HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Should America abandon th...

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:13 PM

Should America abandon the 2 party system in favor of 6 parties?

Fed up with the 2 party system? How about 6! Take the quiz and find out where you would fit.



For example:

Patriot Party: Donald Trump, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton and Tucker Carlson
Christian Conservative Party: Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott and Mike Pompeo
Growth and Opportunity Party: Larry Hogan, Charlie Baker, Mitt Romney, John Kasich and Michael Bloomberg
New Liberal Party: Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Eric Garcetti and Beto O’Rourke
American Labor Party: Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester and Tim Ryan
Progressive party: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren or Julián Castro

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/9/8/2051050/-Fed-up-with-the-two-party-system-How-about-6-Take-the-quiz-and-find-out-where-you-would-fit

I agree with the notion that America should have more than two political parties. We are too diverse of a nation to pigeonhole everyone into either Democratic or Republican parties.

Personally, I'm offended that they label the far right conservatives as the Patriot Party. I'm as much of a patriot as anyone, as I'm sure you all are too. That that name has been commandeered by conservatives is a travesty.

FWIW, I took the quiz and they said I was closest to the Progressive Party, though it looked like I was halfway between the Progressives and the American Labor Party.

46 replies, 1272 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Should America abandon the 2 party system in favor of 6 parties? (Original post)
Poiuyt Sep 9 OP
Budi Sep 9 #1
Poiuyt Sep 9 #6
Budi Sep 9 #10
roamer65 Sep 9 #2
Budi Sep 9 #3
roamer65 Sep 9 #4
Budi Sep 9 #8
JHB Sep 9 #17
karynnj Sep 9 #14
MagickMuffin Sep 9 #5
OnDoutside Sep 9 #7
Locutusofborg Sep 9 #9
brush Sep 9 #11
Demsrule86 Sep 9 #19
LanternWaste Sep 9 #21
brush Sep 9 #22
Demsrule86 Sep 9 #27
brush Sep 9 #35
Celerity Sep 9 #43
brush Sep 9 #36
Lancero Sep 9 #28
Celerity Sep 9 #41
Celerity Sep 9 #40
Celerity Sep 9 #42
brooklynite Sep 9 #34
brush Sep 9 #38
PSPS Sep 9 #12
JustAnotherGen Sep 9 #13
brush Sep 10 #45
JustAnotherGen Sep 10 #46
left-of-center2012 Sep 9 #15
JHB Sep 9 #16
Demsrule86 Sep 9 #18
Xolodno Sep 9 #20
brooklynite Sep 9 #23
Backseat Driver Sep 9 #24
Igel Sep 9 #25
Klaralven Sep 9 #26
GoodRaisin Sep 9 #29
Kaleva Sep 9 #30
crickets Sep 9 #31
GoodRaisin Sep 9 #32
fescuerescue Sep 9 #33
Amishman Sep 9 #37
Celerity Sep 9 #44
treestar Sep 9 #39

Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:19 PM

1. It's a push poll (behind a paywall) to a select group, intended for biased talking pts.

They refer to this skewed poll as proof of the pre-written talking point.

NYT poll behind a paywall. 🙄

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Poiuyt (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:33 PM

10. No thanks. Try this. "Who is Lee Drutman?". We discussed this yesterday. Here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15835004

(It's a NYT push poll, skewed to push an agenda.)
Lee Drutman can maybe report back to The Federalist Society Think Tank as to the results of his agenda push poll. Behind a paywall.

OR:
"How to Break Democracy"
--------
POST#11

Opinion Piece by Lee Drutman. Is pushing his own agenda for the end of a 2 Party system

Lee Drutman is a senior fellow in the program on political reform at New America.
Accomplished in his career, author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop":
He promotes Ranked Choice Voting & a multi party system.


QUESTION: What Nations have 6+ Party systems & who holds the dominate power?
What happens to a Democracy with 6+ Parties vying for dominence, thru Media bias, Money, or Truth Telling.


https://fedsoc.org/contributors/lee-drutman
2016- Drutman hosted roundtable discussions for THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY.

The Federalist Society's Faculty Division will host a roundtable discussion, titled "Congress, Delegation, and the Administrative State," at the 2016 American Political Science Association's Annual Meeting in Philadelphia on September 2nd. We invite anyone planning to attend the conference to join us for what promises to be an excellent discussion featuring:

Lee Drutman, New America Foundation & The Johns Hopkins University
Gordon Lloyd, Pepperdine University & Ashbrook Center
Daniel H. Lowenstein, UCLA School of Law
Neomi Rao, George Mason University Antonin Scalia School of Law
Moderator: Michael Uhlmann, Claremont Graduate University
If you plan to attend, please email [email protected] to let us know.

