The "Two party dichotomy" is the reason we are here today.
Posted by Sunderbans_X@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 70 comments
My parents grew up in the 1980. They said everyone back then said you had to vote for the Democrats or the Republicans. They were told that voting third party was a waste of your vote.
That is the reason we are here today with the candidates we have. We've all been told and come to believe that there are only two options, and "you have to pick the greater of two evils or else the bad guy is going to get in and ruin everything."
It's literally a self fulfilling prophecy.
If the majority believes there are only two options, it doesn't matter now many truly amazing third party candidates there are, because "voting for them is a waste" and "then the truly evil guy will get in if you don't vote for the slightly evil guy."
I can't even articulate how angry this makes me as a young person who is going to be voting in my first presidential election this year. I feel like the last two generations have forced us into this horrible situation because they wouldn't just stop and think for a minute! Because now my vote truly is a waste. I will vote third party, not because think they will win but because I believe my candidate to be a good person, and as a small sign of protest towards our political environment today. I'm so angry and I don't even know what to do. When I try to talk to other people about this they don't get it, or they agree with me but say they are still voting for the dems or the repubs.
I'll end this here. I had other stuff I wanted to say but I can't think anymore. If anyone has any thoughts please leave them below.
Googler35@reddit
Ranked choice voting would at least bring leaders back to the middle where most people are on issues.
LHam1969@reddit
We have RCV in several states, so how many third parties have resulted from that? I can't think of a single instance where it helped a third party.
read-before-writing@reddit
In Maine, (where Ross Perot received more votes than George HW Bush) we have recently been using RCV. We had a vote for our 2nd congressional district where the independent got 7% of the vote, probably much higher than she would have in that tight of a race. Enough that she would have split the vote, but it went to instant runoff because of RCV. 3rd party didn't win but more people were able to vote for them than a plurality election
LHam1969@reddit
Same thing happened in Alaska, and in both cases RCV did nothing more than help a Democrat win a race that would've gone to a Republican in a normal election. Third parties are still nothing more than spoilers.
read-before-writing@reddit
It sounds like RCV prevented the third party from spoiling? Isn't that the point? More people wanted the Democrat, and they also were open minded to a third party to support as long as they weren't throwing their vote away. Sounds like the progressives in Alaska will help bring about a 3rd party before conservatives, probably depends which candidates are running. Put up a good libertarian and you will thank RCV as a way to vote for them without just handing it to the Democrats
LHam1969@reddit
No, the opposite happened. Sarah Palin won in Alaska, but after RCV kicked in the Democrat won. Same thing happened in Maine, the Republican Poliquin got the most votes but then lost after RCV was applied.
No third party emerging from either place, just more Democrats winning races that would've gone to Republicans.
read-before-writing@reddit
No you misunderstand what happened in Maine, or how RCV works. 90% of the independent voters wanted Jared Golden. In a regular election you'd have them voting for Golden and he'd have won just as he did under RCV. It just gave people a chance to vote for a third party without throwing their vote away. You can't look at a vote with the rules and incentives as setup with RCV and just ignore all that and say they gave the election to the loser. 90% of moderates didn't like poliquin, he was a really unpopular elitist tax cheat who fixed his million dollar properties so that he wouldn't have to pay taxes and we'd all foot the bill for him. A lot of Republicans hated that guy too
LHam1969@reddit
Poliquin got the most votes, in every other state he'd be declared the winner. You can't assume to know what most independent voters wanted.
Regardless, I'm no fan of his, and I kinda like Golden. But it's pure nonsense to think RCV is going to get third parties elected. Not gonna happen. The best outcome is to have NO party affiliation listed for any candidate, just like we do for municipal elections. Have a jungle primary like they do in CA and then allow RCV to sort it out.
read-before-writing@reddit
You don't have to assume anything, they know it was 90% because they put Golden on their ballot. It really could get a 3rd party elected in another '92 situation, just need the right candidate
Googler35@reddit
More of a comment to “lesser of two evils” than to choosing a third party. But it would definitely help make more moderate policy more popular
Free_Mixture_682@reddit
Can that be demonstrated by actual data or is that based on wishful thinking?
