The two-party system has destroyed democracy

[@LouisFoglia]

As a couple of commenters have noted, not all parliamentary systems have proportional representation. I should have said, "This is opposed to a proportional representation system." My mistake.

[@LouisFoglia]

Mistake is at 2:26

[@thejquinn]

Hey Lou I wanted to point at the beginning of what you said about toothpaste. This is a fallacy. Most toothpaste brands are owned by Colgate or Crest, so the choice is extremely limited

[@Oscar_Armstrong]

@@thejquinn that's besides the point though. It was just meant to make the point that we have a lot of selection in everything, although the story of these "fake" brands is actually a very interesting one.

[@sethorama4702]

Most democrats aren't socialist dude. They're center right on the political spectrum. The DSA granted is part of the democratic party but have few members and their current policies fall center left. To go any farther left is to leave the economic system of capitalism.

[@cks7548]

Q: What's the difference between Ukrainians and Republicans? A: Ukrainians will fight for their country. Democrats are a lot morally better than Republicans are, and actually care about the country unlike them.

[@rajanlad]

George Carlin was right, we have lot of choices for dumb things , but virtually nothing when it comes to important stuff like elections and rights.

[@jackyzhu9761]

rajan lad, you mean dumb things. Choices for stupidity, and for elections, which aren't stupid, a absurdly small amount that's very stupid compared to the choices for stupidity,

[@George-lt6jy]

yes let's change rajan. you and I.

[@Cod4Wii]

The illusion of choice...

[@timdeathly]

@@jackyzhu9761 what? No u lyi

[@bandrija1]

Here in europe third parties are called parties

[@MarioAtheonio]

And in some EU countries what's becoming more of a problem is the constant influx of new parties :)

[@bandrija1]

@@MarioAtheonio no, not realy

[@MarioAtheonio]

What country do you live in? Even in the UK, with its FPTP, there are now two brand-new parties that will probably get into parliament whilst UKIP is likely to completely vanish from the scene.

[@bandrija1]

@@MarioAtheonio i live in croatia. I dont see how many parties is a problem. That is a sign of a healthy democrasy. They can form coaltions

[@jarskil8862]

Here in Finland we have literally 2 (maybe 3) parties despite we have 7-8 or so We have "left and right Liberals" and "nationalist party" Why only 2 parties? Because despite the nationalists are atm clear number one in polls, and in elections they lost the largest spot with only 4000 votes. All other parties were ready to break their promises, just so they got big enough coalition so they were able to block nationalists out of the goverment. Atm we have extremely unstable goverment due this.

[@eruno_]

As European the idea of only two parties existing in parliament seems strange.

[@elpeopuru3003]

ユーネポ / Yuunepo There is functionally no difference between our two-party system and your multi-parties, though. In your countries it's literally illegal to compete with the establishment thanks to stuff like hate speech laws. That's even worse. At least here they have to keep up the pretense of freedom. Look at how UKIP candidates were treated during the most recent EU elections, banned from internet platforms and had physical violence committed against them. How desirable is democracy if you're only allowed to pick the choices that the ruling classes want?

[@alexandrub8786]

@@elpeopuru3003 those are coalitions and the companie that care about hate speech are american because they are one who care the most about that ,and also when out countries have a problem with american censorship they send other people instead to isdn to the subpoena edition.cnn.com/2019/05/27/tech/zuckerberg-contempt-canada/index.html

[@elpeopuru3003]

@Tsunami1 Why do you think that corporations like Burger King tweet out support for your side's violence?

[@elpeopuru3003]

@Romanian Székely Mind you, I don't disagree that a lot of Europe's problems come from US intervention, and that's a damn shame. There's just a difference between being a true leftist who sees through all these things versus being an apologist for it. The latter frustrates me.

[@kr854]

@Tsunami1 Were they arrested? There's your answer.

[@cameronformes5155]

we need a petition to get this played in every single school at least once a year

[@terrysperman304]

The two party system is divisive regardless of who runs! It keeps us in a perpetual state of turmoil.

