That is just bullshit. While your president is powerful, a lot of the power of government resides within the parliament itself.
As long as US media calls candidates of other parties as “independents” your political system stais a fucked up mono party system.
To change the Satus quo, laws must put in place, like in other countries that force media to represent all parties.
In addition you have to stop with this excessive money dependent political campaigns.
Those are gatekeeping tactics designed to keep the power in the hands of the two major parties.
There is no reason why your system could not work with more competitors.
edit: also, using a voting mechanism that was good in times before telegraph, telephone and internet makes it nearly impossible for smaller parties to get anything out of an election.
There is no reason not to use the popular vote. None!
And that is an issue how? Are you trying to say that the USA will be stuck with a legal framework from the 1800? For all eternity?
EDIT I like that. Downvoting is fine, but maybe explain why? Srsly I am very invested in politics, doesn’t matter if European or US. So, if I am wrong on a factual basis, tell me.
Pretty much. There is a process to change the Constitution, here’s how it works:
First you get a 290 vote super majority in the House. These are the people who took 15 tries to get a simple 218 vote majority to decide who their own leader would be.
Then you need a 67 vote super majority in the Senate, the people continually blocked by needing 60 votes to overturn a filibuster.
If somehow you meet those two hurdles, then it goes to the states for ratification and you need 38 statehouses to pass the Amendment.
By point of comparison, in 2020, Biden got 25 states + Washington D.C. so you’d need ALL 25 Biden states +13 Trump states.
BUT - Of those 25 states, only 19 have Democratically controlled statehouses, so you could end up needing as many as 19 Trump states.
Thanks. That was my rough assumption. And that worries me. While I am not a US citizen, the USA have such immense power that yout politics affect people around the world. From privacy and data protection to the simple fact if we leave in peace or in war.
I understand it is a big issue. And I hope you find a way to change that.
There are lots of competitors in US elections, but most are eliminated during the primaries.
When you have more than two candidates in the final round, the winner may not represent the will of the people. You can end up with a majority preferring A to B, a majority preferring B to C, and a majority preferring C to A. No matter who wins, the majority can identify a preferable candidate.
In fact, Kenneth Arrow mathematically proved that multiparty elections will always produce paradoxical results like that. That’s why the winners of multiparty elections are often decided by elite kingmakers, eg Macron.
I see the issue with a president. But most legislation comes out of the Senate. Having more then two parties represented there forces compromises. And the wishes of more people have to be considered the get the required majority.
And if the congress is more diverse, the president looses some powers, as he can not rely on having the majority at least for two years of his presidency. He also would have to compromise all the time.
First of all, in a presidential democracy the president keeps their powers regardless of the composition of Congress (not just the Senate).
It’s true that in order to pass legislation, the President has to cooperate with Congress. But I’m not sure why you think that a more diverse Congress would “force” anyone to compromise. What actually happens is that nothing gets done.
In fact, this is why the purest multiparty democracies, like Italy and Israel, constantly fail. Multiple parties are “forced” to compromise. They can’t or won’t, blaming their opponents. The government is paralyzed and falls. New elections are held. The composition of the legislature changes (or not). Multiple parties are “forced” to compromise. They can’t or won’t, blaming their opponents. The government is paralyzed and falls. New elections are held. Repeat ad infinitum.
I am living in a multi party country. I am experiencing the hurdles and the benefits of it every single day. Coalitions have to be formed to get the majority, smaller parties getting influence because of it.
We are getting stuff like increased minimum wage, social benefits, legalizing cannabis, and more. And not because the senior partner in the coalition wants it. Because of the junior partners. They are required to form a majority, so they can state their terms also.
And yes, some countries with more then two parties in the parliament are failing. What about the US?
Got some universal Healthcare yet? A livable minimum wage for everyone including waiters?
Effective countermeasures to climate change?
No? See, also failing. And that lies in the nature of countries. Sometimes they fail.
You assume that US democracy is failing because it hasn’t delivered progressive goals. But the reason it hasn’t delivered progressive goals is that it’s a democracy, about half the country is not progressive, and there is no national consensus on those goals.
It’s true that in multi-party democracies, it is easier for a progressive minority to make its voice heard and achieve its goals. But it’s also easier for a right-wing minority to make its voice heard and achieve its goals. For example, in both Italy and Israel.
In the US the fucking right wing has 50% in the polls. What are you talking about?
~50% of the people ate voting for a lying, narcissistic Nazi. One of your supreme courts justices took "presents " from someone who has a hitler singed version of “Mein Kampf” in his possession. Right besides ohter Nazi memorabilia.
And your concern is, that it would be easier for a right wing minority to gain power? You have a right wing majority.
We ate shoked over here in Germany that our far right has more then 20% in election results. Your far right has 50% and one of your presidential candidates represents them.
We had a right wing government under Trump, yet somehow Trump didn’t achieve most of his goals.
He couldn’t repeal progressive health care legislation. He couldn’t leave NATO. He never built that stupid wall on the Mexican border.
He did manage to enact tariffs against China. But only because Democrats supported them too.