Sunderbans_X@reddit (OP)
Exactly! And that's the reason why we can't have it, because then we will vote for the people we want, and not the people who have been in power their whole lives.
WarningCodeBlue@reddit
We need another Ross Perot.
read-before-writing@reddit
Last time I voted in Maine there was a guy outside the polling place spouting about how we had never had a 3rd party candidate on our ballot. I told him in 92 Ross Perot got more votes here than George HW Bush, an independent actually beat the Republican. We have ranked choice voting. You should too!!!
Hot_Egg5840@reddit
We need a long line of them. Trump was just enough to open the door and expose the problem. Musk; maybe? Vivek; a little young but still a good prospect.
Barskor1@reddit
There is no right there is no left there is only the government vs you.
Sunderbans_X@reddit (OP)
Really feels like that honestly
ParanTheophil78@reddit
If you are voting for who you believe is the best candidate regardless of party, then fuck what everyone says, you are doing the right thing.
KayleeSinn@reddit
We are where exactly? Look at Europe or other countries. They have it way worse and don't have the 2 party thing. You really think it's any different with more of them? At least with 2 parties you mostly know what you're getting.
So for example, lets say there are 6 of them. 2 commies, 2 right wing, centrist and libertarian. What ends up happening is, even if the parties all get votes, lets say commies 30%, right wing 40%, libertarian 21% and centrist 9%, the commies make a deal with the libertarian party to get majority in the senate and as part of the the deal, since those 2 got more votes, the new government is gonna push commie agenda despite the right wing technically winning.
This can go all kinda ways, depending on how the winners decide to form the government and what kinda deals they make. Meanwhile a party that doesn't compromise, even if it gets the most votes can be isolated and pushed into opposition. It would literally have to get over 50% then and in a multi party system that would never happen unless the party is really populist.
chad-proton@reddit
Voting 3rd party may not result in a victory for the 3rd party candidate but it does send a clear signal that you find the options offered by the duopoly to be completely unacceptable. That's where I find value in voting 3rd party. If someone in those 2 parties wants to gain my vote they are going to have to move towards my position.
The more people who refuse to vote for the duopoly, the more it encourages other voters to break away as well.
LHam1969@reddit
I wish you were right, but you're not. Lots of parties have been saying this for decades including Green Party, Libertarians, Independent, etc. They always claim "this is the year" but it never happens, and it's not going to happen in our lifetimes.
The better course of action is to infiltrate the existing parties, like the DSA did. They now have over 200 members in elected office, so they accomplished more in the last 5 years than the LP has in 50 years.
The GOP will be prime for take over after Trump loses in November, the LP should take it over.
XiphosEdge@reddit
The DSA isn't a party, its a nonprofit organization. It's aligned with mainstream Democrats on almost every issue, excluding maybe foreign policy in some instances and maybe leans slightly harder left on social welfare issues. DSA members in higher offices are also categorically useless (like AOC) and typically fall in line with Democrats eventually anyway. Some DSA members have even run as GP candidates, most likely to offset the threat the GP poses to the Democratic party. Also, several on that list of "over 200" are no longer in office.
LHam1969@reddit
They've got a lot of people elected in just the past few years, more than the LP has elected in the past few decades. And they're pulling the party left, which is their goal.
LP should do the same, get more people like Ron and Rand Paul elected and pull the GOP back to its conservative roots of limited government and fiscal responsibility. I'm telling you, the Republican party will be a shell of what it was after Trump loses, prime for a take over.
XiphosEdge@reddit
The people elected are Democrats. Sooo uniparty rubes. And they've pulled the party further left? Bahaha you can't be serious.
LP isn't an extension of the GOP, which is probably your primary misunderstanding here. The Republicans are not socially liberal, and are just as disasterous with foreign policy as Democrats are. LP doesn't want to be part of the GOP; being fiscally conservative and wanting smaller government does not make you a Republican.
