Should the two-party system be realigned, tbh?

[Millennial_Messiah]

How about just abolish the "GOP"/Republican Party altogether and just have the Democratic Party (DNC mainstreamers like Biden/Clintons) and the Progressive Party (i.e. the "squad" and Bernie types), tbh?

[Will Hunting]

Not sure why that would happen when the GOP just performed as well as it did yesterday.

The 2 party system needs to go away completely. It’s a complete disaster and will only get worse the next 4 years.

[ElNono]

How about just abolish the "GOP"/Republican Party altogether and just have the Democratic Party (DNC mainstreamers like Biden/Clintons) and the Progressive Party (i.e. the "squad" and Bernie types), tbh?

It should happen, but then a bunch of phony idiots like Ted Cruz would fall off the map.

[ElNono]

Not sure why that would happen when the GOP just performed as well as it did yesterday.

The 2 party system needs to go away completely. It’s a complete disaster and will only get worse the next 4 years.

This too. There's clearly enough brand value on the GOP to make things competitive still.

[Millennial_Messiah]

It should happen, but then a bunch of phony idiots like Ted Cruz would fall off the map.
No, they can just get a layman's job and/or retire and play golf, tbh.

[Will Hunting]

Also the centrist Dems have no brand value and wouldn’t be able to garner massive support if they were the party that’s furthest to the right. The only reason people put up with a party run by Pelosi/Schumer is because the alternative sucks.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Also the centrist Dems have no brand value and wouldn’t be able to garner massive support if they were the party that’s furthest to the right. The only reason people put up with a party run by Pelosi/Schumer is because the alternative sucks.
It works in Europe though? the Conservative party partisans in those first-world, high-life longevity nations are the Pelosi/Schumer types, while the Liberal/Labo(u)r party partisans are the Bernie/AOC types.

[Bogie]

Also the centrist Dems have no brand value and wouldn’t be able to garner massive support if they were the party that’s furthest to the right. The only reason people put up with a party run by Pelosi/Schumer is because the alternative sucks.


the winning strategy is to appeal is to emotion, facts and logic and truth no longer matter.

would a progressive party turn out enough? They haven’t in the past.

[Will Hunting]

the winning strategy is to appeal is to emotion, facts and logic and truth no longer matter.

would a progressive party turn out enough? They haven’t in the past.
Turned out pretty well for FDR.

[SnakeBoy]

The parties are in the process of being realigned

Realignment isn't a short term process
Realignment isn't a clean process
Realignment is a bitch tbh

[GAustex]

4 parties
Way lefts and rights and center lefts and rights

[Bogie]

Turned out pretty well for FDR.


yeah but FDR did everything in his power to avoid identifying with progressivism to not be tagged as a socialist when he was campaigning against Hoover.

[Will Hunting]

yeah but FDR did everything in his power to avoid identifying with progressivism to not be tagged as a socialist when he was campaigning against Hoover.
I’m definitely not advocating someone identify as a socialist. Sanders doing that was idiotic.

[Millennial_Messiah]

I’m definitely not advocating someone identify as a socialist. Sanders doing that was idiotic.
yeah but it sure helped him with college voters lol

[Bogie]

I’m definitely not advocating someone identify as a socialist. Sanders doing that was idiotic.

In this age of media, and fake news being passed around like it’s gospel, any dem is going to get hammered with radical leftist agenda bullshit.

bernie is uncompromising, easy to admire And right on most of his platform ideas. But like every other single fucking dem, since Bill Clinton who was maybe the best politician of my lifetime, they can’t win with ideas because they get killed with fake narratives.

I had always thought the millennial gen would start to fix all the shit the boomers on down have caused to ruin this country. This election showed that there are just as many redneck farm kids that want that racist lifestyle too. Someone younger and hipper needs to emerge to energize the decent kids to participate.

i love AOC, she’s amazing. But she’s already been tainted by the rw media that fears her.

btw, watch Iowa be the first state to pass something draconian on abortion to start the ball rolling toward the Supreme Court. Old college roommate is a state rep, and the r’s just took back the state house.

[phxspurfan]

Even George Washington (who was a member of a party) was quoted to be against a party based system. It does a disservice to people who don't wish to vote on entire platforms. What if you disagree with certain party lines/issue stances? What if you like a different set of beliefs? You're screwed in our system if so. And if you stubbornly vote for a 3rd party, all you do is throw away your vote and detract from one or the other party. Perot voters cost the republicans the election in 1992 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election) and 1996 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election) for instance.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Even George Washington (who was a member of a party) was quoted to be against a party based system. It does a disservice to people who don't wish to vote on entire platforms. What if you disagree with certain party lines/issue stances? What if you like a different set of beliefs? You're screwed in our system if so. And if you stubbornly vote for a 3rd party, all you do is throw away your vote and detract from one or the other party. Perot voters cost the republicans the election in 1992 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election) and 1996 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election) for instance.
92 yes, not 96, Clinton was winning re-election no matter what.

[DMC]

Systems don't just "go away". Like free market systems, political systems react to the market. They don't act on suggestions. When the voter market share demands it, it will happen.

