Why Third Parties Struggle in the US: Democratic and Republican Dominance in America - TLDR News

Support TLDR US on Patreon: / tldrnewsus
Politics in the United States tend to be dominated by the two major parties, with third parties rarely playing a major role. So in this video, we explain who the biggest other parties are, what they stand for and why they struggle to achieve any electoral success.
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldrnewsus
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewsus
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewsus
Discord: / discord
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnewsus
TLDR News Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/en-GB/stores/tl...
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Discord: / discord
TLDR is a super small company, run by a few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
////////////////////////////////////////
1 - www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?...
2 - ballotpedia.org/List_of_polit...
3 - www.lp.org/the-libertarian-pa...
4 - www.gp.org/green_new_deal
5 - www.constitutionparty.com/abo...
6 - ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access...

[@thetroybone]

If there's only one thing that Democrats and Republicans publically agree on, it's' not giving away their power to third parties.

[@1.3mviews64]

@CommandoDude I'm a libertarian, please explain why we're lead by morons and why having less government intervention is a moronic idea.

[@franchufranchu119]

@@1.3mviews64 I'm not American, but a single large company is no different from the government (ex. United Fruit Company in Guatemala - they had their own army). Monopoly seems inevitable when there is little government regulation

[@nichl474]

@@1.3mviews64 You for some reason seem to think that maximum freedom (for people AND for companies) and reducing the government is the best thing ever completely disregarding that you can't elect companies and that you can only elect the government. By voting libertarian, you take power from the people and give them to corporations by limiting the government that *you* vote for.

[@hazard4648]

@CommandoDude They are only led by morons because politicians who think logically know that their only chance to change something is being in a major party. If the system would be a different one, many politicians from the Republicans or Democrats would be in other parties. Sanders is the best example. His position would have a chance to really get seats and electors, if the System wouldnt be a winner-takes-it-all system. But because this system is established, people like Clinton and Trump got the main candidate and many people who wanted Sanders, as a social democrat, or Cruz as a conservative politician who wasnt far right and populistic like Trump, got totally ignored and had to vote for candidates they basically hated. This leads to a phenomenon, where the most Americans actually dont like their president (under 50 percent apporval), while in other countries like Germany the chancellor often gets approval rates far beyond 60 percent.

[@littlesylveon8891]

Wish I could pin this comment. Love having to choose between a (far-) right party vs. a (center-) right party.

[@Bolsonaro_em_Haia]

"Winner takes all" is a _big_ part of the reason why politics have radicalized so much.

[@Ghastly_Grinner]

No the two sides of American culture have almost nothing in common any longer is why we are at each other throats it was much the same way just before the last civil war

[@rastavolt]

@@Ghastly_Grinner I disagree. I think they have a lot more in common than most people think. The issue as I see it is that they spend so much of their time bickering over their differences that they don't even realize that they agree on anything.

[@MichaelDeHaven]

@@LlamaKing9000 I've lived in Appalachia my whole life. I would agree that doesn't match the classic geographic definition. *But* it claims to be more a culture map. This is purely anecdotal but I have 2 family members from 2 sides of my family who have moved from here to central Texas. Both did so to get away from the DC/Baltimore, and tell us how Texas is just like WV used to be. I find this map an interesting idea, if nothing else. Just another possible lense to look at the world. Use it where appropriate and set aside when not.

[@rastavolt]

@@GP-qw8un obviously the difference are likely rooted in subculture and to a lesser extent population subsets. Having spent time in 37 of the lower 48 states, I think the characterizations miss the mark, but they are passable given the broad generalizations made in the article. However, that was not the point I was making. I could show dozens, if not hundreds, of ways and reasons for the various disagreements in political views around the US. The point I was trying to make was that they all actually have quite a lot in common, but rather than looking for that common ground they instead focus almost exclusively on the all the ways in which they are different. You inadvertently seem to have demonstrated that beautifully with your response trying to explaining why they are different. The media and politicians work very hard at driving home those differences to keep the people as divided as possible. Not only has it historically provided both major parties with a reliable voting base, it has largely kept the population from looking to closely at what their leaders are actually doing in government. It has allowed them to show the people what they want them to see while governing largely unchecked by those same people that put them in charge on the first place.

[@rastavolt]

@@lifeisshortdontwasteitread2830 Nations have been working cooperatively with each other, through their leaders, to achieve common goals in one way or another for all of recorded history, so I'm not sure what you mean by your question.

[@greengreen110]

1780: democratic republicans 2020: democrats vs republicans what the hell happened?

[@danielm6341]

Innate tensions between democratic and republican political concepts as understood by the ruling class at the time. The words as used for naming political parties of today are very much divorced from the original terms. Left and Right as we understand them today only solidified in the late 19th-century; well after the hybrid model of a democratic republic was devised for the newly united states to deal with geographic differences. The model had irresolvable limitations; resulting in the 1860s civil war.

[@KnightxxArrow]

1780s to 1790s: Federalists vs anti-Federalists 1790s to 1820s: Federalists vs Jeffersonian Republicans 1820s to 1850s: Democrats vs Whigs 1860s to present: Democrats vs Republicans

[@torrent6181]

Party membership generally flowed: Democratic-Republicans -> Democrats. Federalists -> Whigs -> Republicans. and of course, in the end of the 20th century, the party membership of the Democrats and the Republicans mostly swapped

[@jwil4286]

@@torrent6181 the whole "the parties swapped sides" is a myth pushed by the Democrats to deny their racist history. exactly one senator switched sides after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. Blacks didn't suddenly start voting for Democrats with JFK because of civil rights; Democrats had bought their votes with promises of free stuff in the 1930s (during the Great Depression) (also, it's worth noting that at that point, blacks resented voting for FDR and the Democrats). Republicans became competitive in the South as early as 1928 when Hoover made gains there. Then once the Depression and WWII were over, Eisenhower won 3 Southern states in 1952, and then add 3 more in 1956. It is true that Nixon (who was also Eisenhower's VP) won 9 Southern states in his 1968 victory, but 6 of those states had voted for Eisenhower, and Nixon actually lost the Deep South (Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi) that year. Democrats would continue to be competitive in the South in presidential and legislative elections up through Bill Clinton in the 90s (and before you say it was because he was a southerner himself, know that his opponent also was a southerner), and state legislatures in the region were held by Democrats through that decade, and even into the 2000s. Racism in the South has gone down exponentially since the Civil Rights Era, and most people down there today don't care what race someone is (as MLK dreamed of being the case one day). Ironically, it's the Democrats who try to make everything about race these days. In fact, just recently, when woke anti-America college professor Ibram Kendi said that Amy Coney Barrett's adopting children from Haiti was actually racist, famed white nationalist Richard Spencer actually agreed with him.

[@lilliannalevine9626]

I think the biggest obstacles to third parties in the US is that it's impossible for them to actually win, which tends to make people less likely to waste time and money supporting them.

[@AdityaFSen]

"Adios amigos, it's been lit" should be the most famous George Washington quote.

[@admina.r.9727]

On the front of every Banknote

[@trevordelepine7708]

Seems to be the current slogan for the American way of life

[@Delgen1951]

Hay y'all come down to My house and I'll brake out some of Martha's famous Run and have a ice cream party. y'all come on down, you hear?

