What's new

Would you like to see the 2 party system go away?

YotaAtieToo

Thick skull
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
142
Messages
11,148
Loc
Bonners Ferry, ID
I had a long post out and lost it. :rolleyes:​​​​​​

Been listening to talk radio.

Would you like to see the 2 party system go away?

What about where the looser on the presidential election becomes vp?
 
I had a long post out and lost it. :rolleyes:​​​​​​

Been listening to talk radio.

Would you like to see the 2 party system go away?

What about where the looser on the presidential election becomes vp?

LOSER
 
I would be in favor of 5-10 candidates running, top vote getter becoming president. Second vice president and 3rd speaker of the house. Only get one vote per person, think it would make things much more centered in general. None of this crazy left wing shit or crazy right wing stuff. Could probably even sell it to the cities because then 'every vote counts'. If I remember my history this is how it used to be for the first 50-70 years.

Could also bring back duels, whoever is still standing is president. One less politician no matter what, how could it be bad.
 
Last edited:
No, its fine by me... but I say 2 party + write in only, only because I'm tired of a random list of 3rd parties funneling votes. That's being petty a bit though.

Honestly, don't care, but repeal the 12th & 17th..

"..the mass of people lacked sufficient wisdom to govern themselves and thus wished no branch of the federal government to be elected directly by the people"

"that the people "should have as little to do as may be about the Government. They want information and are constantly liable to be misled"

- roger Sherman
 
I would be in favor of 5-10 candidates running top vote getter becoming president. Second vice president and 3rd speaker of the house. Obky get one vote per person think it would make things much more centered in general. None of this crazy left wing shit or crazy right wing stuff. Could probably even sell it to the cities because then 'every vote counts'. If I remove my history this is how it used to be for the first 50-70 years.

That seems like it would make so much sense.

When I first heard that the looser :flipoff2: gets to be vp, I pictured trump as pres and biden as vp. Which would be flat out comical. I think it only works if you ditch the 2 party system at the same time.
 
Better speeling now
:flipoff2:
la-hoo-za-her.jpg
 
The logic behind it would be they all hate each other and would be constantly stabbing each other/themselves in the back so only things that actually needed addressed/done would actually get done.

I absolutely can not stand inefficiency but in my goverment it is expected and almost the less they do the less damage they can cause. I sware it used to be this way in the early 1800s and late 1700s. For some reason I remember president and vice president or candidates dueling over something, I want to say andrew Jackson but not positive.
 
I would be in favor of 5-10 candidates running, top vote getter becoming president. Second vice president and 3rd speaker of the house. Only get one vote per person, think it would make things much more centered in general. None of this crazy left wing shit or crazy right wing stuff. Could probably even sell it to the cities because then 'every vote counts'. If I remember my history this is how it used to be for the first 50-70 years.

Could also bring back duels, whoever is still standing is president. One less politician no matter what, how could it be bad.

I say PPV elections, two men enter- one man left.... maybe a tag team for the VP - - Elect a President and wipe out national debt all in one night....
 
More parties does not equal more better. Trust me on this.
What you get is the fuckery we have over here where no single party is large enough to hold majority on its own. They have to make all kinds of shitty deals and collaborations with the miniscule retard parties just to get majority.

Basically, as a voter, you never know wtf you're gonna get even if "your" party "wins".
 
I had a long post out and lost it. :rolleyes:​​​​​​

Been listening to talk radio.

Would you like to see the 2 party system go away?

What about where the looser on the presidential election becomes vp?

Yes. I take it you've heard of Bret Weinstein.
 
I’m with No way, it won’t matter or change anything.

The media has run our last 4 elections. Not the candidates.

I have a simple idea, though...only land/property owners should be permitted to vote. :flipoff2:
 
This whiner discussion comes up every election, usually on the losing side.
 
I’d love to see the two party system go away. I’d rather vote for someone based on their person platform than vote for a puppet based on which mob is pulling its strings.

That is literally what prevents civil violence in modern Democracies.

The various mobs have marionettes to act for them in proxy so that we don't have to act directly. The literal point of Representative Democracy.

Notice how the Left is all about 'direct action'. You should notice a pattern emerging.
 
I'd LOVE to see the 2 party debates go away. The control over the public debates is horrible. If you can get on all 50 states ballots, you should be on the main stage. don't care if a 90 minute debate needs to turn into a 120+ minute debate.

doesn't bother me if the same 2 stay dominate, but the outliers need to be able to lay out their case.
 
I'd LOVE to see the 2 party debates go away. The control over the public debates is horrible. If you can get on all 50 states ballots, you should be on the main stage. don't care if a 90 minute debate needs to turn into a 120+ minute debate.

doesn't bother me if the same 2 stay dominate, but the outliers need to be able to lay out their case.

Just because the Republicans agree to completely biased Moderators in 100% of the cases doesn't mean that the underlying system isn't good.

I expected to counter a lot of this 'baby with the bathwater' arguments after the election but they are coming fast.

The 2-party system works great. The Party debates are the messy shitshow, after nominations, we buckle down and focus.

This is a great system, the best one in fact. It just looks like shit because loser Republicans probably sabotaged Trump's debate rules by throwing him into buzzsaw. Which he agreed to.
 
Just because the Republicans agree to completely biased Moderators in 100% of the cases doesn't mean that the underlying system isn't good.

I expected to counter a lot of this 'baby with the bathwater' arguments after the election but they are coming fast.

The 2-party system works great. The Party debates are the messy shitshow, after nominations, we buckle down and focus.