Anyway, this whole "infiltrate the party from the inside" idea is a ploy to keep third parties from maintaining any significant offense against the duopoly. If you honestly believe electing third-party candidates (if that's what you could even call the Squad or other DSA members) into these parties will result in any significant change, you've fallen for it. These parties aren't even necessarily controlled by their respective members, they're controlled by lobbyists/cronies. The idea is to end the two-party system, not change it. These parties have enjoyed (virtually) complete control over every single government body for 170 years now, and trying to insert perpendicular reasoning into their legislative discussions isn't going to actually change their tone. It's going to result in the contrarian voices either conforming to the status quo, as with AOC, or being mercilessly ostracized/removed from office, à la Rashida Tlaib or Jamaal Bowman.
LHam1969@reddit
Anyway, this whole "infiltrate the party from the inside" idea is a ploy to keep third parties from maintaining any significant offense against the duopoly.
Who needs a ploy? People like you have been promising a third party revolution for decades now, how much longer are we supposed to wait? Just face facts, there will NEVER be a third party here, it just simply will not happen, so yes it makes more sense to infiltrate and take over an existing party, and the GOP is a hollowed out wreck that can be easily taken over.
Keep dreaming about your fairy tale revolution, you'll end up on the trash heap of history just like all the others before you. But I know what your response will be: "THIS time it'll be different! People just need to hear our policies and they will flock to our party and support our candidates."
Again, keep dreaming. You're going to win nothing.
Sunderbans_X@reddit (OP)
I really hope so. That is what I'm going to be going for when I vote this year.
New-Possibility-7024@reddit
The two major parties have been spouting that line for decades and really ramped it up when Ross Perot scared the shit out of them in 1992 and 1996. Creating their own debate organization to keep independents off the stage, pushing the media to really ignore any party but theirs. We need a billionaire like Perot to decide "Fuck it", I'll pay for this myself, and fund a truly powerful independent campaign. It's the only thing that might force the ruling class to pay attention.
ManyBuy984@reddit
You have that in Trump except he has kind of commandeered a party. The actual party didn’t want him and tried to suppress and undermine him but he overrode them. Its made me see that really is only one party. Dems and Republicans are on the same team. Its establishment vs. outsider and establishment always wins. Except in 2016…it didn’t.
Fantastic_Cheek2561@reddit
Trump is the independent billionaire. But the NSA fixed the election. I’m sure Trump will win again and the NSA will use their fancy voting machines to save democracy from the candidate the people voted for.
New-Possibility-7024@reddit
Trump let himself become part of the system. He's a Republican, the people he'll put in charge of agencies will be Republicans. I do think if Trump manages to win, they'll find some way to stop it. His opponents have truly reached the, "We have to destroy the village in order to save it," level of derangement.
TManaF2@reddit
From my POV, Trump bought out (or intimidated out) "the system" - at any rate, the GOP. From the time he won in '16, there's not been a Republican who doesn't have to kiss his ring, so to speak. Those who refuse to end up being kicked out of office or having to switch parties. The one possible exception, and I really don't know enough to say for sure (but it seems to be another case of the tail wagging the dog), is the Freedom Caucus, which seems to be forcing the rest of the Republican Party, at least in the House...
Vinylware@reddit
Trump isn't the answer, he's far too corrupt and can easily be bought out by lobbyists like all politicians.
Desperate-Ad-3147@reddit
I was hoping for a Buffet/ Gates ticket. But it appears that bromance is over.
Popular_Sprinkles_90@reddit
As someone who has voted libertarian ever since I could vote I have a word of advice, vote your conscious. If that tells you to vote third party then do that. And keep doing that. Things will only change if we increase the number of people who vote third party and continue to vote third party. With people coming and going we will never end up getting anyone different elected. The LP unfortunately has suffered a set back by having some states splintering the vote, but keep voting LP and it will eventually happen one way or the other.
LHam1969@reddit
I've been doing that for decades, it never works. You might feel better, but it changes nothing.
Popular_Sprinkles_90@reddit
Where's the Whig party? That's right Republicans replaced them. There is plenty of evidence of a third party over taking one of the ruling parties.