[@yvesplacide5196]

The difficulties facing Trump presidency should inform our view.both parties colluded to frame prez Trump from day one

[@chrisparkhurst5158]

I want merch with this printed on it! It's up there with "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ~ Abraham Lincoln (source: the Internet)

[@balazshangyasi3018]

"The best one party system is a two party system with the illusion of choice"

[@andreasantoniou3481]

Who said that, I am really curious?

[@diegonahuel9060]

i've seen this quote so many times already and I'm starting to believe it

[@andreasantoniou3481]

@Max Geronimo You are now the world's worst developed country! We all laugh at you and we all look down on you!

[@danielweeks4886]

Max Geronimo we are so prosperous because our country is one of the most resource filled country in the world

[@andreasantoniou3481]

@hyruleharry12345 We laugh at you, not because of your people, but because of your president and those who support him. Especially the ones thinking America is the greatest country of all. If George Washington could, he would get out of his grave, to fix this godamn country. America was an example and now it is an example to avoid!

[@mkine]

That `winner takes it all` system is just so stupid. At least from my perspective as a German.

[@leehaiko3999]

Germany also has a virtual 2 party system. Only 4 parties are viable with the FDP never having real power and the greens are just replacing the SPD as the other party beside the CDU. Germany is not that different.

[@mkine]

I disagree. The German parties are much more diverse than the two large parties of the us. They are more similar than most people think. And in the German system, the percentage has much more ‘weight’ to it than in the us. It actually makes a difference if the CDU wins by 40 or 30 percent. But that’s only the National level. State wise it’s even more different. Because which party is the strongest and by what percentage varies a lot from state to state.

[@Ameriguy99]

Its important to keep in mind that when it comes to the Presidency, we vote a state by state basis not a national basis. Each individual state gets to choose its pick for the President rather than the citizens of that state

[@leehaiko3999]

@@mkine yes at the state level Germany varies in party coalitions. In the US the party names don't change but the ideas do between states. The Maryland GOP is not the same as the Missouri GOP and California Dem party is not the same as the Alabama Dem party. We have diversity too, just that the names of those parties don't change.

[@mkine]

Justin P I know. And that is exactly one of the things of the us system, why I find it so flawed. Because it doesn’t matter, by how much a candidate wins a state, as long he wins it.

[@jeffersonclippership2588]

When a random British guy explains more about American politics in 10 minutes than the American education system does in 10 years

[@squiddi1393]

I feel bad for you if that was really the extent of your education.

[@justsomeoneelse5942]

He’s kind of exaggerating. Not horribly, but still baddddd

[@gingerale2131]

Have you not gone to school?

[@ruckymutton5153]

@@gingerale2131 of course he has

[@Nognamogo]

Maybe the political parties don't want voters to understand why power is concentrated in only two parties, or how to fix it.

[@timogul]

I think the biggest obstacles to third parties in the US is that it's impossible for them to actually win, which tends to make people less likely to waste time and money supporting them.

[@ulfjohnsen6203]

Tim Ogul not so much impossible for them to win, as it is BELIEVED to be impossible to win...

[@Ratchet4647]

@@ulfjohnsen6203 Few people actually support them, those who do often prefer voting for the major party that can actually get their views into govermment rather than being a spoiler and not getting any voice as a result. Plus their candidates are jokes anyway.

[@KikogamerJ2]

@@Ratchet4647 well the other big party's are currupt and only do what the rich people ask them so I would prefer voting for a smaller party

[@empireepic92]

Ratchet4647 but most people don’t support et heir party at all they just vote for one because they hate the other more. This is definitely true on the Democratic side but I would also guess it is similar on the Republican side

[@Ratchet4647]

@@KikogamerJ2 if that were true they wouldn't be voted into office. They do what gets the most votes on election day. Sure they also do help the wealthy so that the wealthy help their campaigns through PACs and SuperPACs, but if the voters don't like what they do they vote for someone else. But go ahead and vote third party no one has said you can't or shouldn't but I wouldn't encourage it nor encourage others to encourage it, not this electoral cycle at least. It was actually kinda cool that we heard from two different third parties last election.

[@void2258]

"Winner take all". Mathematically and logically, in such a system you MUST converge to 2 parties. At most, you can have a new party replace one of the old ones if there is a major shift, after a period of the two parties having no chance as they gradually shift. Without some kind of ranked choice or proportionality, you cannot have more than 2 main parties be viable except in rare outlier cases (in lesser races) due to the structure of the system. It been demonstrated scientifically (via both direct proofs and simulations) that you always converge to 2 dominant parties due to the spoiler effect, that is that if you vote for a third party you end up causing the closer of the two major parties to your ideology to lose, so if you don't want the closer of the two major parties to lose, you have to bite the bullet and vote lesser of the two evils or you are effectively voting against your own interests. If you look at the three examples you pointed out, in two cases you may have come close to or perhaps did throw the election due to the votes lost to the third candidate (1948 was not close enough for this to be a danger). 1968 in particular you can see Wallace's vote throwing the election to Nixon (republicans were not the party associated with segregation at that time, so he was stealing democrat voters), which is why no major 3rd party candidate appeared for nearly 30 years, due to the bad memories of that happening. Perot could have easily thrown the election one way or the other in 1992 if he had gotten any electoral votes; only his being spread out geographically prevented the spoiler one way or the other (he was fairly center, so might have gotten from both sides about equally and not actually changed the result, depending on which states he got, but if he captured a large state like Texas or California, that could have made the difference). In both cases though neither 3rd candidate had a chance of winning, only making the candidate among the big 2 they most agreed with lose. This effectively makes 3rd party candidacy a suicide pact: vote your conscience and you increase the chance of getting the least desirable outcome.

[@magnusdamborg6568]

@Daniel Salami cgp grey has a great video on it. Search his channel

[@leehaiko3999]

Multi party systems do the same when they are forced to converge. Look at Germany, Sweden, and especially Italy. The two big parties always end up in power regardless of electoral system.

[@davidharris2517]

@@leehaiko3999 yes, but the smaller parties have power, my understanding of the German system is that they have coalitions most election, which leads to more balanced decisions that better reflect the views of the people.

[@void2258]

@@davidharris2517 The US has 3 3rd party politicians in any position of power at any level of the government (state and federal). Compare that to numbers in other systems. Two parties may dominate, but people don't actively avoid voting for who they want due to the spoiler effect.

[@togashifc]

Thanks to that stupid “winner takes all” system now I am feeling like I’m forced to vote for Democrats if I wanted Trump out of the office -.-

[@kbo7074]

The issue with changing the system is both parties benefit from it so there is no way to get either to fight against it.

[@MineRoyale.]

I think that might be a little too jaded. The current splintering of each party into often differing ideologies could precipitate change. Progressives, and Trumpists, Libertarian Republicans and Conservatives, Liberals and so much more. I wouldn't be surprised (particularly if Trump wins) to see new parties form, and if those parties are large enough, they may well lead to a better system.