This is a great system, the best one in fact. It just looks like shit because loser Republicans probably sabotaged Trump's debate rules by throwing him into buzzsaw. Which he agreed to.

I don't think that multiple parties in the debates would destroy the 2 party system, i do think it would give people more options and more realities.

example: Trump says Biden is a socialist

Green party says "we are socialists, this is what our proud stance is"

biden says "I am moderated from them on xyz"

libertarian says "trump is a socialist, abolish the government takeover of schools"

and people would be able to get a better view. I do think it would help split out the extreme edges of the people

even with the biased moderators, which will always be there, i think trump had some great moments in the debates and some that SHOULD have been great moments and he failed on them. the point isn't that the debates made or broke him, the 4+ year media assault did that job as evidenced by the exit polls and the current media coverage, but opening up debates would be a huge help in getting free publicity and forcing some more policy debate
 
Could also bring back duels, whoever is still standing is president. One less politician no matter what, how could it be bad.

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2009/9/30/786975/-
Lincoln had been involved in a public argument with another Illinois politician, and had pushed the man too far - to the point where he was challenged to a duel.
...
Lincoln stated that the weapons he wished to use would be "Cavalry Broadswords of the largest size". He figured that he could easily disarm Shields using the swords, whereas pistols would most likely lead to one of their deaths, if not both. He also added that he wanted the duel to be carried out in a pit 10 feet wide by 12 feet deep with a large wooden plank dividing the square in which no man was allowed to step foot over.

These "conditions" were designed not only to be ridiculous; but also to give Lincoln, who at 6’ 4" had longer legs and arms and towered over the much smaller Shields, a decided advantage. Lincoln hoped that these unorthodox conditions that gave him an almost unbeatable advantage would persuade Shields to withdraw the challenge and settle things in a more gentlemanly fashion.
...
At the last minute, Lincoln demonstrated his obvious physical advantage by hacking away at some of the branches of a nearby Willow tree. The branches were high off the ground and Shields could not hope to reach them; while Lincoln, with his long arms holding a long broadsword, could reach them with ease. This final display was enough to drive home the precarious situation that he was now in, and Shields agreed to settle their differences in a more peaceful way.

As told by Mike Rowe:
http://thewayiheardit.rsvmedia.com/episode-149-broadswords-in-a-pit
 
I don't think that multiple parties in the debates would destroy the 2 party system, i do think it would give people more options and more realities.

example: Trump says Biden is a socialist

Green party says "we are socialists, this is what our proud stance is"

biden says "I am moderated from them on xyz"

libertarian says "trump is a socialist, abolish the government takeover of schools"

and people would be able to get a better view. I do think it would help split out the extreme edges of the people

even with the biased moderators, which will always be there, i think trump had some great moments in the debates and some that SHOULD have been great moments and he failed on them. the point isn't that the debates made or broke him, the 4+ year media assault did that job as evidenced by the exit polls and the current media coverage, but opening up debates would be a huge help in getting free publicity and forcing some more policy debate

Adding a non-relevant person into debate over a race they have no chance of winning?

Why not just pick randos out of a hat and have them do the same thing?

Nah, your idea is the typical "what went wrong" speculation, even if you're not heartbroken over Trump, you're just looking back and troubleshooting items that aren't sources of trouble.

The idea that there isn't ENOUGH policy debate is absurd. There has never been more policy debate than today, that's why cutting down the field to 2 is so useful.

I mean look at your argument. Billions of tweets, FB posts, forum posts every single hour, 25/7/365 and you think the problem is LACK of debate? There are more political action groups, think tanks, and private media firms than ever before, by multiples.

The idea that there is not enough discussion doesn't even make sense. There is too much, so cutting it to 2 is good.
 
Adding a non-relevant person into debate over a race they have no chance of winning?

Why not just pick randos out of a hat and have them do the same thing?

Nah, your idea is the typical "what went wrong" speculation, even if you're not heartbroken over Trump, you're just looking back and troubleshooting items that aren't sources of trouble.

The idea that there isn't ENOUGH policy debate is absurd. There has never been more policy debate than today, that's why cutting down the field to 2 is so useful.

I mean look at your argument. Billions of tweets, FB posts, forum posts every single hour, 25/7/365 and you think the problem is LACK of debate? There are more political action groups, think tanks, and private media firms than ever before, by multiples.

The idea that there is not enough discussion doesn't even make sense. There is too much, so cutting it to 2 is good.

sure it is typical, but that is because i bring it up every time :flipoff2:

The direct televised debate was the farthest reaching event this year, and the only one that forces people who watch to at least be present outside their echo chambers. That's why i'd keep the standard at 50 state ballot holders.
 
There's nothing in the gov that specifies or recognizes political parties, they're all just private organizations that have figured out to maintain power.
 
sure it is typical, but that is because i bring it up every time :flipoff2:

The direct televised debate was the farthest reaching event this year, and the only one that forces people who watch to at least be present outside their echo chambers. That's why i'd keep the standard at 50 state ballot holders.

Ok, so then we agree. ???

It should be a two-Party system and the final Presidential debates, of which there should be three (3) in total, should include only the two major candidates.

Having multiple candidates and viewpoints is handled by the Primary system and party run-offs. There, multiple candidates debate, and widespread and unrelated policy concerns are drawn under one of two tents.

This is the best possible system in the society of humans, and there is no indication right now that it should be modified.

We agree.

And BTW, if you don't understand the above near-textbook excerpt from the required US Government class (11th grade HS in every State I'm aware of), then you or your education or both failed.

This is what is NOT being taught in our schools, obviously. But I had it in my Gov class back in the 80s.
 
Top Back Refresh