The debate "A two-party system is detrimental to society" was started by
November 20, 2017, 4:50 am.
15 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 1 person is on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
the_Analyst posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
the_Analyst, nate, mustufa, soccer19, fishermo20 and 10 visitors agree.
1 visitor disagrees.
so what do you think will be the best system?
Canada looked at implementing a ranked ballot system recently. The problem was that the party of the center will pretty much always win.
Canada has 3 main parties. for lack of a better defininition there is a left wing party, a right wing party and a centrist party. both the right and left would never want the other to win. that leaves the centrist party as the 1st or 2nd choice of pretty well everyone. needless to say it was the centrist party (the liberals) who loved that idea.
yes, they are expensive. then again the United States and its population is equivalent to all of western Europe (numerous countries put together). the logistics are not cheap. but doing something 5x will be 5x as expensive.
the ranking idea sounds interesting. but it may turn elections into a not being the worst instead of striving for bold leadership. you can't please everyone with bold ideas, but if you just play the politician
yes-man, everyone will put you as #2 or 3 snagging the win.
"The largest minority get to rule and fixing this is expensive"
Yes, but multiple votes aren't a necessity. The alternative vote is an example of a voting system that prevents the spoiler effect. It's one vote and instead of being forced to vote for one candidate, you have the option to rank multiple candidates.
Also, I believe the elections in the US are quite expensive already.
Prevents extremist largest minority"
*warning: little rant follows*
I agree, I believe it has a connection with protest voting against the established parties. In Europe the effects are quite visible, people in low income rural areas lose their income to often to globalisation for example. These are targets for the populist parties, by promising change and telling everybody just how simple it is to 'heal the nation', yeah right nobody in their right mind believes that 'everything is so simple'... Combine that with the migrant crisis and terrorist attacks and it suddenly seems a sensible thing to do for a growing portion of the population.
the reason I'm hesitant now is because maybe having numerous parties in the Senate will prevent the stalemate we are always having, but most people see the 2 party problem as mostly being the presidential race, I think it's fine there. Congress is where we should be looking.
it prevents an extreme group from winning a largest minority even if all the other people who voted for various options see them as the worst of all those other options.
like if most people vote democrat, Republican, libertarian, socialist, etc. but all of them would take any of those over anarchists, but anarchists ended up getting more votes than any of those individual options. And they get to rule. the fix being that numerous runoff elections which is expensive and tiring. people here barely vote once, forget 5 times.
it solidifies us between 2 options, which kinda sucks, but most of the nuance is settled in primaries, like trump and Bernie. And I think that it is pretty effective. also coalition governments seem pretty chaotic.
Go ahead, you awoken my curiosity.
I was a bit of a defender of the 2 party system, but I'm not 100% sure. I can play devil's advocate in its defense if you like.