[@sammyjay4324]

@@MineRoyale. Its a case of you will not get legislation from the 2 current parties about it (at least nothing to make it easier). Even with a schism you will end up with something closer to the British system (assuming bar of entry are removed), where there is 2 primary parties and few secular parties that eat or feed seats to other main parties depending on opinions with flips in very rare cases ( the UKIP faction was a big reason brexit happen since the fear for tories losing majority made the consume such a stance). Its more a case of how the system incentivizes such do to the model, even with fracturing leading to a hobbling of the party and different centering once the reabsorbing happens.

[@herbertvonzinderneuf8547]

Indeed - it is perhaps the only issue upon which you will get unanimous agreement between Democrats and Republicans.

[@gavinowens459]

I’m not so sure, actually. I think if enough people on the right and left talk about this, make it an issue, and get sufficiently pissed, representatives will be elected who will change the system. There just needs to be more public support/interest.

[@gregorbegger9291]

Well, Andrew Yang is working on getting third parties more votes

[@David_Bower]

The same reason 3rd parties struggle in England. The first past the post system doesn't really allow for more than two main parties.

[@blarneystone38]

First past the post is a big issue but third parties are undoubtedly in better shape than in the US. At the very least they can gain influence when there's a minority government, like how the DUP became an essential part of the Conservative coalition from 2017 to 2019. They ended up with the kind of influence that American third parties can only dream of, at least until Boris called their bluff last year. Realistically, the best answer would be to get rid of winner take all AND first past the post

[@frankhooper7871]

Agreed - many of us who ally ourselves with a 'minor' party end up voting for whichever of the 2 major parties we consider to be the lesser of 2 evils. Hence the apparent support of the Liberal-Democrats (for example) is understated.

[@drayle71]

@@akf.m.w.2438 come on that is a very simplistic if not dishonest explanation of what happened in the election. I'm gonna have to say this but i did not vote for either fine gael or finna fáil both do really just suck. However the results of the last election were very much sinn feins own fault. For those that don't know (not say you B.I.G lucky don't but anyone else reading this might not) ireland has a rank choice voting system with constituency having more then one representative. Sinn fein did get the most votes but failed to put up enough candidates for that to bring about a majority also it wasn't some massive majority but 24% with finnal fail at 22% and fine gael at 20%. The party after all the rounds with the largest number of seats was in fact finna fáil by one seat, now whether you think this is right or not is one issue but sinn fein knew how the system works and did not put up enough candidates in every voting constituency to get the largest number of seats from the votes they received and that is on sinn feins leadership and no one else. Also realistically with the results the way they are sinn fein would have had to go into coalition with either ff or fg to get a parliamentary majority and if they had been willing to do that do you think they would have done the massive changes they campaigned on?

[@acegarcia3719]

@@blarneystone38 The UK electoral destricts are small enough that a Lib Dem or Green could end up with a few seats in certain areas. US destricts however are simply too big.

[@aliensinnoh1]

@@blarneystone38 I think you can see how fucked first past the post is by looking at countries that have it where 3rd parties are doing well. Take Canada. The NDP is to the left of the Liberals. If you combined the votes of the NDP and the Liberals, they'd overwhelming beat the Conservatives every time, but the Conservatives have a reasonable chance of gaining a majority in Parliament with less than 40% of the vote simply because of winner takes all in each district. The clear and only way to fix this is some form of proportional representation. If nationally the NDP gets 20% of the votes, the Liberals get 40%, and the Conservatives get 40%, then the NDP should have 20% of the seats, the Liberals should have 40% of the seats, and the Conservatives should have 40% of the seats. It is such a bad thing that if one ideological side is broken up into more parties, that side gets less representation.

[@murdelabop]

Plurality voting tends to gravitate toward a two party duopoly. Ideally, the two parties should be informal broad coalitions of factions with similar beliefs. But when you combine plurality voting with a closed primary election system then you set the stage for radicalization of the parties, which is exactly what we've seen over the past 50 years. This radicalization has brought us to the brink of civil war. I can't think of a better reason to enact ranked choice voting. Making RCV work with our federal system will be difficult, but if we can do it then both major parties will fracture into their component factions.

[@leehaiko3999]

Democrats and republicans are a coalition of different groups of people, they just all call themselves republicans/ Democrats. Just like all the center right parties in Italy are called themselves in elections Destro and all center left parties call themselves sinestra.

[@isaacschickenreviews9414]

What would an election look like with RCV? How would the presidential candidates be decided?

[@murdelabop]

@@isaacschickenreviews9414 : It would have to be done at the state level, the same way elections are now. Enacting RCV will have to happen state by state. The United States does not have popular elections at the federal level.

[@Lord_Imrahil]

@@isaacschickenreviews9414 With RCV you would not need as much of a preselection of presidential candidates, as a larger field f candidates would be possible. You do not just two candidates, but you can even multiple candidates from the same party with some differnt ideas run, as multiple candidates do not hurt the chances that as much. It would give the people more options. But of course you need to criteria for candidates, otherwise they will flood the ballots.

[@jasons5916]

@@Lord_Imrahil From examples I've seen of RCV, you can rank 3, maybe up to 5 candidates. If the number is lower, I would expect the parties to want to control how many candidates ran from their party. You could always do RCV in the primary too.

[@biscuit4705]

this reminded me of a saying" the west is so democratic that instead of a single party rule they have a two party rule"

[@KikogamerJ2]

Two party's who have the same plans they just change names

[@matejlieskovsky9625]

Ah, so continental Europe is not the west, right...

[@svenv460]

@@matejlieskovsky9625 i see your point, in the eyes of most Europeans the USA borders more towards a communist union then an actual (western) democracy ;)

[@nichl474]

@@svenv460 A communist union and democracy aren't mutually exclusive. America is a reactionary hellhole

[@lenn939]

America isn’t the whole west

[@Hector-tp9on]

In France, we had around 20 parties submitting candidates in the last presidential election. I think this because we have a "2 parts voting system". Basically in the first part we choose a candidate between all of the candidates and in the second part you get to choose between the two candidates that got the most votes in the first part. The winner of the second part is named president. Although this is far from perfect, I think it allows for quite a bit of diversity.

[@Ratchet4647]

That's been implemented here in a way in places like California and it just results in 2 Democrats competing over the seat and Republican voters there hate it more than the system elsewhere.

[@dargondude2375]

@@Ratchet4647 Republican voters are outnumbered like 4 to 1 there like come on.

[@gretchen8100]

You can kind of see this in our primaries. If you squint really hard. But it sounds a whole lot better than what we currently have 🤔

[@HarryPujols]

Believe it or not, the US was about to adopt the 2-round voting system and get rid of the Electoral College. That was 50 years ago.

[@FOLIPE]

Proportional representation helps

[@ragerancher]

The big benefit of having 3 or more parties that are all capable of winning is that no single party can operate on the basis of simply not being the other party. Cases of outright abuse by one party will likely see them fail as it would be unlikely they would have a greater vote share than the others combined. It would also hopefully force parties towards more moderate positions as they would likely require the support of other parties. Ultimately though the best way for 3rd parties to have a chance is through proportional representation.

[@myman8336]

Two parties will just form an alliance in order to dethrone the current winner as they view them as a common enemy..

