

@Simeon Roban on the contrary all those democrats who lost their election in swing districts did not back Medicare for all however those who did back Medicare for all in swing districts won

[@seanwaddell2659]

@@theelevatedone2536 CR will give WC the full deuce?

[@alexshone6469]

@Simeon Roban yeah I get it, populism. It’s rising everywhere across the world, on both the right AND left. I believe we should have people in power who want the people to succeed and genuinely care. However I don’t see that in Trump, he is unlike other populists no matter their place on the political spectrum, in Trump I see a man who is, more so than anything, in it for his own ego and not actually for the people.

[@Neuroticmancer]

It’s terrible that the Native Americans don’t have a political party in the real world, let alone this hypothetical. New Zealand got a Maori party, it’s possible

[@xhinted690]

Maori people actually represent a good portion of the population of New Zealand, native americans do not.

[@pharaoh9588]

Dictatorships and one party systems: Nice try