[@karthik4711]

Yes. I was always confused why there is only 2 party in a democracy. Thanks for the video.

[@andreiserban2409]

Is it a democracy?

[@RussellD11]

@@andreiserban2409 absolutely NOT....

[@vova-l]

karthik velly At least, well, the rest of the WORLD has a multi-party system.

[@elpeopuru3003]

I don't see how the modern US isn't democratic. There's one-person one-vote, and hundreds of millions of people get to vote. Some even say that illegals get to vote. It just so happens that democracy is designed to be controlled by the elites from the ground-up. "Democracy" isn't actually a very good system.

[@zamorrow]

It's representative democracy. More accurate single word definition would be republic. A democracy would entail every citizen voting on every issue. We elect senators.

[@HugoLaStrange]

living in Czech republic where political parties are always emerging and disappearing, it's weird to see that a country can have only two major parties

[@geoffphillips5872]

Binary party political structure is traitorous.

[@mortenrobinson5421]

Look at China then, it only has 1 major party, and they're more than a billion people. You would think that a billion people could come up with more than 1 party 😂🙈

[@HugoLaStrange]

@@mortenrobinson5421 Is china a democracy? they didn't establish this regime by fair elections. That's just a good example of a totalitarian regime lol.

[@theuglykwan]

@@mortenrobinson5421 That's false. There's more than one party. There are opposition parties but the CCP controls the banner under which they run. I think it's called the United Front.

[@thedudegrowsfood284]

The "illusion of choice".

[@Mamjam22]

Be Independent… once you belong to a Political Party you are the problem

[@Chrisparkinson3]

Not all parliamentary systems have proportional representation. Canada’s federal elections still use a FPTP voting system.

[@rawvid9065]

Yes , we need STV

[@Seatux]

This is the time to not blame Canada, but the UK.

[@LouisFoglia]

You're right. Thanks for flagging it. I pinned a correction.

[@francismendy1398]

And the UK

[@utuberoku2475]

Yes, end 2 party system!!

[@76063co2]

great video. We do desperately need to break the duopoly.

[@Oncopoda]

Lou, for someone who discusses politics as frequently as you do, you manage to steer away from controversial statements altogether. It's impressive almost.

[@MilesHacker]

KillerB86 why almost? It’s just impressive.

[@Oncopoda]

@@MilesHacker that's fair.

[@uhohhotdog]

Not really. He’s made a shit ton of mistakes

[@CubeTendo]

@@uhohhotdog and you haven’t?

[@JohnFromLINY]

We are so trapped in this system. We need real change and nobody is here to help us!

[@citizenx3729]

Brilliant work young man. The lemming pool needs to dry up in our country. People like you help advance this end.

[@mickcv4554]

Why can’t we have men like Washington nowadays? Earned his place and was demanded to be leader, foresaw this disaster of a 2 party system, and could’ve stayed in office like a king but rejected it

[@c0pyimitati0n]

Can't stand people that yell at the people who vote 3rd party and say that they are "throwing their vote away" ... We can't fix the system if we keep doing the same things.

[@Seatux]

Or treat throwing the vote away if you know who is going to win anyway. A small moral win for you, the rest who vote the winner gets to mock the minority.

[@hologramghost5331]

Because you are and that has consecuences the Bush and the Trump adminstration are proof of this, save your idealism for things that don't carry such high stakes

[@c0pyimitati0n]

@@hologramghost5331 with this thought process things will never change... 😒

[@hologramghost5331]

@@c0pyimitati0n I'm all for change but one has to act in relation with the present environment and the potential consequences related to that environment, kids in cages, a worsening environmental emergency, a reality TV star with his hands on the nuclear codes those are the things that we are left to dealt with when people opt for a defective strategy

[@c0pyimitati0n]

@@hologramghost5331 Trump wasn't a 3rd party candidate... So your argument just backs up mine. We need change and it ain't gonna come from the same two piles of shit we've been fed for the last couple hundred years.

