Politics How to Move Beyond the Two-Party System

Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by Gogol Boobdello, Oct 11, 2016.

  1. Gogol Boobdello

    Gogol Boobdello Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    58,051
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    8,438
    Likes Received:
    8,103
    [​IMG]

    I stand with Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. Others will back Donald J. Trump. But polls suggest that almost one in 10 voters are making a different choice by supporting the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, or another candidate.

    And so once again major party backers warn against wasting votes on “spoilers” and criticize minor party candidates for even running. Defenders of third parties assert that there is no difference between the major parties and blame mainstream politicians for keeping them out of debates.

    We keep repeating this cycle. That’s why it is so important that Maine next month can lead the nation in turning our lose-lose electoral rules into a win-win for everyone — one where minor parties can compete on a more level playing field, yet major parties don’t have to fear being “spoiled.”

    Question Five on the Maine ballot would establish ranked-choice voting in the 2018 primary and general elections for governor, Congress and State Legislature. While presidential and city elections aren’t included, Maine’s largest city, Portland, already uses ranked-choice voting to elect its mayor.

    It is fitting that Maine’s motto is “the way life should be.” I believe ranked-choice voting represents what democracy will be. It’s a solution to the problem of how to uphold majority rule and give more voice to voters by presenting them with more than two options.

    Ranked-choice voting is already used by tens of millions of voters, including in Australia and Ireland’s national elections, London, Minnesota’s twin cities and eight other American cities when electing mayors. It is also used in picking the Oscar nominees for best picture, and in electing student leaders at more than 50 American colleges.

    It’s as easy as 1-2-3. Voters have the option to rank the candidates from first to last, and any candidate with a majority of first choices wins, just as in any other election. But if no candidate has a majority, you hold an “instant runoff” tally in order to compare the top two candidates head to head. Candidates in last place are eliminated, and their backers’ votes are counted for their next choice. When it’s down to two, the winner earns a majority of the vote.

    I learned to appreciate ranked-choice voting in 2000, when seeking re-election as governor of Vermont. I faced strong challenges from the Republican and Progressive Parties. With votes split three ways, I barely won a majority. In Vermont, the Legislature elects the governor if no one achieves a majority. I think the voters should do that. Major parties can take two approaches after such an election: fight the very existence of minor parties, or change laws to handle increased voter choice.

    Ranked-choice voting represents the latter — and better — approach. Voters can support their favorites while still voting effectively against their least favorite. Having more competition encourages better dialogue on issues. Civility is substantially improved. Needing to reach out to more voters leads candidates to reduce personal attacks and govern more inclusively.

    Some critics suggest it’s a crutch for independents and minor parties because they can compete without being spoilers and may earn invitations to more debates. Others suggest it’s a trick to make it harder for third parties to win. But the reality is that everyone would need to accept the challenge of being responsive to more voters. That’s a challenge that many major party backers like me are eager to embrace.

    The fundamental issue is majority rule. Without a majority standard, you can’t hold the powerful accountable.

    The case for ranked-choice voting is nonpartisan. Senator John McCain, a Republican, and Senator Barack Obama, a Democrat, opposed each other in the 2008 campaign, yet both back ranked-choice voting. My fellow Vermonter, Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent, backs ranked-choice voting and testified in support of legislation to use it for Vermont’s congressional elections.

    The legislation backed by Mr. Sanders underscores that ranked-choice voting is about fair outcomes, not partisan calculation. Many Vermont Republicans thought it might hurt their chances to win, and Gov. Jim Douglas vetoed a bill in 2008. But just six years later, Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, won the governor’s race by only 2,434 votes, which was far fewer than the 8,428 votes cast for a Libertarian more aligned with Republicans.

    The same logic applies to presidential races. With ranked-choice voting, Al Gore might have won the presidency in 2000. This year Mr. Trump might have won fewer Republican primaries.

    But such history says nothing about the future. What’s important is making democracy stronger for our kids and our grandchildren.

    Put on the ballot by signatures collected overwhelmingly by volunteers, Question Five has impressive support from across the political spectrum and is doing well in polls. A victory would make campaigns less negative, give voters more voice and show the rest of the country how best to uphold majority rule.

    While Congress could establish ranked-choice voting for Senate and House elections, we don’t need to wait. States can start now to upgrade their elections, from how they choose legislators to the president in 2020. The stakes are too high to diminish our voices.






    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/o...to-move-beyond-the-two-party-system.html?_r=0
     
    drewjube and freds like this.
  2. Sloppyjoe

    Sloppyjoe VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    102,031
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2015
    Messages:
    7,606
    Likes Received:
    17,016
    Remove nearly all money from politics would be a fun start
     
  3. MrsTreat

    MrsTreat Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    18,027
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2014
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    1,088
    I've got a party in my pants.
     
    No. 2 Pencil and Turtle Man like this.
  4. FishySausage

    FishySausage Original Nuttah VIP Gold

    Reputations:
    155,151
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    12,812
    Likes Received:
    21,882
    This. It wouldn't be that hard to start cleaning up our political system.
    Only small donations from individuals. Make the politicians answer to us.
    When corporations or filthy-rich individuals are allowed to basically buy elections we all lose
     
  5. freds

    freds you broke it VIP

    Reputations:
    201,704
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    61,867
    Likes Received:
    27,656
    it's obvious we need a five party system.

    three retarded spin offs from the GOP and two practical Dem options. let's make America greater.
     
    FeetToTaste likes this.
  6. Gogol Boobdello

    Gogol Boobdello Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    58,051
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    8,438
    Likes Received:
    8,103
    The Supreme Court has struck down a Montana ban on corporate political money, ruling 5 to 4 that the controversial 2010 Citizens United ruling applies to state and local elections.