Finally, he got a tax cut for the rich without support from Democrats. That’s his main legacy.
And that’s the difference between your country and mine. In yours, a junior party can achieve its goals. That’s great when you agree with those goals. Not so great when you don’t agree with them, like in Israel right now.
In the US, often even a majority is not enough to get what you want. It means progress is very slow, but we’ve avoided several potential catastrophes.
No most of them started out as monarchies so they cant have parliaments. That would be a change in how the government functions, and that’s impossible.
Nobody is saying the US system can’t be changed to accommodate third-parties.
What they are saying is that third-parties aren’t viable the way things are now.
You can’t elect third parties to change the system; the system has to be changed to elect third parties. Until then, voting for a third party is wasting a vote and advocating for others to do so is telling them to vote against the major party that is both more likely to win and also the one that more closely represents their values.
The exception, of course, is if one of the major parties suffers an implosion like the Whigs did in the mid-1800s. But the Dems are more unified than ever and the Republicans are brainwashed by right-wing media, so I don’t see that happening any time soon.
And the sooner you swallow that pill, the sooner you’ll realize that politics is not about emotions, it about strategy, and voting for third-parties isn’t a winning one.
You say emotions, I say evidence based. With over a century of results of voting exclusively for one of two parties. The result being we’re more deeply ingrained in two parties than ever before.
Lets say we vote for democrats again, what are you willing to claim will be different next election with regards to moving past the two party system?
And all the evidence shows that, as the US is currently, voting for third-parties hurts you far more by allowing the major party that least represents you to win. You can’t claim to adhere to “evidence” if you don’t acknowledge that fact.
Also, I’m going to let you in on a little secret: I don’t want any of the current third parties to win. None of them are serious beyond being spoilers for the major parties- they don’t host voter drives, they don’t campaign for local and state elections, they don’t do anything for four years then show up and expect to have the same shot as the major parties.
I’m perfectly happy voting for a party to win who agrees with 60% of what I want than getting 0% of what I want, because it’s the rational choice to make.
Theyre just figurehead monarchies, they have a prime minister chosen by parliament. The point i was making was that they are not now how they were then. They and many other countries changed into a form of government that offers several party choices for voters. But any effort to that effect here is met with immediate dismissal as being impossible.
Largely it has to do with the form of government. Countries with many (too many?) choices are Parliamentary forms of government:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system
The US is a Presidential system, not a Parliamentary one.
That is just bullshit. While your president is powerful, a lot of the power of government resides within the parliament itself.
As long as US media calls candidates of other parties as “independents” your political system stais a fucked up mono party system.
To change the Satus quo, laws must put in place, like in other countries that force media to represent all parties.
In addition you have to stop with this excessive money dependent political campaigns.
Those are gatekeeping tactics designed to keep the power in the hands of the two major parties.
There is no reason why your system could not work with more competitors.
edit: also, using a voting mechanism that was good in times before telegraph, telephone and internet makes it nearly impossible for smaller parties to get anything out of an election.
There is no reason not to use the popular vote. None!
The Electoral College system blocks using the popular vote. Changing that means changing the Constitution.
And that is an issue how? Are you trying to say that the USA will be stuck with a legal framework from the 1800? For all eternity?
EDIT I like that. Downvoting is fine, but maybe explain why? Srsly I am very invested in politics, doesn’t matter if European or US. So, if I am wrong on a factual basis, tell me.
Pretty much. There is a process to change the Constitution, here’s how it works:
First you get a 290 vote super majority in the House. These are the people who took 15 tries to get a simple 218 vote majority to decide who their own leader would be.
Then you need a 67 vote super majority in the Senate, the people continually blocked by needing 60 votes to overturn a filibuster.
If somehow you meet those two hurdles, then it goes to the states for ratification and you need 38 statehouses to pass the Amendment.
By point of comparison, in 2020, Biden got 25 states + Washington D.C. so you’d need ALL 25 Biden states +13 Trump states.
BUT - Of those 25 states, only 19 have Democratically controlled statehouses, so you could end up needing as many as 19 Trump states.
Thanks. That was my rough assumption. And that worries me. While I am not a US citizen, the USA have such immense power that yout politics affect people around the world. From privacy and data protection to the simple fact if we leave in peace or in war.
I understand it is a big issue. And I hope you find a way to change that.
I like the color blue.
I can understand that
There are lots of competitors in US elections, but most are eliminated during the primaries.
When you have more than two candidates in the final round, the winner may not represent the will of the people. You can end up with a majority preferring A to B, a majority preferring B to C, and a majority preferring C to A. No matter who wins, the majority can identify a preferable candidate.
In fact, Kenneth Arrow mathematically proved that multiparty elections will always produce paradoxical results like that. That’s why the winners of multiparty elections are often decided by elite kingmakers, eg Macron.
I see the issue with a president. But most legislation comes out of the Senate. Having more then two parties represented there forces compromises. And the wishes of more people have to be considered the get the required majority.
And if the congress is more diverse, the president looses some powers, as he can not rely on having the majority at least for two years of his presidency. He also would have to compromise all the time.