[@yeetleslaw8529]

Capitalist ideals only leads to monopoly. Like you said, capitalism is baked in our blood. Our government reflects that.

[@Soleilune1995]

Not to mention, a CEO is an authoritarian position. CEOs have all of the power in a company. They make all of the decisions for all of the workers, except what they care about is their own personal profit. Their workers are replaceable. They can just hire someone else. No wonder they look at "good leadership" in the government as ignoring what the people want/need and just serving the interests of the wealthy class. The wealthy donate only to candidates who will benefit them, and they have all of the money and power. This is why we have tyranny in America. Corporations are the government.

[@TomKellyXY]

Australia has literally all of those things. As a New Zealander I’m reluctant to admit their system is fairer but you can’t argue with CPGrey.

[@DiThi]

People are kept ignorant and vote as if it was FPTP though.

[@stridon223]

this has to spread

[@ginafrancesca808]

Say it louder

[@RobReinhart]

The problem is that people don’t stand up against this 2 party system. Therefore, this 2 party duopoly system keeps thriving.

[@potatoheadpokemario1931]

Two party system are so unbased that the only thing worse is a one party system

[@lochnessamonster1912]

Maybe more than two parties would work in a country where more than just 30% vote. We already have minority rule because of a two party system. I don’t want 5% of the population making policies for everyone, it’s already bad enough.

[@jamesdouglas8726]

Thank You Louis! I'm seeing my country being controlled by a failed political system. I'm not gonna vote for a D or R. I'm so tired of elected folks working for their party instead of their voters. God help us, we need real change. Please keep doing what you do.

[@sguinn91]

Pray and hope for change,my friend. Cause were only human and their is only so much we can do. I became an independent libertarian after the last election cause I'm tired of the junk and would rather have intelligent discussion instead of discrimination and bias like were dealing with now.

[@Seatux]

The First Pass the Post Voting for a Westminister style parliamentary system isn't free from a duopoly either. If the 3rd choice is a weak one, or country practices political patronage, ie: you vote me and my party elected as government would deliver things you need would mean people rarely vote independants. I am genuinely stuck disagreeing with my country's duopoly parties and vote independants anyway because I disagree with the system in its entirety.

[@Lumencraft-]

6:45 that ranked choice voting seems like something worth exploring on a larger scale.

[@CatholicWeeb]

This is used in the Republic of Ireland, It's working reasonablely good.

[@manchukhan8255]

It's not that there is only two parties in America, it's just that nobody views the third parties seriously enough to vote for them.

[@Florida46]

I recently read an article by the Atlantic that's correct about the fact that a 2 party system isn't working in favor of democracy. It stated that the far right has been manifesting in the Republican party for the past 20 years and Trump made it even worse. The article said that the far right of the GOP must be marginalized and the only way to successfully do that is by forming at least a 3rd political party. It stated that the purpose of a 3rd political party would be primarily for moderate centrist right traditional conservatives in order to give them a place they would feel comfortable calling home. Otherwise the far right faction of the current Republican party will continue to gain more influence and power and eventually will lead to the destruction of American democracy. As another Atlantic article pointed out the left and the right are radicalizing each other. By adding a 3rd and possibly a 4th party both the far right and far left would soon disappear. That's cause America would no longer have 2 extremist political parties constantly butting heads. We would end up having another party for moderate centrist Democrats and also another party for moderate centrist right traditional conservatives. Congressional districts across the country would be much more evenly represented. We would no longer have Ilhan Omar's and Alexandria Cortez's nor would we have Margerie Taylor Green's and Paul Gozar's.

[@mortentoensager]

Everything Lou said in this video, is how most democratic countries do it. Most democratic countries look at the US system as a not working democratic system. Because of what mentioned in this video and the influence of businesses in politics. Americans need to look outside there borders to see how things can be done better like the metric system and 24 hours time system, booth used by the military because it's easier and more accurate.