2016 Topic of Roundtable hosted by THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY
Abstract:
In Federalist 51, Madison explained that the Constitution’s division of powers was designed not only to assign different powers to different branches, but also to design the branches so that each would have the necessary tools to protect its own authority. Doing this would enable ambition to counteract ambition and thus protect against “a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department.” Madison also believed that the branch most likely to try to encroach on the other branches was the legislature, because “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”

It therefore might come as something of a surprise that over the course of the past century, Congress has voluntarily ceded (in function if not also in form) considerable control over national governance to a variety of executive branch and/or independent agencies
, to the point that it has arguably not only ceded much of its natural primacy in domestic affairs but has also found it difficult to reassert itself on many major questions – including even through its clearest trump card, the power of the purse. Why has Congress passed on much of its authority to the executive...


More...

QUESTION: What Nations have 6+ Party systems & who holds the dominate power?
What happens to a Democracy with 6+ Parties vying for dominence, thru Foreign interferance, Media bias, Money, or Truth Telling.

------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:19 PM

2. Not with an Electoral College.

Presidency needs to be a runoff system with that many parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roamer65 (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:22 PM

3. What country does that idea remind us of again? 🤔

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:23 PM

4. France?

🇫🇷

The French President has to win a majority to take office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roamer65 (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:24 PM

8. Nope. Guess again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Reply #8)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:57 PM

17. I'd like to buy a vowel

Three, actually

_ U _ _ I A ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:45 PM

14. Israel has even more parties than this -- and I think the last two years showed it was awful

Not to mention their system - which starts with building a 50% plus coalition is not ours.


The problem with this is that you would need to change the whole system. From the 1980 and 1992 elections, you can get the electoral votes with a plurality in a state. With 6 parties, it is not clear at all which party - possibly with say 25 % or 30% in many big states could win the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:23 PM

5. Not with names like those



Patriot Party = Christian Conservative Party


And the rest of the made up names are just as atrocious!

But from the look of the list the 4 are what makes up the Democratic Party!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:24 PM

7. NO !!! Get the election system truly non partisan and independent.

That will fix most problems.

In Ireland we have about a dozen recognised parties, with multi seat constituencies (districts). The election map is drawn by an independent commission, so is pretty fair. However, we suffer from shit politicians as you do in the US. If you have many parties you will end up with distinct nutcase parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:25 PM

9. If any other parties are capable of raising a billion dollars

to compete nationally with the two major parties, more power to them. When you've been around since 1828 and 1854 you've got quite a name recognition and fundraising advantage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:38 PM

11. It's not on the list but I'd go with the Social Democratic party...

like in the nordic countries...regulated capitalism with a robust social safety net...free college, universal medical care, child credits for families etc.

And with that many parties, might as well go all the way as it'll eventually evolve...into a parliamentary system where parties make alliances strong enough to form a government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #11)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 06:01 PM

19. Did you know Sweden went with the Herd bullshit...and killed so many people so no thanks.

I like our system...other systems are run by minority parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #19)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 06:04 PM

21. Was that a direct effect of having more than two political parties?

 

If so, I'd really like to see those dots joined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #19)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 06:11 PM

22. Who mentioned Sweden and the herd? I mentioned that region's...

economic system which has thriving, regulated capitalism and a strong safety net for its people, both of which we'd be better off with.

That has nothing to do with Sweden's health minister making a colossal mistake for not urging masking and social distancing early on in the pandemic. The other Nordic countries did not make that mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #22)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 07:43 PM

27. There economic system would never work here in any case. I used to be an admirer of Sweden. But

I am not anymore. Sorry, you can't separate the health system and the economic systems as they are linked...they killed many of their older citizens and embraced an anti-science concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #27)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 09:35 PM

35. You don't seem to want to work towards universal healthcare here.

That should be a goal of progressives here. Otherwise good healthcare here will always be a matter or what one can afford instead of a right of citizens here. The richest nation in the world can afford it. We just have to get there. Obamacare is step towards it. We need to keep working to a universal healthcare goal instead of giving up and saying it can happen here.

Once upon a time there was no such thing as Social Security or Medicaid and Medicare...all fought for and won by Democratic administrations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #35)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 11:40 PM

43. they have been pushing disinfo about us here in Sweden starting with their false herd immunity claim

see this for a systematic takedown of that false claim

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215838849#post40

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #27)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 09:41 PM

36. You can't seem to understand that Sweden is not the only country...

in that region. We know Sweden's health minister screwed up but Norway and Denmark did not "Kill all their seniors" as you claim. Forget Sweden pls. That's not what I'm talking about.

Their economic system of course is linked to the healthcare system. And so is ours. Ours just doesn't cover its citizens well. We need to work towards universal healthcare like they have.