[@Itspapacritz]

@@myman8336 hey man yout right this happpens in many countries

[@comradekenobi8146]

Honestly third parties should quit putting so much weight on presidential elections and should focus more on local, state, and congressional elections.

[@korytoombs886]

The Green Party has 3 seats in the Canadian parliament, and supports the B.C. provincial NDP in their minority government. When you have a different political system third parties are viable.

[@annefagit3305]

Fingers crossed the "Birthday Party" will get a lot of votes this year and become the new best 3rd party ^o^

[@annefagit3305]

@Mahrus Raaief Seems better than a kiddie sniffer

[@Josh-11769]

@@annefagit3305 A rapper/celebrity, that is known for jokes, built his career in jokes and music, and his parties name, which was a joke, will do better than Trump or Biden?? A businessman/celebrity that built his fame off of his company and a long time politician?? You’re definitely 9

[@annefagit3305]

@@Josh-11769 *"best 3rd party"* Let me break that down for you: he comes 3rd place, ergo, not running the country.

[@fduranthesee]

Based-&-Confettipilled

[@TheAiskie]

As an European I believe that there is only one thing that is worse for a Democracy than an established Two Party System, and that is a Single Party System.

[@corwin32]

I’m impressed by the amount of research TLDR does. Few people know Washington’s final address verbatim.

[@AnabolicUnitarian]

You realize the internet and copy-paste exist?

[@ender3960]

I remember learning about it in school.

[@jx310]

Hamilton

[@canaalberona8263]

If only the country had heeded Washington’s warning...

[@GH-oi2jf]

Cana Alberona - It was unrealistic. A political party is just citizens exercising their right peaceably to assemble, and to speak and publish their opinions. People, having freedom, will exercise it.

[@alexjv1370]

GH1618 I agree. Although itd be wonderful to not have political parties, itd be difficult for everyone to be independent when people are bound to have similar views overall

[@HarryPujols]

This is an easy answer: Winner-takes-all elections. You can win Texas by 5 votes or a million votes, you still get 38 electoral votes. That cancels everyone who wants to wander off the two flavors that can win.

[@scottyclayton2501]

That’s the current system but Maine and Nebraska

[@Kafei01]

This system is shit. Imagine being a republican in California, or a Democrat in Wyoming : your vote count for nothing.

[@KensaiProductions]

I'd never even heard of the Constitution Party before this video. They sound pretty horrible. Probably the biggest thing that could change our electoral politics and give 3rd parties a chance is a national adoption of Ranked Choice Voting. Which is why its going to have to be done on a state by state basis as the DNC and GOP will never back it since they see it as the threat to their entrenched power that it actually is. Third parties in the US have a much bigger influence at the local level than they do nationally and I do think that is intentionally under played by the MSM

[@Ghastly_Grinner]

Whats wrong with the constitution party?

[@franklyanogre00000]

@33 SixtyNine they can, and you just accept it as an unqualified opinion.... like someone who isn't a doctor having an opinion on medicine.

[@KikogamerJ2]

@@franklyanogre00000 ah you know all the party's do this like you don't need to be a doctor to know what's good what's bad in medicine pretty sure party's have no soldiers in it and they make the army laws ,they have no cops no teachers and still make.the laws to it

[@leehaiko3999]

Paleoconservativism is what will save this country

[@MineRoyale.]

@@Ghastly_Grinner Essentially they want the US today to closely resemble the US of it's founding. They have a strict adherence to the original meaning of the constitution, which overlooks some significant societal changes, as well as the bible and dec. of independence.

[@vampireheart1987]

I think the US electoral system is catastrophically backward. A large proportion of the votes become invalid, so to speak, just because they were not cast for the winner of the respective state. And I think there is one grouping that would have great potential as its own party to establish itself as a third major party: progressives split off from the Democrats. Progressive issues like M4A are very popular with the American people, but neither the Republicans nor the Democrats stand for progressive issues. Many eligible voters have no confidence whatsoever in the two major parties and therefore see no point in voting at all; others vote only with the idea that they have to choose the lesser of two evils. The average voter turnout is frighteningly low compared to that of other industrialized countries. Democrats love to work with Republicans while hating progressives deeply and seeing them only as their majority procurers and eternal scapegoats for their own failures (see Hillary Clinton). Why the progressives still cling to the Democrats is a mystery to me. If they were to break away from the Democrats and form their own party, they would offer the American people a real alternative to the two big parties.

[@franklyanogre00000]

That "real alternative" would be losing to Republicans every election...

[@blarneystone38]

The reason why progressives cling to Democrats is the first past the post system. Since parties can win with a minority of the vote, a progressive third party would essentially guarantee that every election would end up being something like 45% Republican, 40% Democrat, 15% Progressive, with the Republicans winning all the power. While there's little for progressives to love about the Democrats, there's nothing for them to love about the Republicans.

[@jaywalkallstar]

Frank Anthony Overton Jr. Speaks the truth

[@anthonydelfino6171]

Democrats exist as a coalition of different groups that all have different needs. They work together because combined their voices are stronger than if each group expressed its wants on their own. What you're talking about is taking one section of that group of voices and making it its own party, effectively splitting the vote of the party, and handing every election to the Republicans, even if you manage to peel off SOME Republican votes. Though speaking from experience as someone with a large, conservative family... Medicare for All was not really all that popular among conservatives as anything at all resembling socialism or that would require them to pay additional taxes is generally not favored.

[@leehaiko3999]

A large proportion of votes are invalid in multi party systems too when they fail the threshold to enter parliament.

[@silvervixen007]

"The winner takes it all" appears to be such a US thing to do, regarding not only politics but also the economy. In such a system all you will ever do is trying to win- and not to solve any problems

[@-haclong2366]

It's a very British thing, the Americans just kept the British system.

[@jonhaug7134]

@@-haclong2366 yes it is true, but i feel like they changed it up a bit to be "more american" hahahah

[@Masonpapa]

We have the best economy mass spread the internet globally have been to the moon exported most vaccines and scientific advancements and have the best military our existence prevents ww3 from happening

[@LiveFreeOrDieDH]

For those who would like a brief, simplified comparison of these 3 parties: The Constitution Party is basically Christian far right, the Greens are far left, and the Libertarians lean right on economic issues and left on social issues.

[@KrypticSpiderMan]

Libertarians are Lower Right.

[@saahiliyer11]

Libertarians like to SAY they’re the true center, but in practice most are just center leaning conservatives who’ll still support Republicans. I say that from the experience of hanging around a lot of libertarians.

[@Sanorace]

Greens aren't far left. They're just left of democrats. Far left is anything that criticizes capitalism.

[@LiveFreeOrDieDH]

​@@KrypticSpiderMan I purposely oversimplified, especially for non-US viewers. Hence my use of the single-axis Left/Right paradigm that most people are familiar with, rather than a more nuanced 2-axis system (such as the Political Compass).

[@LiveFreeOrDieDH]

​@@saahiliyer11 you might be conflating libertarians with Libertarians. Big L indicates the Libertarian party, with a specific platform and their own candidates. Self-identified small-L "libertarians" cover a broad ideological swath with some overlap with the major parties. It can include everything from classical liberals, to AnCaps, to Anarcho-syndicalists and Anarcho-communists. Since the video talked about political parties rather than ideological labels, that's what I focused on.