[DMC]

Even George Washington (who was a member of a party) was quoted to be against a party based system. It does a disservice to people who don't wish to vote on entire platforms. What if you disagree with certain party lines/issue stances? What if you like a different set of beliefs? You're screwed in our system if so. And if you stubbornly vote for a 3rd party, all you do is throw away your vote and detract from one or the other party. Perot voters cost the republicans the election in 1992 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election) and 1996 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election) for instance.

The same is true for most of the things we choose in life. We don't like 100% of the things we choose to accept, but we like it better than the alternative. More alternatives doesn't mean we get more of what we want. It still means the majority wins, and they might be so far from you ideologically that you find it repulsive.

[BSfromTX]

should go away. both will lead us to the slaughter house.

but it will be like this til the bitter end. Both are controlled by special interest groups and the world banking cartel. They are perfectly happy with the current setup

[Dirks_Finale]

Our founders (although ostricized in this forum :rolleyes ) were actualy quite keen to the problems that parties would ultimately cause. They warned against forming these gangs.

The problem is, those eggs are already cracked. They exist and they aren't going anywhere. So the answer is allowing more access by indepedents to the debates. I feel like there should be at least one indepdent candidate and the Libertarian candidate as well. Clinton worked out a deal with the Republicans in the 90's to prevent Ross Perot types from the POTUS debates unless they were polling at 15% or greater.

Maybe after this disaster of an election the people will rise up and demand more options. But I doubt, it. The vaccine comes and people forget about politics, BLM and whatever else occupied their time this year.

[Will Hunting]

The founding fathers hated the two party system so much that they created it and made it next to impossible to get rid of. Kinda sounds like how much the founding fathers ostensibly hated slavery :lol

[Dirks_Finale]

The founding fathers hated the two party system so much that they created it and made it next to impossible to get rid of. Kinda sounds like how much the founding fathers ostensibly hated slavery :lol

They didn't like slavery either and deemed it something that needed to be slowly phased out as many were relying on slaves for their livelihood at that time.

Adams, Washington and Jefferson warned agaisnt parties, just to name a few.

[hater]

2 party system is how they maintain the "we are a democracy" farce

Good luck trying to change it :lmao

[hater]

They didn't like slavery either and deemed it something that needed to be slowly phased out as many were relying on slaves for their livelihood at that time.

Adams, Washington and Jefferson warned agaisnt parties, just to name a few.

And yet it took a civil war to "phase" it out

Perhaps thats needed here.

[Will Hunting]

They didn't like slavery either and deemed it something that needed to be slowly phased out as many were relying on slaves for their livelihood at that time.

Adams, Washington and Jefferson warned agaisnt parties, just to name a few.
:lmao what a crock of shit. They owned slaves and loved slavery.

:lmao worshipping people who think slavery was necessary and needed to be “phased out slowly”

[Will Hunting]

The founding fathers had a completely blank check on how to write the constitution and how to set up the US government. They chose a 2 party system where slavery was legal. Clearly they were somewhat fond of the two party system and slavery.

[Dirks_Finale]

And yet it took a civil war to "phase" it out

Perhaps thats needed here.

That's the fear, obviously.

[Dirks_Finale]

:lmao what a crock of shit. They owned slaves and loved slavery.

:lmao worshipping people who think slavery was necessary and needed to be “phased out slowly”

Yeah, cause immediately pulling the plug on it and causing civil war was something desirable right? :lol

There was no easy/quick remedy for it and you know this.

[Will Hunting]

Conservatives love to pick and and choose what the founding fathers said. The founding fathers also said that we should have a constitutional convention every 20 years and rewrite the constitution as needed during said convention, but god knows conservatives have no interest in doing that.

[Will Hunting]

Yeah, cause immediately pulling the plug on it and causing civil war was something desirable right? :lol

There was no easy/quick remedy for it and you know this.
:lol Western Europe managed to end slavery without a civil war and they did it a lot earlier than the US did. The only difference is the US was founded by slave owners. If Thomas Jefferson hated slavery so much why did he own slaves and rape them?

Whats you’re explanation for why they set up a two party system they hated so much?

[Dirks_Finale]

Whats you’re explanation for why they set up a two party system they hated so much?

Because it was inevitable due to human nature. We form gangs, it's what we do. They were not entirely united on the issue, nor the issue of slavery.

[Will Hunting]

Because it was inevitable due to human nature. We form gangs, it's what we do. They were not entirely united on the issue, nor the issue of slavery.
They were united in the fact they owned slaves. You don’t get to say you’re oppose to slavery when you own slaves :lol

Somehow Western Europe, or countries that weren’t formed by muh founding fathers, managed to avoid a 2 party system. It’s remarkable that every Western Nation managed to avoid these things muh founding fathers made a part of the US.

[hater]

They were united in the fact they owned slaves. You don’t get to say you’re oppose to slavery when you own slaves :lol

Somehow Western Europe, or countries that weren’t formed by muh founding fathers, managed to avoid a 2 party system. It’s remarkable that every Western Nation managed to avoid these things muh founding fathers made a part of the US.