[@horseshoed5221]

A political party is in business for one reason. And that’s NOT a public service for voters. It’s to return an investment for those who dump money into the party. We need to fire the party system.

[@j0nrages]

YES- Ranked Choice and Parliamentary Congress are dreams that should be reality

[@uhohhotdog]

Assuming someone who voted third party would have otherwise voted for the duopoly candidate is nonsense

[@thedudegrowsfood284]

Nice statue of His Holiness, The Dude. Far out, man!

[@ryanmccready8978]

I don't know if this creates extreme frustration with any other viewers, but relating most to the libertarian party I think we are long overdue for a revolution. Third parties ought to join together and mount one.

[@fiberrs1]

First reaction when I saw the title: YEAH NO SHIT!!

[@jacobmarley2417]

Fantastic video, I could not agree more on every single point.

[@Spike.SpiegeI]

great video!! We need to enact some of these changes but it seems like such a long shot when the 2 parties control the rules :(

[@theuglykwan]

It's not absolute. In the progressive era, voters in 21 states or so forced them to change the rules for ballot initiatives so in those states the voters can initiate ballot measures which bypass the legislature. They can pass standard laws or even amend the state constitution this way. In MI they used this method to get citizen led redistricting commission. In CA they used it to get independent redistricting commission and jungle primaries.

[@kylewollman2239]

And then when you go to work, the thing that governs most of your time and activity, there is a no party system run by either an oligarchy (board of directors) or a dictatorship (CEO/owner).

[@MechanicWolf85]

There shouldn't even be parties in a democracy There should be people with ideas and we should judge them based on the ideas they bring

[@fromthebackseat4865]

That's just not possible. Parties are more or less essential for government. Nothing would get done if there were no coalitions, and people will band together based on ideology regardless.

[@MusicforSweetyinSD]

Third party votes don't steal or interfere in the voting process. We need to stop blaming voters for the shitty two party system. We have a right to vote for whomever we like. So blaming is absolutely shit. Stop being tribal and vote based on policy and voting records. FFS. Stop using the term spoiler. It's lazy and supports the two party system's argument that there should only be two parties. Rank choice voting is best. Get rid of the super delegates and we'll have a nation with a president that works for the people and legislative laws in favor of the people and NOT the 1% and corporations.

[@Nickxis]

How many other countries have similar political systems?

[@k-mdn4905]

アニメAnimeIsArt Even in multiparty systems, there’re almost always two dominant ones that tend to win most of the time.

[@rawvid9065]

Wayyyyy too many countries , we need stv in every countries

[@xXWorldgamefunXx]

@@k-mdn4905 However there is always an option for smaller parties to arise. If both the democratic and republican party turn to shit nobody can vote them out of office.

[@klaw547]

I believe it is absolutely insane to vote for one candidate just because you don't want to see another candidate win. After the smoke clears the BEST case scenario is you are left with a candidate you care NOTHING about. I don't care how I feel about Donald Trump I will NOT vote for Joe Biden.... I will continue to vote for those 3rd "spoiler" parties.

[@aagreminger8823]

this is a really good video

[@zimtwiers9726]

Totally agree with the video. A easy measure for the electoral college would be introducing ranked choice voting and making each states HoR votes representitve. Small states with 3 electoral would stay the same and be decisive(the 1 HoR vote would only go to the wimner ofcourse). Larger states would get more purple. This would increase the importance for politiciand in adressing all states instead of just a few swing states and still let smaller states keep a stronger voice. Hopefully the Dual party system would also fall as a result.

[@dwc1964]

One of the solutions you proposed, we've got in California. Party primaries have been eliminated (for everything but POTUS) in favor of a "Top Two" primary. What this means is that, in the spring, instead of each party choosing its candidates to represent it in the general election, it's a battle royale amongst *all* the candidates regardless of party affiliation, with the two top vote-getters moving on to November. The result is that the spring election is in practical effect the *general* election, and the November election is the *runoff.* Except that everyone still thinks of the spring election as the primary, which they figure they can skip (spring elections have *far* lower turnout than November), and they still have it in their heads that they'll be able to vote for their preferred party in November. The result has been not just to *completely* shut out "third parties", but to reinforce the *single-party* nature of most districts, as they now feature a November runoff between two candidates *of the same party.* Thus, even less choice. So, maybe don't do that.