LHam1969@reddit
When was that? Like over a hundred years ago, and what did it change? Nothing, ,we're still talking the same people. There's never going to be a third party, you'll never see it because the current parties won't let it happen, the system is just too rigged.
ElkInside5856@reddit
I love watching people get bent out of shape when I say this.
Sunderbans_X@reddit (OP)
I'm just tired of it lol
ElkInside5856@reddit
I feel you
8rudd4h@reddit
If half the people I've heard say "I dont like either of them but we can't let the worse one win" just voted third party this problem would've been solved 20 years ago
Sunderbans_X@reddit (OP)
EXACTLY. I have met so few people that actually believe in the candidates for the two parties. Most of them just seem to not want the other guy in :I
blaspheminCapn@reddit
"When I was a kid, we were always told, 'If you work hard, you can grow up and be president.' But now they’re telling us, 'You can be one of two people to be president.' And that’s not a good enough choice for me. There’s 17 different kinds of cereal in this country, 31 flavors of ice cream, but only two political parties."
Sunderbans_X@reddit (OP)
Oof
PirateQM@reddit
The problem is that people are impatient. No matter what 3rd party you are speaking of, they need to build the party at a local level before worrying about state or national elections. It is relatively easy to win a town or county election. Once that voter base is used to seeing the 3rd party and they are operating effectively, then work at state level elections. This is how "grassroots" is supposed to work.
Sunderbans_X@reddit (OP)
Exactly! It seems like many 3rd party groups try to go straight for the presidential election, instead of working on local levels first, which in my opinion is not just the correct way, but also more important.
ProtonSerapis@reddit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger’s_law?wprov=sfti1#
The way are votes are counted makes two major parties inevitable. People are right, it is basically throwing your vote away to vote third party. We need to get rid of “first past the post” voting.
Sunderbans_X@reddit (OP)
I'll check it all out!
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
Fear runs 99% of peoples lives.
Chicken_beard@reddit
People constantly spout this claim that the voters are somehow to blame for this. Its simply not true: it’s the system itself: https://www.vox.com/videos/24091275/why-us-elections-only-give-you-two-choices
neverknowwhatsnext@reddit
It's called the primaries and so far, those third party candidates have not been elected to represent one of the two major parties.
Angrysliceofpizza@reddit
The problem is structural, third parties can only be viable with a ranked choice voting system.
BrianChing25@reddit
Between the two parties which one is closer to communism?
Hint: it's not the party that Ron Paul represented
Hot_Paper5030@reddit
Another severe element is that third parties are generally bereft of talent as anyone that has the skills for politics or government will choose the path that gives them the greatest chance of achieving either elected office or some position in administrative government.
Combined with this, the institutions that actually perform the business of governing will also be tailored toward serving the interests of the parties. Though - such as in the case of the Military, CIA or FBI, often it seems the tail is wagging the dog and the two-party system serves the institutions interests. Their interests are not served by third party challenges.
Also, naturally, the parties are fueled by funding and this leads to a great deal of private institutions and industries - like banking and investing or oil companies - that are outside government but have a much greater influence on the form and function of the government. They also like having simply two parties to play off of each other.
As a result, third parties often have leaders that are less politically-savvy, less organized and administratively competent and far more poor than the major parties. Then, if any third party does get traction, it usually is either formed by some wing or powerful members of one of the major parties and is not legitimately a third party or it will eventually be merged into one of the major parties it most closely resembles on the arbitrary left-right scale.
Essentially, United States government seems to fall prey to the same problems that its corporately dominated industries. To be completely honest, many of the major third parties are guilty of the sort of naiveté, incompetence and unattractive-to-voters claims that the major parties accuse them of and are basically a destructive rather than creative force in American politics. However, much of that is due to the major parties rigging the system so that will be the case.
StopWhiningPlz@reddit
Why this is allowed has always puzzled me. the two Political parties are THE most powerful forces in the country. Yet, if this was any other industry, the government itself would be calling for greater diversity of opening.
I get they're not a true "industry" in the traditional sense of the word, but the impact they have on everyday lives of Americans seems to warrant even more scrutiny as to whether they're not actually colluding to keep other parties from meaningful participation in the political process.
