Is this the begining

[silenttigersong]

of the end of the 2party system?I am not a political scholar.I am very interested in others thoughts about this.

[randome]

1. We will look back on the summer of '15 with pride.

The year that Bree Newsome 'captured' the Confederate flag. And the GOP spiraled further into irrelevance. They will never be gone but they will be increasingly ineffectual, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[TreasonousBastard]

2. No. Throughout our history minor parties have ...

come and gone, but none survived as a major force. Even Teddy Roosevelt couldn't get reelected without a major party-- his Progressive ("Bull Moose&quot Party made a dent in 1912, when he came in second, but the party didn't survive without him.

I'm not sure why this is, but I suspect it's largely because D's and R's have a basic party structure while the others are largely personality driven and fall apart when the personality goes away.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Wrong answer, it is baked into the Constitution with the winner take all

if that is somehow changed to allow for proportional representation, for example, both major parties will break up into a few smaller parties. And smaller parties will have a better chance to get representatives. It actually would be good for the country at this point, imho, but that ain't gonna happen with the two major parties benefiting from this.

As long as the winner take all system is in place...

Experts in things like partisanship have suggested that we need to do that anyhow, because hyper partisanship has developed into a quasi parliamentary system which is not compatible with the American system and the source of a lot of our disfunction in DC now spreading to state houses.

Oh and this starts in the 1970s, not the 90s as I used to believe.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. It may be baked into the Constitution

that winner take all for the Presidential race, but that shouldn't mean anything for every other office from town dogcatcher to US Senator.

In my town, we have D's and R's, with the usual Conservative Party for R's who prefer to be more rightwing. We also have the Working Families Party for displaced Greens and maybe a few dozen others. We also have the Independence Party, which is primarily the ego trip of one guy and a whole host of people who don't know any better. This year WF isn't carrying our whole slate on their line, and Independence refused to carry any, for reasons we're not sure of.

We're trying desperately to get a new "party" started so that all our candidates get at least two lines, but the amount of enthusiasm is underwhelming. An actual party with its own candidates and issues? Ha!

I suspect it's like this everywhere-- the "people" who we value so highly don't really give a shit. Few enough of them get off their asses to vote, much less campaign or actually get involved in issues or things that just might affect the future.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. It is baked

California has adopted a small version of PR... which does not go far enough. In this the top two in the primaries move on to the general regardless of party with essentially an open primary. But it is baked. If they adopted a state version of PR, full PR, I am sure the state democratic and Republican parties would also break up into component factions.

They know this, so neither will go that far.

The only way to change this is a constitutional amendment. As long as the winner takes all is it, and it is written in the foundational documents, we will not have more than two major parties. Yes, it is that simple.

And trust me on this. We need that modernizing of US Democracy, with a few others... I would prefer to see races for high offices compressed to four months and all publicly funded.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Other countries have cash and time limits on campaigning...

which I would love to see here, but our Supremes seem to think unlimited campaigning is best.

Other than that, I still see the real problem as the US population sitting on its ass. A lot of hot air, but no substance from the people, and that's what politicians on both sides pander to.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. I actually understand why people chose not to vote

to be frank, I vote to remain in practice, becuase in oligarchies it does not matter.

People have figured this out, especially the poor and lower middle classes.

Do you want the academic research that backs this up?

[TreasonousBastard]

14. It's pretty well known why...

but what to do about it is the question.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Well until government starts taking care of common folk...

chicken and egg thing, Of course we could always do what Australia does, (and experts have proposed that too). It is one way to break the morass. But quite frankly, as long as we live in an oligarchy, elections are just for show.

[Maedhros]

3. I sure hope so, but it's unlikely.

The two-party system is more easily controlled by big money than a multi-party system, so it's doubtful that big money will allow their influence to be degraded.

[Rex]

4. A lot of people are worried that the GOP will go *POOF*.

I don't see how it can, since millions of Americans live and love - hating on others. As long as bigots exist, so will the GOP.

[rock]

5. Yes. Actually we're well into it's demise. They don't go easily.

Our system as it stands is a two-party system. It is strongly architectured to be that. As I have said before, it has just enough parties to be plural (i.e. two). Right now we have one party that simply is not viable in a Democracy and would quickly be sent to the trash heap except it is propped up by the "Liberal Press" (because they own it). Even the name, "The Liberal Press", gives it away. If it were The Liberal Press, they would of course call it, "The Conservative Press". The Conservative party stands on a precipice and indeed is tottering. We may see it plummet within the next year or so. Another second party will inevitably spring up. What it will be is anybody's guess.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Unless there is a change in the US Constitutiton

it is hard backed into the system with the winner take all.

While a major party might go away, another will rise to take it's place

My choice would be an amendment that would allow for proportional representation, but you need an amendment.

[hifiguy]

8. This started in the early 1990s with the DLC.

The Democratic Leadership Council decided that the best way to win elections was to cozy up as closely as possible to Big Money Interests, especially Wall Street, to advance those interests and throw working people and unions overboard.

No one advanced this process more than Bill Ciinton did during his presidency. It has continued for the last 14 years at an ever-accelerating pace; though the DLC has not existed for some time its successors, which one can collectively think of at "the Third Way" continue the project as fast as they can.

Whenever you see someone who claims to have Democratic credibility because they are pro-choice or support civil rights but spew nothing but Republican economic talking points, you are in the presence of a fraud. Those people are killing the party of FDR, Truman. JFK, RFK, Hubert Humphrey and LBJ.

There are now three principal political groups in the country - the batshit xeonophobic, gun-toting jebus-wheezing dingbats (exclusively Repuke identifiers), the corporatist opportunists (equally divided between the Repuke and Dem parties, who seek solely to advance the interests of the 1%ers) and Real Democrats, who look to the likes of Liz Warren, Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders as the last best hope.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Hopefully. It would be nice to have a democracy.