[@theuglykwan]

They should amend it so top 4 advance and use ranked choice or similar system for the general.

[@kellyramon8506]

I love what you said in the end. Thank you for this.

[@KoriconNala]

Great video. Loved it!

[@jeremywright9511]

Wish they would reform the system sooner rather than later. The process of doing so would likely take years to properly establish, so better to look for a solution now than to maintain this childish and false division.

[@ateisme3752]

And they think they live in a democracy.

[@mbdg6810]

Its a REPUBLIC

[@LeonardiniLuca]

Lou is great. Period!

[@ganapatikamesh]

There’s always a lot of focus on the president and electoral college. However there were times in the 19th century when Congress had members from more than just the two parties. India has a first-past-the-post system and 50+ parties that organize into political coalitions. Two things that those who benefit from the duopoly (party leaders, donors, media, and pundits) often say is 1) people don’t vote for parties, they vote for candidates 2) it would be expensive to change things to either multi-seat districts or some sort of proportional representation system such as RCV, MMPR, or STV. Looking at those two arguments. The first one isn’t true. SOME people do vote for candidates. However I have volunteered as a poll worker in my state and in each partisan election I worked, most people didn’t even know all the candidates they voted by party, many opting to use the part of the ballot that lets them vote “Party Line”, that is an area a top each column where selecting a party automatically means you select all party candidates for that column. In nonpartisan elections such as school board and city council elections here, many people again didn’t know all the candidates and would inquire with the poll workers about the affiliation of the candidates. We aren’t given that information. So saying people vote for candidates not parties isn’t true. Most people are voting for parties not candidates because they want to vote for their “team.” Those without a “team” either aren’t voting or are the people who are voting for candidates. As for it being to expensive, that also is false. Numerous studies have shown that the costs of elections would actually be reduced by switching and the costs to implement the changes would also not be very much. In fact, it would be comparable to the costs Congress made after the 2000 election and no one in Congress or state legislatures was complaining then about the small sum. Prior to the 1960s, single-member districts weren’t mandatory for federal elections. Congress changed this then. There were states that had local, state, and even federal offices elected multi-members or even at-large members. In the 1960s this was changed. The thought was to intentionally create districts for certain minority groups so as to ensure representation...especially in places where they had been discriminated and even denied representation. While the intentions are honorable, it opened up gerrymandering in ways that once the Voting Rights Act was gutted has led to situations that actually do the opposite of the intentions of those who passed into law the single-member districts to begin with. Thus, with the intentions broken, the law should be reformed. A multi-member district could run parties that represent minority groups to ensure representation. This is what is done in other nations that are multi-party democratic-republics. Saying that the richest nation on the planet cannot afford these things and saying that somehow our citizens aren’t as politically savvy as other nations by not voting for parties should lead people to then point out the irrelevance of the parties and pressure for the complete ending/banning of parties altogether so that all elections are nonpartisan or if it costs too much then instead of taxpayers paying for elections then the parties pay taxes that then pay for elections since we’ve all seen the huge sums of money the local, state, and national parties have and the grand conventions they put on every four years.....surely they could spare some of that money to help foot the bill of either great reforms that would make the process more representative and democratic or the elections themselves since they want to exclude others. As Congress and legislative bodies are the ones with the most real political influence on people’s day to day lives (they write and pass the laws that the executive branches enforce and judiciary branches interpret), that’s where the focus of reform should be. Those who wish to maintain the status quo (because they benefit from it) like to distract and confuse the issue by talking about the electoral college and executive branch like the Presidency and make it seem like that’s where people and other parties outside the duopoly should focus their attention. Yet historically the diversity of political parties has been in local, state, and even the national legislative branches while whatever two big parties get the executive. In fact, the few times those smaller parties have either gained a majority in a legislative branch or gained an executive branch is when the two big parties either got the smaller party to merge with it (see parties in some places like Democratic-Farmers Party, etc where this happened), or they used fear to get people to run it out of existence in an area (early 20th century Oklahoma Socialist Party is a good example). Even in multi-party systems two or three rise to be the biggest parties and either coalitions are formed or parties work together or oppose each other depending on specific issues....it just depends on what kind of government system it is (presidential, parliamentary, semi-presidential, etc). You’re absolutely right that the two existing major parties would actually benefit from the reforms. Unfortunately they just don’t realize it yet. And sadly they may not realize it at all and people will reach a point where they no longer trust or have confidence in the system and so will not participate. What happens when people stop participating in peaceful democratic-republic systems? Well, if history is any indicator, then probably not anyone’s desired outcomes. So ready they could prevent any of those outcomes and just spend the small amount of money and reform the system. The real question is do we have any real leaders with the necessary courage to do it.