Just admit it, your system is broken.
First of all, in a presidential democracy the president keeps their powers regardless of the composition of Congress (not just the Senate).
It’s true that in order to pass legislation, the President has to cooperate with Congress. But I’m not sure why you think that a more diverse Congress would “force” anyone to compromise. What actually happens is that nothing gets done.
In fact, this is why the purest multiparty democracies, like Italy and Israel, constantly fail. Multiple parties are “forced” to compromise. They can’t or won’t, blaming their opponents. The government is paralyzed and falls. New elections are held. The composition of the legislature changes (or not). Multiple parties are “forced” to compromise. They can’t or won’t, blaming their opponents. The government is paralyzed and falls. New elections are held. Repeat ad infinitum.
I am living in a multi party country. I am experiencing the hurdles and the benefits of it every single day. Coalitions have to be formed to get the majority, smaller parties getting influence because of it.
We are getting stuff like increased minimum wage, social benefits, legalizing cannabis, and more. And not because the senior partner in the coalition wants it. Because of the junior partners. They are required to form a majority, so they can state their terms also.
And yes, some countries with more then two parties in the parliament are failing. What about the US?
Got some universal Healthcare yet? A livable minimum wage for everyone including waiters?
Effective countermeasures to climate change?
No? See, also failing. And that lies in the nature of countries. Sometimes they fail.
You assume that US democracy is failing because it hasn’t delivered progressive goals. But the reason it hasn’t delivered progressive goals is that it’s a democracy, about half the country is not progressive, and there is no national consensus on those goals.
It’s true that in multi-party democracies, it is easier for a progressive minority to make its voice heard and achieve its goals. But it’s also easier for a right-wing minority to make its voice heard and achieve its goals. For example, in both Italy and Israel.
In the US the fucking right wing has 50% in the polls. What are you talking about?
~50% of the people ate voting for a lying, narcissistic Nazi. One of your supreme courts justices took "presents " from someone who has a hitler singed version of “Mein Kampf” in his possession. Right besides ohter Nazi memorabilia.
And your concern is, that it would be easier for a right wing minority to gain power? You have a right wing majority.
We ate shoked over here in Germany that our far right has more then 20% in election results. Your far right has 50% and one of your presidential candidates represents them.
We had a right wing government under Trump, yet somehow Trump didn’t achieve most of his goals.
He couldn’t repeal progressive health care legislation. He couldn’t leave NATO. He never built that stupid wall on the Mexican border.
He did manage to enact tariffs against China. But only because Democrats supported them too.
Finally, he got a tax cut for the rich without support from Democrats. That’s his main legacy.
And that’s the difference between your country and mine. In yours, a junior party can achieve its goals. That’s great when you agree with those goals. Not so great when you don’t agree with them, like in Israel right now.
In the US, often even a majority is not enough to get what you want. It means progress is very slow, but we’ve avoided several potential catastrophes.
K
No most of them started out as monarchies so they cant have parliaments. That would be a change in how the government functions, and that’s impossible.
Well that’s not true at all. Parliamentary monarchies are absolutely a thing, the UK being one.
Awesome, that means how our government functions can be changed to accommodate several parties.
Nobody is saying the US system can’t be changed to accommodate third-parties.
What they are saying is that third-parties aren’t viable the way things are now.
You can’t elect third parties to change the system; the system has to be changed to elect third parties. Until then, voting for a third party is wasting a vote and advocating for others to do so is telling them to vote against the major party that is both more likely to win and also the one that more closely represents their values.
The exception, of course, is if one of the major parties suffers an implosion like the Whigs did in the mid-1800s. But the Dems are more unified than ever and the Republicans are brainwashed by right-wing media, so I don’t see that happening any time soon.
You’re saying the only way to get rid of the two party system is to continue to exclusively support the two parties
And the sooner you swallow that pill, the sooner you’ll realize that politics is not about emotions, it about strategy, and voting for third-parties isn’t a winning one.
You say emotions, I say evidence based. With over a century of results of voting exclusively for one of two parties. The result being we’re more deeply ingrained in two parties than ever before.
Lets say we vote for democrats again, what are you willing to claim will be different next election with regards to moving past the two party system?
And all the evidence shows that, as the US is currently, voting for third-parties hurts you far more by allowing the major party that least represents you to win. You can’t claim to adhere to “evidence” if you don’t acknowledge that fact.
Also, I’m going to let you in on a little secret: I don’t want any of the current third parties to win. None of them are serious beyond being spoilers for the major parties- they don’t host voter drives, they don’t campaign for local and state elections, they don’t do anything for four years then show up and expect to have the same shot as the major parties.
I’m perfectly happy voting for a party to win who agrees with 60% of what I want than getting 0% of what I want, because it’s the rational choice to make.
Constitutional Monarchies are still a parliamentary form of government. See England as a prime example.
Theyre just figurehead monarchies, they have a prime minister chosen by parliament. The point i was making was that they are not now how they were then. They and many other countries changed into a form of government that offers several party choices for voters. But any effort to that effect here is met with immediate dismissal as being impossible.