    The court broke in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock along the same lines as in the original Citizens United case, when the court ruled that corporate money is speech and thus corporations can spend unlimited amounts on elections.

    A 1912 Montana law barred direct corporate contributions to political parties and candidates — a response to the election interference of “copper kings.” Mark Twain wrote of one such mining giant in 1907, Sen. William Clark (D), “He is said to have bought legislatures and judges as other men buy food and raiment. By his example he has so excused and so sweetened corruption that in Montana it no longer has an offensive smell.”

    The state supreme court upheld that ban late last year in spite of Citizens United, saying Montana’s history of “rough contests for political and economic domination” gave the state a “unique and compelling interests” in limiting corporate influence on elections.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...tizens-united/2012/06/25/gJQA8Vln1V_blog.html
     
    FishySausage likes this.
  7. DaTenses

    DaTenses Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    17,764
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2015
    Messages:
    3,157
    Likes Received:
    4,759
    How about realizing you don't need a master in the first place?
     
    SouthernListen and znynick80 like this.
  8. Gogol Boobdello

    Gogol Boobdello Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    58,051
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    8,438
    Likes Received:
    8,103
    • Fewer competitive U.S. House districts and safe incumbents after redistricting: In 2010, 70 of 435 U.S. House districts had a competitive partisan balance of 47% to 53%. That was small, but after redistricting in 2011, the number of competitive districts declined to only 53. That number dropped again to 47 seats (only 11% of all seats) after the 2012 election due to shifts in voting behavior. Of 31 vulnerable incumbents (those who won by less than 10% in 2010) affected by redistricting (with a new district drawn with partisanship changing by more than 3%), 26 had their district made safer and only five less safe.
    • Partisan distortions in politically drawn plans: In 2011, Republican lawmakers drew new district lines in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. In 2012, Democratic U.S. House candidates won more than Republican candidates in both states, but won only 9 of 31 seats.
    • Partisan distortions in commission drawn plans: In 2011, an independent redistricting commission drew lines in California and a bipartisan commission with a public interest “swing vote” drew lines in New Jersey. In 2013, Republican candidates for the New Jersey assembly won 51% of the vote, but only 32 (40%) of 80 seats. In 2014, Democratic U.S. House candidates won 57% of votes in California’s 53 U.S. House races, but 74% of seats.
    http://www.fairvote.org/
     
  9. bootyclause

    bootyclause Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    12,416
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,389
    Likes Received:
    3,274
    they should get rid of parties altogether and just make people run for office on their own name without the party behind it. No more primaries. just a ballot with 5-10 names.

    or better yet, a blank ballot, you have to write the candidate's name. If you don't know someone's name, fuck it, they don't get your vote. Money would have a big impact but it would allow a totally open system.


    Bernie and Ted Cruz belong in this election with Hillary and Trump. It makes no fucking sense whatsoever that they are replaced with Johnson and Stein. That is a retarded system.
     
    Stew Nod likes this.
  10. ChimneySweep

    ChimneySweep Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    26,775
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2014
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    8,855
    this whole election is ONLY about putting an end to the rep/dem system. nothing else. The "third way" has finally come to America. it won't be any better for the American people, though most will think so at first. The only way for it to happen was to make everyone utterly disgusted with the current process. mission accomplished. TPTB don't force their plans on the public, they manipulate us into begging for it
     
  11. yaddc

    yaddc Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    104,082
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    23,211
    Likes Received:
    20,772
    Four parties would be cool
     
  12. Danas Boyfrien

    Danas Boyfrien Trump's African American Gold

    Reputations:
    141,492
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    25,544
    Likes Received:
    14,417
    Who the fuck is this asshole?
     
  13. The Booey

    The Booey Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    113,298
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    11,249
    Likes Received:
    21,331
    [​IMG]
     
    Stew Nod likes this.
  14. Droog

    Droog Well-Known Member VIP

    Reputations:
    135,034
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    15,133
    Likes Received:
    19,264
    The rich will always find a way. You can get rid of all campaign donations over $5 and it wouldn't help. Candidates just open a non-profit and donors can give to them at will. Put family and friends in charge of the non-profit and collecting big salaries to do so. Money laundering at its finest. Flat out bribery is also impossible to snuff out when both parties use off shore accounts. Even Bitcoin can be used. We're doomed.
     
    FishySausage likes this.
  15. FishySausage

    FishySausage Original Nuttah VIP Gold

    Reputations:
    155,151
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    12,812
    Likes Received:
    21,882
    Sadly I'm sure you're right.
    But if we all started voting out incumbents maybe we could shake some shit up
     
  16. Tipsey Russell

    Tipsey Russell VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    124,556
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    10,998
    Likes Received:
    25,952
    if we get more parties can we have an election every 6 months like the Italians do?
     
  17. Tickle Shits

    Tickle Shits Special Needs Typist. Gold

    Reputations:
    70,132
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    Messages:
    5,745
    Likes Received:
    13,246
    not putting up complete lunatics would be a solid start...
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
  18. Bosch76

    Bosch76 2016 Politics POTY Gold

    Reputations:
    27,530
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    15,398
    Likes Received:
    45,287
  19. Sloppyjoe

    Sloppyjoe VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    102,031
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2015
    Messages:
    7,606
    Likes Received:
    17,016
    [​IMG]
     
  20. Sloppyjoe

    Sloppyjoe VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    102,031
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2015
    Messages:
    7,606
    Likes Received:
    17,016