[@FalconsEye58094]

trapped in a vicious cycle, only 2 parties with over a century worth of influence each, first past the post, the electoral college which can only be changed by a notoriously difficult constitutional amendment

[@Tyloron]

Bingo! Abolish the two-party system! The Centrists and Moderates will rise!

[@pentekimi]

at least 90% of your points are valid in Hungary as well

[@jarskil8862]

Here in Finland we have literally 2 (maybe 3) parties despite we have 7-8 or so We have "left and right Liberals" and "nationalist party" Why only 2 parties? Because despite the nationalists are atm clear number one in polls, and in elections they lost the largest spot with only 4000 votes. All other parties were ready to break their promises, just so they got big enough coalition so they were able to block nationalists out of the goverment. Atm we have extremely unstable goverment due this.

[@gauravkashyap3189]

No ads? :(

[@onsight1318]

Believe me .. having more parties isn't that great either..... I'm from India and we have a multiple-party system... if a mainstream party doesn't get the majority it can form collisions with other small parties which often take it as an opportunity for their own benefit leading to a weak and corrupt government... Also these small regional parties, often creates divide among peoples by exploiting their cultural and regional identity..

[@Seatux]

No one says to have choices as many as rice brands... Just one or a few extra would do.

[@onsight1318]

@@Seatux well that's the point

[@AndyGaskin]

Good analysis.

[@Datruth_36]

Thanks Lou!

[@FilinMXr]

This channel is still underrated

I like that ranking system. we HAVE TO DO SOMETHING cause I and others CAN' T TAKE THIS CRAP anymore!! Things have to change, man! I DON'T want to go through this again...having to choose between Trump and Hillary!!!! NOT AGAIN!!

[@ilyaelric9539]

Hey it's Lou and here is the thing. I finally recognized that everything nonlefty also exists

[@uhohhotdog]

Bruno Buccellati he’s not lefty

[@mcountiss]

At some point, both parties will split into moderate and extreme versions of themselves, and hopefully give us 4 parties that will open the door to others. We already are seeing a divide in the moderates and progressives in the Democrats. Hopefully it doesn't end in a bull moose scenario.

[@tylerkammerer4932]

Im sorry but you a totally wrong about how parliamentary voting, if someone got X- percentage of popular vote it doesn't equal X percentage of the seats in Parliament. It's a first past the post system, where it can happen when a party that receives a minority of popular vote but still could win a majority of the seats in the house(parliament) .

[@LouisFoglia]

You're right. I should have said "some" parliamentary systems . I rewrote that paragraph a bunch of times (at one point I had examples of the different countries with proportional representation). I pinned a correction. Thanks for pointing it out.

[@nopenadda]

you failed to mention the 2 parties came together to create rules making it harder to gain debate access

[@gljames24]

I've been saying this for years, but how do we ranked voting passed by the people empowered by the current system?