[@CatholicWeeb]

I believe the USA should adopt the STV System like what Ireland uses to make it actually possible to win.

[@acegarcia3719]

Have STV but I find mult memeber destricts unethical. You should always be on your heels trying to win and having multiple elected makes you less likely to be unseated.

[@acommenter]

@@acegarcia3719 you are on your heels, you have competition from other members of your own party, parties similar to yours, Not to mention when you have PR the electorate become less tribal and more fluid so you have to keep up with what they want or they will trash you, and maybe even your party straight away. The democrats or the republicans wouldn't survive in any European country.

[@Delgen1951]

@@acommenter the same applies to a European party here, you know. it not apples to apples but apples to grapes, hay grape.

[@Lord_Imrahil]

Even Nebraska and Maine have a Winner takes all system, just on a different level, so with a possibility for different parties winning, but it still is a winner takes all within a district.

[@CatholicTraditional]

This is more preferred than statewide winner-take-all.

[@ishmaelwadee]

CatholicTraditional is it really? Romney would have won the election if every state used that method.

[@Lord_Imrahil]

@@CatholicTraditional I would say it is better than statewide winner take all, but there are a lot of better options I can see. But if only few states do it is doesn't change much. It still assumes that the borders contain people that mostly think similar. It still potentially drowns the voices of a large minority. My ideal political system would not have a plurality decide but have the goal to have the believes from a large part of the country involved in the government and decisions. It does make a more stable political system, which is not totally change whenever slight change moves one side over the other for the net few years. Of course such a system is slower but does think more long term, not just until the net election.

[@CatholicTraditional]

@@Lord_Imrahil @Ishmael Wadee Actually, I would like to go back to the original Electoral College of how the Founders intended it: the electors run for their positions locally, who in turn are tasked with voting for someone suitable for the Presidency. This was the format until Andrew Jackson came along; nobody personally campaigned for the WH prior. This would end the endless multi-million dollar campaigns.

[@jwil4286]

I can agree that more states should work like Nebraska and Maine

[@theoelliott5944]

I think it was worth noting Evan McMullin's successful performance in Utah in 2016, where he was once polling in first place with almost a third of the vote, and ended up coming closer to winning a state than any other third party candidate since 1992.

[@thebigfarter]

I think if everyone just genuinely voted solely on who they want to be president, the two party hold on american politics would largely be broken

[@sonicboy678]

Unfortunately, trying to get people to do that would be more difficult than pulling teeth.

[@myman8336]

@@sonicboy678 People aren't educated.. Some don't care and some just don't have the time.. They'd rather hear you arguing about your rival candidates being bullies in highschool, than go and read about what your polices really are about..

[@user-dn3fn3bg4l]

If people voted like that, Trump would win in a landslide. The only reason Joe Biden is even a threat to Trump is because of all the TDS brain-fried idiots who want to vote against Trump.

[@acegarcia3719]

The reason why 3rd parties are the most unsuccessful in the US cause house destricts are far larger than in Canada or the UK. Destipe, FPTP, in those countries the destricts are small enough that a 3rd party could wiggle through some places, in the US seats are too massive which makes sweaking though the cracks far harder.

[@jwil4286]

Fair point. Around the Gilded Age, we stopped expanding the size of the House of Representatives out of fear that it would become too big to operate effectively. This has caused the people:rep ratio to grow much bigger than other countries because of our large population. I think we could expand to at least 650 House reps (which is the number the U.K. has in Commons), possibly more.

[@RaymondHng]

Each Member of Parliament in the UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand represents around 60,000 people whereas in the USA, each House Representative represents around 700,000 people. It's even higher in the legislature of India.

[@jerryyu3776]

RaymondHng that’s why democracy is an illusion of the American dream.

[@iapetusmccool]

@@RaymondHng that's not quite a fair comparison though. If the UK was organised the way the US is, then England would have it's own government to run its own affairs (as the other nations already do), and then you would have a separate national government (much smaller than the current one) that only dealt with national issues.

[@RaymondHng]

@@iapetusmccool While 1) the USA, Australia, Canada, and India are federations where each person gets one representative at the state/provincial level and one representative at the federal level and 2) the UK is a devolved government within a unitary state where each person in England gets one member of Parliament and each person in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland gets one member of Parliament at the national level and one member at the devolved level and 3) New Zealand is a unicameral unitary state where each person gets one member of Parliament the number of people in a United States congressional district outnumber the people in a constituency in the UK, Australia, and Canada. Country Population Seats Population per seat USA 328,239,523 438 749,405 AUS 25,774,400 151 170,691 CAN 37,971,020 338 112,340 IND 1,352,642,280 543 2,491,054 UK 67,886,004 650 104,440 NZL 5,009,470 120 41,746 While UK has a devolved government, it was a unitary state up until 1998. Furthermore, the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland do not have a degree of autonomy as high as a state/province in the federations of USA, Australia, and Canada. The UK remains a de jure unitary state.

[@ConnorLonergan]

You missed Roosevelts third party run and also that the two major parties have a different, and often easier, ballot access requirement then the third parties

[@acegarcia3719]

Australia is the perfect model for how America should elect representatives. Ranked choice voting but still retains the single memeber destricts and doesn't have party lists.

[@jwil4286]

Australia is also the perfect model for how America should accept immigrants

[@ShaggyPWN]

@@jwil4286 We've been electing representatives as outlined in the constitution and accepting immigrants for 230 years, things have worked out pretty damn well for us. BTW didn't Australia just detonate some aboriginal sites? Can't remember which one, seems to happen every other month.

[@RaymondHng]

Australia has mandatory voting with a penalty if one does not vote. Also, Australia's government is on a Westminster Parliamentary system. And the voters do not directly vote for the prime minister. However, Australia is a federation like the USA and its upper chamber, the Senate, is modeled after the US Senate unlike the Senate of Canada which is modeled after the British House of Lords. Ranked Choice Voting has been implemented on local municipal elections in the USA.

[@unfriendlyjack4223]

Brandon Morr Yes, a 46,000 year old site, with some evidence to suggest it was possibly older, was just detonated (I think it was by Rio Tinto, but I can't remember).

[@brazeiar9672]

There is no perfect model. As for Britain it only uses FPTP at Westminster elections. A more proportional model increases the chance of "tail wagging the dog" scenarios where small minority groups count for more than massive swathes of population. The UK also has quite a few parties in Parliament: Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, SNP, DUP, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, Alliance, and Green. Missing from this list is The Brexit Party, which actually won the European elections!

[@panjoshua6251]

The Constitution Party’s symbol is pretty cool though not gonna lie

[@felipedaiber2991]

I disagree it looks like a nazi emblem way too much

[@JohnAC4]

felipe daiber how? In what way is it like a swastika?

[@rinrinsparkles1986]

@@JohnAC4 there's the Nazi emblem and there's the swastika look it up

[@internetual7350]

@@JohnAC4 The Swastika isn't just a Nazi symbol you know it was originally a Buddhist/Hindu symbol

[@JohnAC4]

RinRin Sparkles oh damn your right.

