People 30-ish and younger: Do you think our generation is going to break the two-party monopoly in America?

Why? It’s no so bad a system, most people fall more on one side or the other. If any party is gonna die it’s the Republicans, or that’s how it seems at the moment. They’ve taken some huge hits in the last fifteen years.

Eh, it happens. Parties come and go.

Nope. We already have some fringe parties, notably the Libertarians and the Greens. They’ve gained no traction in American politics, and become influential, for better or worse, only in a closely contested election like 2000, when the good guys lost. I wanted to peel Ralph Nader’s skin off with a cheese grater after that one.

We have a two-party system in this country because it works well with our form of government. Countries that have a parliamentary form of democracy, like France or Isreal, can sort of get away with having lots of parties because of a weak executive branch and enough pragmatists to cobble together coalitions. In this country, you would have chaos.

You can look at the 1912 election as a example, in our own history, of what happens when a third party – T. Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party – muddies the waters. In that case, it was the Republican party that split, putting a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, in the White House on a plurality vote. Wilson turned out to be a great president. The Republicans, on the other hand, stayed split. The Progressives, who went with Roosevelt, eventually found themselves in the Democratic party, while the Republicans got too conservative for the country’s good. They are still that way, and appear to be headed for oblivion.

Republicans really didn’t lose all the recent elections because they were too conservative. They lost because they were spending money like liberals, and also for backing the war in Iraq, which really wasn’t necessary. In my opinion, if the GOP is going to become a successful party again, they need to become fiscally conservative/responsible, and get away from all the religious nuts. In other words, they need to be more like Ron Paul.

@rawpixels , that would be nice, but it will happen when pigs fly. The core is hardening even as it shrinks. The bargain Reagan made with the Religious Right will never be undone, and that will be their undoing.

@IchtheosaurusRex
Yes, you’re probably right. Of course, if Obama and the Democrat Congress screws up in a big way, that would leave the door open for Republicans.

It’s possible. If the political system doesn’t cause more frustration, apathy and nihilism, they won’t be able to survive without at least serious changes, tho are apt to have to give up their hegemony if we insist on more than a superficially and temporarily reformed system.

@Jiminez, it’s a great question in terms of getting people to think long term. Here’s one root of the problem—that the R’s and D’s won’t allow a third party into the presidential debates.

No offense to baby boomers, but I think as long as their the dominant voting cohort the two major parties will always be represented as “real” choice. On top of that, I super-totally don’t trust voting systems, which means that whole process is pretty much rigged one way or the other, but not towards a 3rd party. So that’s another hurdle. A third party would have to really have some traction out of the gate to avoid being swept to the margins.

The glimmer of hope, I suppose are people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich who are at least voicing the concerns of non-mainstream voters. And, this doesn’t speak at all of local elections, where it would be more likely to float candidates of minor parties.

I go into greater detail here, but suffice it to say there are technical reasons why a two party system is the most mature system, and once you’ve gotten to it, you have a really hard time adding a new party. Essentially, you would be diluting the power of one of the two parties, so as to assure that the other party will always win. That doesn’t help you at all, so you are left working within the party that is closest to your views, or opting out in disgust (which also doesnt help you).

We talked about this in my Gov. class and came to the conclusion that our country has made it to hard to let there be a major 3rd party

@aisyna: why did they say it was “too hard”? Did they think a third party was a good thing? If so, why?

there, they’re, their. You’d think my English degree would protect me.

@kevbo Yeah that 15% crap is as close as it gets to tyranny, if you ask me. But with the growing popularity of the interwebs (especially amongst our generation), you would think that hegemony of the MSM would dwindle. We’re really a liberal country, if you think about it. Bush barely won (if he even did win) in 2000 and the same goes for 2004. 2008 was a approaching landslide status, and even now there’s hefty criticism of Obama for being too conservative/corporatist in his policies. I don’t see it being out of the question to host an online presidential debate that rivals the widely-televised ones. I can imagine they’d get a lot of attention. The problem is, I guess, that we’re not thinking ahead enough and planning for something like that in 2012 yet. If I had the resources or enough social capital I would try to organize something like this myself, but it’s got to be a popular movement like the Ron Paul campaign was (which was fucking incredible and unprecedented, IMO).

Then there’s the national initiative, which could really free up the pipes of liberty, if we can ever manage to get our heads out of asses.

I guess what I’m saying is: is their agenda/corruption really gonna infiltrate OUR generation? The Nintendo, Tupac, MTV, grunge, Simpsons, and YouTube generation? I mean, we’re us. Somehow, I just think we’re uninfiltratable (my apologies for inventing new words). Am I naive for thinking we’re different?