[@MitchellThomas92]

Uhhh you don't :P the change would have to go through Congress I'm pretty sure. when almost everyone in power is backed by a party, supporting change in this direction would be political suicide unfortunately.

[@asaadhusein5063]

What happens if he messes up

[@chiuansheng]

2 or 100. It's the same. more difficulty more easy to Manipulation. 2 parties probably 50% against 50%. 100 parities. good luck with that. ,most people even can't remember what the policy they voted for. 100..........good luck.

[@robertagallant3819]

In the United States of America, Democracy does not work! Democracy includes too many problems. Democracy needs much more work to help improve it.

[@josephagar1005]

I honestly didn't realize until recently.

I subscribed. I want to see your other views on topics and see your other videos.

[@historygeek2411]

What do you all think is better? Option 1:no parties Option 2: one party Option 3: multiple parties

[@behindthefern2846]

3

[@niksterrr1110]

NO PARTIES! EVERYONE INDEPENDENT!

[@takerweapon1]

Three

[@madmadderson7318]

I'm certainly running out of patience for both sides

[@davidramirez9891]

We been knew

[@anthonymartin3642]

i couldn't hear anything after focusing on the Big Lebowski statue in the bottom left...

[@Secondary_Identifier]

That feel when the electoral college has voted the last 2 Republican presidents into office in spite of their losing the popular vote and this isn't treated as a gross distortion of Democracy. :/

[@raney150]

Gerrymandering doesn't affect president or state level votes. Where it takes affect is the House or any state legislature that is voted from districts. Gerrymandering is changing district borders to help your party. State borders never change unless we are forming an entirely new state out of old ones. I don't think we have done that since the Civil War though.

[@Secondary_Identifier]

@@raney150 Raney that was some pretty helpful clarification and I appreciate you. After reviewing the information, I think I was crossing wires regarding the few states that allocate electoral college votes by tying them to congressional districts, and the other states.

[@spiritualanarchist8162]

One can choose between 'Rep.Capitalism plus or Dem. Capitalism light..

[@elpeopuru3003]

If leftists hate capitalism so much then why do you "punch nazis".

[@christiansmakingmusic777]

All the possible structural reforms might cause us to focus on the wrong thing. The problem is that good public policy has to involve what is wise, what is practical, and what is possible. It has to involve starting with a wide swath of proposals and narrowing them down to things that might be effective, and almost always relies on compromise to actually get a decent policy implemented. Once implemented, the policy must be revisited in time via the same process in order to assess its effectiveness and changed if necessary. Another angle here is how prosperity causes most political issues and even policy questions to have little large scale impact on quality of life. I don't like higher taxes, but unless it is a crushing burden I can simply ignore it and pursue my personal ambitions. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness remember? Applying these ideas to the needed structural changes leads me to think that the House should most definitely become more like a parliament with parties receiving a proportional representation within their delegation. The difficulty there is adding a layer between the district level voting. Geography and local interest will have to be taken into account.

[@friton8i752]

We in Germany have 5 big parties and its also very hard the find a solution

[@nhawk4708]

Just put all candidates in a house and make them live together in a reality tv show. They compete in presidential challenges and everyone can see each life story and watch how they act and respond to different situations and then vote and slowly eliminate until a winner. Even reality shows potintially have better system to choose a winner. The political innovation discussion is wonderful to explore. :)

[@jacobbarrett8068]

We never had a democracy

[@SeanAlegator]

Man if we could go back to those days that we never had democracy nor republic it would be way better

[@artski09]

Democracy is talking itself to death. The people do not know what they want; they do not know what is the best for them. There is too much foolishness, too much lost motion. I have stopped the talk and the nonsense. I am a man of action. Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that some day.

[@Cybernaut551]

And that is a fact.

[@joecaner]

We have *rank* choice voting where we have the choice between two of the worst candidates imaginable.