[@jerebear4433]

Third parties are actually very influential, mostly in shaping the boundaries of the major parties. I believe they are heathy for the system by creating more than the simple left vs right conflict that we always hear. The hardest part is when the ideas arguments and proposals are either drowned out or lack an audience.

[@tarekseifert]

just wanted to say u guys are awesome. Thank you!

[@liamshaughnessy6246]

This is a very interesting and awesome video!

[@MirkoC407]

Germany's Green Party is much older, going back to the late 70es and officially founded 1980 in the West. In 1985 they gained first government power as the junior coalition partner in the state of Hesse. The Eastern counterpart resuled from the GRD collapse. "Bündnis 90" ("League 90") in the party name just refers to the joining of East and West German Green Parties.

[@Blaqjaqshellaq]

Barry Commoner had run as a proto-Green environmentalist candidate in 1980, before the US Green Party emerged.

[@Yochanan_86]

Yes we need a third party, this two party system every four years breaking our country into an “either or” dividing us like they want is so sad. I’m tired of the two side propaganda, I’d like to see maybe four parties.

[@benjohnston9526]

I kid you not, I have been waiting for this video

[@ClassyKai843]

I literally saw an RFK ad put up as an ad for this video

[@agentswipe6662]

meanwhile here I am wondering why anyone would vote Democrat or Republican when you can vote libertarian.

[@gingerale2131]

Lowering taxes and making healthcare free are opposing views unless they want a shitty healthcare system

[@ethanreichard4658]

Ginger Ale Libertarians don’t want free healthcare, they want privatized health care which would lower the cost.

[@sexyalien806]

@@gingerale2131 libertarians just want cheaper healthcare, not free. which is can be cheaper now even with the current tax rate

[@michaeldiamreyan9512]

Republicans: don’t want to do away with winner takes all because they’d lose to Democrats every time. Democrats: don’t want to do away with winner takes all because their party will probably split

[@dodominoe4461]

Ehh... Then why is there a republican majority in Congress?

[@paloncito1158]

The Russians and the electoral vote which invalidates democracy

[@Masonpapa]

Dragon Craft Gaming no russia was debunked and the electoral college is the best democracy ever you don’t know why we have it do you?

[@sealofapoorval7437]

@@Masonpapa there is a good CGP grey video explaining why the electoral college is flawed and how parties abuse it to get or retain power.

[@Deleted1]

Republicans won't lose the popular vote all the time its just a myth, presidents rarely ever lose the popular vote but win the election. republicans would just have to focus on number of votes not swing states. also states change political partys all the time, slowly but it happens its likely one day if the democrats and republicans still existed that California might be republican and texas will be dem, nothing is set, Republicans will win the popular vote again maybe in this election cycle since the election is gonna be so close

[@mynameisjeff512]

How have I never heard of your channel?

[@cheesy-hamburger3220]

The libertirians got me on all their goals I think prostitution,sexual orientation and your own life should not be controlled.

[@sarahthomas8670]

Prostitution.....?

[@cheesy-hamburger3220]

@@sarahthomas8670 prostitution is illegal because of conservative politics if libertarians took over they would make it legal like the video mentioned.

[@benghazi4216]

@@cheesy-hamburger3220 Welcome to the implosion of society when all of societies safety nets are privatized.

[@TebecyBrad]

I think this video was really well informed and educational, but a couple things that went unmentioned is that the Republican Party actually started as a third party, and that another factor keeping modern third parties out is that the debate commission is run by the Democrat and Republican parties. They change access rules arbitrarily to keep out any third party contenders

[@GH-oi2jf]

You have missed the fundamental reason that minor parties have tough going in the United States. It is the manner in which we elect our President, but it isn’t the Unit Rule (what you call “winner take all”). It is simply the fact that a minor party cannot win a share of presidential power. Contrast the US system with that of the UK. We elect representatives to our legislative body in similar ways, using “first past the post” to elect a single member in each district or constituancy. But in the UK, the House of Commons elects the head of government (Prime Minster) by majority vote. This where the opportunity for minor parties comes in, and we can see that in recent UK governments. Most recently, PM May found herself with a minority in her own party. She made up the difference by getting the support of the DUP, a regional party. Thus, she became beholden to a small party which has no national support. This limited her ability to act on the crucial question of the day. When Johnson became PM, he knew he had to get a majority in the Commons to act, and somehow he succeeded in forcing an election and getting the majority he needed. Suddenly, the DUP were without power in the national government. There was another example some years earlier when the need for a coalition in the Commons resulted in a third party getting a “co-prime minister.” This didn’t last long, though. Nobody thinks having two prime ministers is a good idea except a third party who can come to power no other way. In the United States, the President is separately elected so is not dependent on Congress in the same way. The Electoral College tends to magnify the difference between leading candidates, so the winner almost always has a majority. This would be true even if we used the Maine rule in every state. In the rare event that an election would have to be settled in the House of Representatives, it would still result in a single strong President. Even if there were a few seats in the House held by a third party, there is no way they could get a share of presidential power. There have been only two significant realignments of political parties in the US, and you mentioned neither. The first was the formation of the Democratic Party under Andrew Jackson. The second, and most important, was the realignment before the Civil War. The parties broke up over disagreements on the question of slavery. The Republicans were a third party, but they won the 1860 election because the Democratic Party split, north and south, and nominated two candidates for President. Since then, the Democrats reunited and it has been Democrats and Republicans dominating our politics ever since. In short, the party configuration is largely a consequence of the way the political system is structured.

[@cuetoaa7074]

Well this should get way more views

[@stbhcorporation7611]

1:48 *I have never heard of something like this lol*

[@TheCartooncompany]

Suggestion: Why does China only have one party? China's swcond parties

[@sharadowasdr]

China actually has four parties ;)

[@hectorvega621]

@@sharadowasdr What are the other three?

[@scrumptiousbee1032]

@@hectorvega621 they're all puppets of the ccp

[@hectorvega621]

@@scrumptiousbee1032 the names of these Parties, but I'm guessing there from other territories, that China wishes to annex.

[@smashinbedrock4903]

the libertarians and greens are literally just the better versions of republicans and democrats

[@garethbaus5471]

More extreme at least.

[@maybejanepomegranate9249]

I.e. better. in some respects at the very least.

[@IpSyCo]

Gareth Baus Less extreme*

[@smashinbedrock4903]

@@garethbaus5471 not more extreme, more principled

[@SmokeyD_]

Smashinbedrock gee I wonder what party you vote for

[@owen9669]

Nice video

[@mkl_dvd]

A few things: 1. There were several political parties that came and went in the first few decades of the US, such as the Federalists and Whigs. The Republican party was very new when Lincoln became president. 2. Gary Johnson and the Libertarian party did better in 2016 than in 2012 because a lot of people used them as a protest vote.

[@mkl_dvd]

@33 SixtyNine I thought I had more when I started :p

[@Mtaalas]

But to think that you'll go straight to presidency as a third party in USA is foolish. There needs to be third party in Congress/senate first and then that third party might get traction enough to get their presidential candidate through...