Iran has the Mullahs, US has the 2 party system. Both system of control and oppression

[Millennial_Messiah]

Conservatives love to pick and and choose what the founding fathers said. The founding fathers also said that we should have a constitutional convention every 20 years and rewrite the constitution as needed during said convention, but god knows conservatives have no interest in doing that.
Stephen Breyer wrote a book about it. I read about three quarters of it for my first poly sci honors class in undergrad.

[Will Hunting]

Stephen Breyer wrote a book about it. I read about three quarters of it for my first poly sci honors class in undergrad.
Is it worth a read?

[Bogie]

Conservatives love to pick and and choose what the founding fathers said. The founding fathers also said that we should have a constitutional convention every 20 years and rewrite the constitution as needed during said convention, but god knows conservatives have no interest in doing that.

this.

it’s just stunning how historically illiterate most “constitutionalists” are. Somewhere along the line, when we elected a half black guy, the right co opted the document with interpretations in order to rationalize their fear and hate. They will be back too, here in January, starting with states rights, and government spending.

In the end, what they like is women not having rights, and black peoples being 3/5 of a person, Latino less than that

[Will Hunting]

IMO the US needs 4 political parties -

- A populist party for people who are conservative on social issues but progressive on economic issues, i.e. a modern day William Jennings Bryan type party.
- A conservative party that's conservative on social issues and economic issues
- A progressive party that's liberal on social issues and progressive on economic issues.
- A democratic party that's liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues (this would basically merge the establishment wing from each party, it would basically be the party of Bill Clinton/Charlie Baker)

This would actually force parties to work with each other and it would give people the option of voting for someone who they're actually aligned with ideologically. It would also ease racial tensions because black people and hispanics wouldn't all join the same party.

[Millennial_Messiah]

IMO the US needs 4 political parties -

- A populist party for people who are conservative on social issues but progressive on economic issues, i.e. a modern day William Jennings Bryan type party.
- A conservative party that's conservative on social issues and economic issues
- A progressive party that's liberal on social issues and progressive on economic issues.
- A democratic party that's liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues (this would basically merge the establishment wing from each party, it would basically be the party of Bill Clinton/Charlie Baker)

This would actually force parties to work with each other and it would give people the option of voting for someone who they're actually aligned with ideologically. It would also ease racial tensions because black people and hispanics wouldn't all join the same party.

Hispanics and a lot of blacks would fall into party "A" from your list
Libertarians (and me) would probably fall into "D"
Religious southern types would be "B"
Berners and college libs and hipsters would be "C"

[Will Hunting]

Hispanics and a lot of blacks would fall into party "A" from your list
Libertarians (and me) would probably fall into "D"
Religious southern types would be "B"
Berners and college libs and hipsters would be "C"
Older blacks would be in A, younger blacks would be in C.

The point is that those parties are diverse enough where none of them would ever have a majority. They'd be forced to work with each other.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Older blacks would be in A, younger blacks would be in C.

The point is that those parties are diverse enough where none of them would ever have a majority. They'd be forced to work with each other.
Yep... the purple rust belt states would go "D", the south would go "B" with a significant "A" minority, the central plains likely "B" with a significant "D" minority, the west coast would obviously be "C", the mountain west might be fully "D" as well, and the northeast would be split between "C", "D" and "A". The southwest states with high Hispanic populations would likely go "A" with "B" and "C" minorities.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Will Hunting

I created an ECV map based on your proposed system. Seems like it would work, but team "A" would have a rough time getting enough electoral vote representation... but they could get a lot of house seats across the South, for example.

https://i.imgur.com/iDJS9EB.jpg

[Will Hunting]

Will Hunting (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=17032)

I created an ECV map based on your proposed system. Seems like it would work, but team "A" would have a rough time getting enough electoral vote representation... but they could get a lot of house seats across the South, for example.

https://i.imgur.com/iDJS9EB.jpg
The populist party would win in the south. I said it would be a party modeled around William Jennings Bryan - go look how well he did in the south when he ran for president.

[Millennial_Messiah]

The populist party would win in the south. I said it would be a party modeled around William Jennings Bryan - go look how well he did in the south when he ran for president.
I think they'd be competitive but the white rednecks are also very capitalistic and anti government, anti gun control, even if they do get medicare and/or medicaid (a bit hypocritical tbh lol).

[Will Hunting]

I think they'd be competitive but the white rednecks are also very capitalistic and anti government, anti gun control, even if they do get medicare and/or medicaid (a bit hypocritical tbh lol).
The populist party would be anti gun control.

[Millennial_Messiah]

The populist party would be anti gun control.
but I think the capitalism would ultimately carry the day, though the populist party A would be competitive and certainly win some congressional seats there.

meanwhile party D seems to be my home, since it is secular, separation of church and state, pro choice, anti gun control, pro choice on drugs, limited government, limited regulations. I think Trump would have carried the rust belt again like 2016 if he didn't move too far to the right on the religious stuff and act like a dictator. People up North value intelligence and while neither candidate has it, so many of them just wanted to dump Trump at all costs this year. They'll be back to Republican in 2024 assuming the candidate isn't Trump or anyone from the Trump clan.