[@ihl0700677525]

I think the duopoly is good. It create more stable and decisive government. The problem with dozen or so political parties is the fact that too much compromise need to be made, to the point of making decisive decision is almost impossible. Ofc it has arguably good "moderation" effect on any policy (since the ruling party usually need vote from the opposition to pass any legislation), but I prefer *stabilty* and *decisiveness* over merely having "more option" (for the sake of having more option).

[@juicedbeetlejuice4572]

My personal issue with the Two Party system is that it makes everything very absolute, posing a unique Social Issue. Instead of having individual parties representing different beliefs, suddenly you have one representing half the political spectrum, and the other representing the other half: This creates “Crossfire” between peoples and allows the opposing side to generalize the other easily- For example, someone can’t be a Socialist without being called a Communist. This doesn’t sound like an issue I know but I think it drastically encourages Social conflict and turns Elections into Us vs Them politics. I guess what I’m trying to say is that a two party system creates Social Polarization, and having absolute parties representing what is a Multi-Idealogical voter base isn’t effective or efficient.

[@ihl0700677525]

@@juicedbeetlejuice4572 Polarization happened in countries with multiple political parties too, like in Italy and Germany (e.g. rise of fascism). IMO this has nothing to do with the number of political parties. Even in one-party state (e.g. Yugoslavia), social tension and unrest (e.g. due to multi-ethnic society) exist.

[@rcquakes30]

Afraid of competition right

[@JohnHWelch63]

We really need a viable 3rd party in the US that can actually win a substantial amount of seats in congress and have a real chance of winning the presidency. The dems and reps need some real competition to keep them in check! They have freely run amok all over the constitution for way too long. Sometimes it happens at the Governor level. For instance, my home state of Maine once elected independent Angus King for governor, but it needs to happen in DC too. Just before I moved to Florida I remember Maine instituting the ranked choice voting system he's talking about. I voted that way once but then moved out of state so I don't really know how that's working for them.

[@thiagomoulinassis]

Brazil has more than 30 political parties. More than 4 major ones. Still we are as polarized as the US is now.

[@spacet1me]

Anytime I see Lou it's only going to be bad news.

[@geoffphillips5872]

The fantasy of democracy thrives. A vote for a binary party is a vote for no change. We regress.

[@evolutionofmaggie]

you keep such a tidy room of beloved things!

[@archiemorris89]

That's why we should have 1 party

[@Carlosconga]

Ranked choice sucks. If you put the most viable candidate at the top, your subsequent votes are ignored. If your candidate in another round was eliminated in a previous round, your vote is ignored. If you put 3rd parties as the top pick(s) you could spoil the election if the opponent gets a majority before making it to the round where you listed the most viable candidate. In plural voting (what we have now), at least you get to participate in every stage of runoffs as the candidates are updated. Approval voting is the way to go. Simple to explain. Simple to fill out on the ballot. Simple to count. You vote for everyone you approve of. The person with the highest approval wins percentage-- end of story.

[@giancarlod8837]

hey @LouisFoglia, what watch are you wearing?

[@ieaatclams]

Don't worry in California it's one party elections

[@BobbyCoggins]

You'll have to fight a war to get us to change our voting system., which was designed this way by our founders so it would keep factions at war with one another and to encourage the formation of coalitions. Duverger's law: (1) a majority vote on one ballot is conducive to a two-party system; (2) proportional representation is conducive to a multiparty system; (3) a majority vote on two ballots is conducive to a multiparty system, inclined toward forming coalitions. Read more at janda.org/c24/Readings/Duverger/Duverger.htm **edit** Oh, and we're not a democracy. Our form of government is a republic.

[@-gemberkoekje-5547]

People should develop their own opinions and ideas, instead of picking a side with wich you seem to align with in some ways, or what your peers are.

[@itstriplem2069]

finally, someone said it

[@buzzman4860]

Yep. True, true

[@soggyslu1]

Considering technology today, our voting system needs an update... But I suppose secure online voting profile will require some validation, so demoncraps will have an excuse for protest.

[@nubzz]

Yea we need another party to go establishment. Why not take Washington's words on political parties to heart, parties are legalized collusion within our government.