[@blarneystone38]

A lot of states have ballot access rules based on the results of the presidential election. So third parties that manage to get a decent share of the vote in the presidential election have a better shot at getting on the ballot in smaller races afterward. It's totally backwards but that's US politics for you

[@MechabitGames]

tldr: because first past the post

[@TIM1948]

"Ranked Choice Voting" and elimination of the "Electoral College" would help out the other parties...and It would help to establish a more democratic situation.

[@danielm6341]

A solution typically used to solve Duverger's Law - proportional representation whereby the percentages in federal legislature represents the popular vote of each party - isn't possible due the geographic compartmentalisation of federal representation in the United States. So for the system work in spite of its flaws required presidents and legislators to act for the missing centre - but the rise of the primaries system for party docket selection radicalised the polity beyond the ability of even well-meaning representatives do so. Remedying the flaws through (some rather extensive) revisions to the United States constitution isn't going to work until the populace no longer sees political self-interest through lens of geographic state boundaries; a very difficult proposition when parochial self-interest is the cultural bedrock of the American narrative.

[@purpledevilr7463]

It’s such an easy thing to fix but no one in power would. Just make the elections proportional.

[@nikolatasev4948]

"Before we get started, a little bit of background"... starts answering the question at 8:25 The Winner take all is slowly destroying the politics of the countries where it is used. US uses it, and is a two party government. Same for UK. Meanwhile, most European countries have proportional represenation, and coalition governments, where voters choose their most important issue and their voice matters.

[@amolkhobaragade]

Rank Choice Voting also helps.

[@therepguy1]

Good question...

[@xeanderman6688]

Of course they should have more coverage. With 2 main parties, that's not democracy. That's an oligarchy.

[@banegas0411]

More parties wont magically make it more democratic the 2 major parties will still hold power and more parties will always end with 2 in power

[@xeanderman6688]

@@banegas0411 The system needs to be reworked from the ground. Imo, this is how democracy should work: Each party should be associated with one group of things only. As in - One party should aim to boost industry, another industry's workes. One should boost military and one should counterpart it. THAT is democracy. Balances and checks. Republicans and Democrats are (almost) the one same party, same goals, and no resolutions

[@banegas0411]

@@xeanderman6688 even with many parties 2 or more will be in power it happend in the US leaving democrats and Republicans and it still shows in countrys with many parties 2 still hold more power then the rest

[@felipedaiber2991]

At the very minimum the US has to eliminate the electoral collegue, stablish de hond to help smaller parties and give federal funding to all parties not only the ones with more than 5 percent of the vote or else its political problem will keep getting worse

[@bradwconnors]

1:17 Very clever. Blink and you miss it.

[@Mr.Nichan]

I think it's also important to support equal coverage of different candidates, although perhaps there should be SOME threshhold, because we get a lot of ridiculous and even joke candidates.

[@drsnova7313]

So the three other available parties in the US are: - The Purge party - The Purge (with Drugs And Hookers) party - The Let's Not Go Full Mad Max Dystopia party

[@Bariom_dome]

The only other 3rd party that appeals to me is the Green Party

[@CriticalMaster95]

Which is which?

[@Ratchet4647]

I dislike the platforms of all three major 3rd parties. yay?

[@Luredreier]

Why the heck didn't this show up in my feed a long time ago?

[@neeneko]

Now, if you really want a headache.... one layer down, each of the major parties are structured much more like multi-party coalitions. One of the problems with 3rd parties is, well, they don't really care all that much about winning. You don't join a 3rd party in the US because you want policy change, you join because you are affluent and safe enough that outcomes don't matter but the social capital one gains in their peer group is worth while. 3rd parties that actually care about implementing policy join one of the two big ones and become power blocks within the coalition.

[@halohaalo2583]

Right on the mark

[@sevret313]

The problem isn't just the winner takes all, but that you only have one president. Any election where only one seat is up for grabs will tend to a two-party system no matter how you deal with the minor details. A popular vote, for instance, would solve nothing. Giving everyone ballot access for free would solve nothing. You need a parliamentary system with a fair voting system for other parties to really grow.

[@tannerwilson4843]

Red I would be a huge supporter of something like Ranked Choice Voting. Andrew Yang was a huge supporter.

[@blucksy7229]

Their is only one presidency yes but there are lots of seats for I'm the electoral college for voting if they're was a better system they would be more representative and accepting of third parties

[@jamesquaine6264]

Congress could have Multi seat constituencies with STV and that might help?

[@Ratchet4647]

We dont need a parliamentary system! we have representation! People simply dont vote for third parties. This video stupidly focuses on the presidency when we have a House of Representatives for Representation where they are all broken up into districts the way it discusses Maine and Nebraska are. They are rarely ever able to do well. We only have like 2 independents in Congress and one of them is Sanders who caucuses with the Democrats. In countries with multiple parties they form coalitions to form majorities. Here the parties ARE the coalitions.

[@BlaBla-hq1bu]

The president is not the problem. The fact, that he does not need an absolute majority of 50%, is. France got a directly elected president, but they have more than one round of voting. Thinking about it, most countries with directly elected presidents do this, right? (I did not check this. It is simply something I seem to recall from my biased memory. So if I am wrong, please tell me.) The US way of one round and the most votes win, means that any third party or independent canidate activly hurts the party his values are closest to, and therefore lessen both their chances of winning. That does not mean that there can't be a third party president, but the sheer amount of partisan votes usually prevents this.

[@Grabovsky85]

We need to rewrite our constitution, or at least update it.

[@korytoombs886]

And who has power over that? The 2 parties in power. Yep, you're screwed.

[@drewce390]

We will see a major progressive party very very soon.

[@Delgen1951]

you need two thirds of both House and Senate to get it out of Congress and then two thirds of ALL the states must also pass it

[@johannvandebron986]

The Green Party in Germany was the first Green Party - founded in 1980. When the green Party in US was founded German Green Party was already in Parliament.

[@RayPointerChannel]

There are other parties. And in the 1980 election, this was the first time we had three Presidential candidates, Jimmy Carter, Democrat (running for re-election), Ronald Regan, Republican, and John Anderson, Independent. Having at least a mainstream third party offering competition might make the two established parties work harder and present better and more serious candidates.

[@LiveFreeOrDieDH]

9:16 So we're not saying he's racist... but he's racist. 😄

[@Mahbu]

Simply put, the major parties took most of the good ideas and left the lunacy to third parties. . Third parties do have good ideas but they're often chained to horrible ones like privatization and cutting back taxes. Yeah, I said it. Cutting taxes is a stupid idea. No one likes taxes, not a one, but they are important for the well being of a nation.

[@herbertvonzinderneuf8547]

I didn't hear much lunacy from the Green Party.

[@kaiserreichempireofohio834]

I believe taxes should be high enough to balance the national budget yes, but lowering taxes has been proven to increase the wealth of the individual, which can help the national economy by giving people more spending power, or more money to invest into entrepreneurship.

[@Mahbu]

@@kaiserreichempireofohio834 *but lowering taxes has been proven to increase the wealth of rich assholes. Fixed it. If cutting taxes was the magic bullet, we wouldn't be such a mess right now.

[@blcstriker9052]

I really enjoy the alternative vote idea that CGP Grey explained on one of his video. I think a system like that would benefit third parties.