@daloon I’m sorry, but that’s just plain retarded. Suppression of political freedom is never a good thing. I can’t help but think it is people like you who are keeping this country enslaved.

@Jiminez, I agree and disagree. I think the country is pretty sharply divided right now (and if you go back to the ‘80s, you’ll note that Reagan carried 49 of 50 states—so we’re not super liberal as a whole). To me, it seems that each side is losing a chunk to an “extreme” party (Libs or Greens), but this time it seems to be mostly Libs separating from Reps. In past elections, it was more Greens separating from Dems. Also, Perot was the most successful 3rd party candidate in contemporary history, with 20% of the popular vote (and Ron Paul ran as a Rep). This despite some speculation that Bush, Sr. made “efforts to convince” Perot to drop out.

Given Obama’s success in pied piping the youth vote, I’m not terribly hopeful about a progressive 3rd party’s success, but I would bet on a significant “patriot” party splintering from the Repubs.

@Jiminez, you’ve got me thinking now that perhaps the unusually long campaign season and the unusual breadth of candidates (especially among the Republicans and especially with Ron Paul in tow) was maybe a preemptive effort to control or reign in third party dissent/opinion rather than let it coalesce into a viable third platform. I was just ruminating about Richardson and how he claimed during the debates that his position was to get all troops out of Iraq ASAP, which is hardly believable both in terms of his own politics and the pragmatism of that idea. Yet, I’m sure it satisfied or was meant to satisfy whatever segment of the population thought strongly along those lines.

Of course the writer’s strike was going on at that time too, which is another valid reason for so many televised debates, but the above is certainly plausible IMHO.

We’re always going to have the two-party system as long as we have “winner take all” elections. Those are enshrined in the Constitution. And to amend the Constitution would take action on the part of Congress. Which is filled with Democrats and Republicans. Both of which have a vested interest in maintaining the two-party system.

Yes, this is circular. And that is why it’s not gonna happen.

@laureth There’s another way to amend the Constitution. If a majority of citizens vote for a change then we can get it on the ballot and then vote on it again. If it passes the second time I believe that changes the Constitution.

@Jiminez – There is more than one way to ratify proposed Amendments, but the Convention method was only used once – to repeal Prohibition.

@Jiminez: @daloon I’m sorry, but that’s just plain retarded. Suppression of political freedom is never a good thing. I can’t help but think it is people like you who are keeping this country enslaved.

What is retarded? That, for technical reasons, third parties are dead on arrival in the US? Why don’t you do some research in the political science field. It’s all there.

Now, as to slavery—I wonder what you are talking about. You must be a religious conservative of some kind, if you think that it is slavery to open up our society to include equal rights for homosexuals, universal health care under a single payer system, negotiation instead of militarism, clean energy instead of making the world safe for heat loving bacteria.

I mean, it’s absurd if you say that just because someone is describing what is happening, and you don’t like it, then they must be bad? That’s killing the messenger. Grow up.

@daloon Dude, why don’t you do your research first? If you look at my profile page I’m sure you will find that I’m about as far from a religious conservative as it gets. I have a problem with there being only 2 parties in politics until the end of time. If that’s the way it’s going to be then our government should be completely abolished. What is retarded is you saying that it’s the best system (not describing what’s happening). That’s a frightening thing to hear someone say. You realize that the 2 party system exists because all other parties are suppressed by the 2 parties in power right? Is there not something wrong with that? There is absolutely nothing preventing 3rd party involvement other than the 2 parties currently in power.

Oh, and I suppose people who are 100% fine with that. Wake up.

The two party system is not suppressing other parties. At least, not consciously. Supression happens because of reasons that game theory can help us understand: it is the most efficient way to get power.

I think you missed my point. I knew you were not a religious conservative. YOu were just being in opposition to me, and since I’m about as liberal as you can get, if you are in opposition, you must be pretty conservative.

I happen to believe that democracy is the worst system, except for all the others. Now, we could have proportional representation, which might make things more interesting, but probably wouldn’t be that much more effective for the small party’s goals.

As it is now, the main parties have to throw bones to their more radical compatriots, or else lose a vote on something important. For example, the democrats may split over the universal health system being proposed. SIngle payer folks may opt out, thus destroying any chance for reform.

Anyway, in winner takes all democracy, you will inevitably end up with a two party system. The only way to prevent that would be to have a more totalitarian system. I hope that’s not what you’re arguing for. I don’t think you are. I also don’t think you understand how human processes work.

I was in favor of third parties in my youth. It is only recently that I learned why third parties are dead on arrival. This is not something that can be fought, unless you change the winner-take-all system to a proportional representation system. Even if you could get a constitutional amendment for that (which would be impossible), I don’t think it would make a difference.