PitsAndPints@reddit
My question: scrutiny from who? The politicians who write the rules are the same ones who benefit from, and actively participate in the duopoly.
It’s the same reason these goblins will never vote yes on term limits. Why would they ever handicap their ability to amass wealth and power if they don’t have to?
Sunderbans_X@reddit (OP)
LITERALLY!!!!! Omg I could not have put it in better words. They are literally playing off of each other, telling us we have to choose one of them, and keeping us from doing anything meaningful.
freelibertine@reddit
I think you have to be a rich oligarch and bribe or compromise politicians Jeffrey Epstein style to get anything done in government.
That's how corrupt this system is.
Even at their absolute best politicians are a mixed bag. Which is why representative government can be annoying and repressive.
Stiks-n-Bones@reddit
I believe in FOR a candidate.i have for decades, and often 3rd party or writein.
Not an expert in this area, but in order to get on the stage of debates and primaries a candidate needs slot of money, and those big bucks come in the form of corporate sponsorship, which i think should be disallowed. But huh bucks bid media time and tech platforms.
247world@reddit
About 140 years ago, give or take, the two political parties found themselves facing credible third party opposition, as quickly as they could they took steps to make sure that it would be almost impossible to run as a third party. The system is rigged, I'm not really sure what it's going to take to change it but the way things are going it will not change
Liandra24289@reddit
The Whigs were an existing party in that time. The last big third party.
247world@reddit
I was thinking more about the farmer rebellions,
nicehotcuppatea@reddit
Two party system is a product of the electoral system and FPP. Even if a new party was able to miraculously come to power, it’d pretty much mean replacing one of the two incumbent parties and forming a new dichotomy.
DustyCleaness@reddit
Ross Perot enters the conversation.
Free_Mixture_682@reddit
In my state, for a third party candidate to get on a ballot requires some insane number of signatures whereas it only requires like 20 for a D or R to be on the ballot.
Forget the presidency, right now, and consider just how difficult it is for other parties to be on a ballot for local and state races.
Until these ballot access laws are changed, no third party candidates will even be able to get elected unless there is some strange confluence of events that occur.
It is my opinion that nothing short of changing representation in legislative bodies to multi-member districts chosen by proportional representation (PR) will ever allow other parties to participate and represent voters.
Again, using my state as an example, the lower house of the legislature contains 99 members, as per the state’s constitution. Amending the constitution would be difficult but the law could more easily be changed to have 11 districts with 9 members per district chosen by PR to give voice to the full spectrum of political thought within each legislative district.
natermer@reddit
The reason why we have a 2 party system is really because voting third party is a waste of your vote.
Its called "first past the post" voting. This style of elections will always end up with a 2 party system.
If you want more then two parties you have to change how elections work.
Sunderbans_X@reddit (OP)
Or vote for the other party and then you have a different two party system. Not a permanent fix, but people need to vote flexibly, and the powers that be will not let the way elections change to the point where they can potentially be voted out with the current mindset American voters have.
natermer@reddit
You can vote all you want, but it doesn't change how math works.
JohnBosler@reddit
I'm suggesting these voting reforms to remove the duopoly these two parties have over us. They've made it where the Democrats and Republicans do not have to register for anything and any other party. must go through gathering signatures just to be listed on the ballot. I don't think we could call this democracy if they are forcing two shit views as the only options available. There is a lot of individuals all over the political spectrum that are completely tired of the status quo. Maybe we can all discuss this what would anyone else add to this or modifiy
Voting Reforms
National Voting Holiday
Automatic Voter Registration
Voter Registration In Every Government Office
Free Nationwide Voter ID
Guaranteed Citizen Voting Rights
Voting Booths Per Person
Ban Voter Roll Purging
Overturn CItizens United
Total Ban On Political Advertising
Government Funded Debates
Centralized Candidate Information
Centralized Ballet Information
Term Limits
Open Primaries
Ranked Choice Voting
Community Ballot Initiative
Blockchain Voting
Ban Gerrymandering
Independent Redistricting
yazzooClay@reddit
nothing would get done, but perhaps that would be a good thing!