[@talideon]

This leaves out (aside from the funding obstacle) one of the major issues with any third parties gaining representation: congressional elections in the US use FPTP, which practically guarantees the two major parties maintain a duopoly. And if your party can't get congressional representation, your chances of a party memeber winning a presidential election are effectively nil.

[@ryanratchford2530]

Because that’s the only outcome of 1st Past the Post system.

[@kelvinpang438]

@@parasguglani4270 Isn't that the same as 1st past the post?

[@parasguglani4270]

@@kelvinpang438 first past the post are usually for each district/seat. Like California has 55 seats under first past the post California should be divided in 55 constituencies and parties who won plurality of votes in let's say 10 constituency gets 10 seats. While in winner takes all if 51% of all votes in whole California vote for democrats all 55 seats go to democrats leaving 49% republicans not representated in California

[@kelvinpang438]

@@parasguglani4270 oh,I understand now,thanks for explaining.

[@iapetusmccool]

@@parasguglani4270 most democratic countries use some form proportional representation. FPTP is mostly just used by the US, UK, and a bunch of former British colonies).

[@FrozenBusChannel]

Anyone here after Trump wants to start a new party?

[@Evan.the.Butler]

We should totally switch to either Single Transferable Vote (STV) or Mixed Member Proportionality (MMP). Both allow proportional representation of smaller parties/interest groups unlike Winner Takes All (aka First Past The Post/FPTP). Several other countries such as Germany and Aotearoa New Zealand use MMP, whereas Australia (I think) uses STV. MMP requires parties, but allows smaller ones to get votes. STV doesn't require parties (though it still works if you have them).

[@bobing1752]

An important factor is also the fact that campain fundings are, to my knowledge, entirely private. In France, presidential candidates with more than 5% of the votes can get their private spendings back at the end of the election (up to a ceiling), and can spend more on their campain (but they will not be publicly funded), but there is still a ceiling to not have too much difference between big and small parties. And a last thing is the lack of regulation in advertising. Again: in France, TV screen time is counted by the regulatory autority for each candidate. And every channel are required to give each candidate the same time on screen. The lack of this regulation makes it even harder for a smaller party to make its ideas heard.

[@ericgeesaman7341]

Electoral college needs to be abolished.

[@Ghastly_Grinner]

LOL u and what army?

[@ericgeesaman7341]

Ghastly_Grinner Much of the Democratic base, including former mayor Pete Buttigieg

[@Ghastly_Grinner]

@@ericgeesaman7341 LMFAO the military is 79% republicans almost all militia is right wing if u guys want to try you can its going to be a rough weekend for you 😂

[@ericgeesaman7341]

Ghastly_Grinner You think the military is going to stop a change in a political system? 🤣 It takes diplomacy to change the system, not physical force - something you seem to forget.

[@ericgeesaman7341]

Salterino Kripperino Aww, why don’t you take your homophobic jokes back to the 70s, thanks. Have you time traveled to November 3, 2020 cause that’s some confidence you have in the President winning so easily! Also, I don’t think I was the one running for POTUS. I consider myself quite in touch with my base as I’m a part of the base? Much of your comment is sarcastic and hard to understand, but I do know that giving every state one electoral vote is almost exactly the same as letting each American have one vote, equal to everyone else’s. Are you just scared that the Democratic Party will “easily win” with everyone having one-to-one votes? In 2022, the Democratic Party will be stronger than ever, more unified than now under future-President Biden. Sorry to break it to you, but I’ll be happy to talk again in a few months with a new President Elect! :)

[@captainsinclair7954]

The way I see it, the US election system REALLY needs changing. The House of Representatives can really be considered almost a “house of commons” almost, and should have more “independents” in office. I have an idea that would solve this issue, but I can’t put it into words.

[@jonunciate7018]

More parties is good. Many Americans only vote Republican or Democrat begrudgingly for lack of a relevant alternative. It's also why there is so much political infighting in the two parties as they try to absorb the opposition.

[@PointTakenAway]

Variety is the spice of life

[@rageraptor7127]

Honestly not gonna lie the Green Party is looking really tempting this year

[@Montfortracing]

If they weren't so pro abortion I'd vote for them

[@belygorod8368]

Democratic-Republicans HAHAHA...

[@yeezet4592]

@33 SixtyNine I think it was the other way around

[@yeezet4592]

@33 SixtyNine bruh I just looked this up, the democrats and Republicans came from when the democratic Republicans split. The whigs came from the Republicans which turned into whigs.

[@challah4311]

Its pretty interesting how during the 20's to 60's, the parties were really big tent, and your voting depending on where you live, your religion, your ethnicity, etc.

[@kaiserreichempireofohio834]

Oh it’s absolutely still like that

[@Agentsierrabravo]

@@kaiserreichempireofohio834 pretty much, the most recent 3rd party was a Dixiecrat party which was ran by Wallace

[@williamdeutsch1446]

Bruh Kanye and the birthday party are about to make this video age badly 😂

[@kekw245]

The Libertarian Party sounds like the best one.

[@quantumleap5156]

Green party seems pretty nice

[@lucasblaise11]

Libertarians worst aspect is always there pro-corpret stance, that they abandone the environment for.

[@littleElmimo123]

It’s funny, I was wondering that this morning

[@YetiOutcider]

'Big Tech' and 'Foreign Intrests' hacking your phone's to hear your thoughts through 5g, #getwoke #Sheeple (hahahahaha)

[@YetiOutcider]

@33 SixtyNine You do realise it was a joke right haha

[@MikeIzzle_]

The way I see it, there’s really no reason to not vote third party unless maybe you live in a major swing state

[@ancsuther]

Haven't watched but it's probably due to first past the post voting system, I mean, it leads to two parties and is generally considered the worst way of voting by political scientists

[@kevincronk7981]

I don't like Washington being portrayed as so totally perfect, he had slaves and that was far from his only issue, but in this case he was totally right. parties are a menace to the country.

[@brennan1239]

Yeah what about Roosevelt and james B. Weaver who got 22 electoral voted in the 1892 election and Robert M. La Follette in 1924

[@nromk]

It's been commented that third parties are like train stations in which members of one part go to before switching parties.

[@Godhorus]

It perfectly reflects the black & white mentality in the States.

[@ishangoyal6282]

Anyone else think 2 of the 3 party logos look like Grammarly & National Honor Society (NHS)?

[@gregweatherup9596]

The problem is that we are stuck in this two party system and of those 2 parties (anymore) one is bad and the other is bleeping horrible- and they are both rapidly getting worse. Back when both parties were broader and they actually talked, negotiated, and compromised with each other things got done. Now both parties are in a race to the bottom (and hint- one has already won) and politicians are only interested in the D vs. R game and scoring points and sound bites in order to “fire-up-the-Base” to in turn get re-elected. I’m sick of it, but in the last couple of cycles there’s hasn’t even been any decent 3rd party candidates.

[@marshallc6215]

I'm really curious about the implications of other sub-types of voting systems. For example, winner-take-all within a district, then award the 2 electoral college votes that come from the Senate seats to whoever won the state's popular vote.

[@513Lindaddy]

3:30 you left out 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt's third party run deeply impacted the election by splitting the republican vote.