And again, forget what happened in Sweden. No one is talking about that but you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #19)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 07:43 PM

28. Not as many as the US did, even accounting for population differience.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

US - 2024 deaths/1mil pop
Sweden - 1441 deaths/1mil pop

We must have a pretty bad system to lose out to 'herd bullshit'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Reply #28)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 11:27 PM

41. there was no 'herd bullshit' here in Sweden, that was disinfo and has long ago been debunked

see this for an extremely detailed explanation from a person (me) who has lived in Stockholm for years now

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215838849#post40

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #19)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 11:21 PM

40. that's NOT true, please stop spreading long ago debunked disinfo

So much disinformation about Sweden out there, especially in the US media, some of it just flat out lies. The worst thing that happened to us, framing wise, was when bad faith actors (with ZERO knowledge of what was actually going on) on the RW started trying to use us as a cudgel to beat their enemies in the US over the head with.

I have posted so so many updates over the past 18 plus months, but it often gets lost in the fog, and also many take an a priori hostile stance in terms of anything to do with Sweden and COVID-19. We are NOT America's political football to kick about and spin up whatever false narrative people there wish to create.


Herd immunity was never the primary goal here in Sweden. I keep seeing this posted over and over last year and it is simply incorrect. It has come up over and over again because some officials in April 2020 started talking about Stockholm (where we live) possibly reaching this level by the end of May 2020 (which of course, we did not). That has been misconstrued by so many to think that the drive for herd immunity is the principal core strategy, when it is not.


Swedish PM Stefan Löfven: Herd immunity ‘never ever’ part of coronavirus strategy

Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven was quizzed about the government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic in a parliament hearing on Monday.

https://www.thelocal.com/20210426/today-swedish-pm-stefan-lofven-to-face-questions-over-coronavirus-strategy/

“Never, never ever,” Löfven told the Committee on the Constitution when asked whether herd immunity was part of the Swedish government’s strategy.

Allegations that Swedish decision-makers deliberately allowed the virus to spread slowly through the population in order to achieve herd immunity have repeatedly been denied, but have emerged and reemerged on several occasions in the past year, including in emails between health officials. Löfven insisted that the strategy was always to limit the spread of infection to protect people’s lives and health, and make sure that the Swedish healthcare sector could cope.

The Social Democrat leader’s appearance before the Committee on the Constitution comes as part of an inquiry launched by an opposition politician to investigate the Swedish pandemic strategy and crisis management, and several key figures have already been questioned, among others the heads of the Public Health Agency, National Board of Health and Welfare, and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions.

Health Minister Lena Hallengren and Home Affairs Minister Mikael Damberg have also appeared before the committee in recent weeks, and have been questioned about the speed and timing of Sweden’s measures, and the government’s responsibility for a shortage of protective equipment in the early weeks of the pandemic. Much of the inquiry has focused on whether or not a formal government decision regarding Sweden’s coronavirus strategy was ever made, and if not, why not. Löfven reiterated that there was no such decision, although he said the government did choose a strategic direction.

snip


Hallengren: Sweden Not Pursuing Herd Immunity

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2020-04-29/hallengren-sweden-not-pursuing-herd-immunity

Sweden’s Minister for Health and Social Affairs, Lena Hallengren, explains the country is not pursuing a policy of ’herd immunity’ when it comes to coronavirus and that looser restrictions in Sweden are being used because of how long they may have to stay in place. She tells Daybreak Europe’s Caroline Hepker and Roger Hearing it is too early to make comparisons about which countries have made the right policy choices in addressing the pandemic.

Running time 11:20

(Audio at the link.)


Another huge myth, pushed by cheap, shoddy journalism is that it is the Wild West here, and basically the entire country is running around like banshees with zero mitigation actions. This is utter tosh.

see this article for further drilling down:

'The biggest myth about Sweden is that life is going on as normal'

https://www.thelocal.se/20200424/interview-isabella-lovin-coronavirus-the-biggest-myth-about-sweden-is-that-life-is-going-on-as-normal

also

Sweden to shut bars and restaurants that ignore coronavirus restrictions

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden-stockholm/sweden-to-shut-bars-and-restaurants-that-ignore-coronavirus-restrictions-idUSKCN2262AX


Now I shall deal again with the very bad aspects of what happened, as I am in no way try to sugarcoat anything


Our large fail, a horrid tragedy (and the main reason we are so badly off in terms of deaths per million compared to Denmark, Norway, and Finland) was our nursing homes and our scattered site elderly care. They account for as much as 70% (there is a shedload of argument here atm, some say it is even higher, some say it is lower, around 55-60%, but certainly it is higher than our neighbour Nordic nations) of our deaths en toto. We (unfortunately) had a FAR more lax system in terms of visitation/protocols and in terms of higher staff turnover than the other Nordics do with their elderly-care homes. Those arguments and finger-pointings are now (and have been for months, even as the deaths has basically slowed to a drip) the hottest topic in the whole country atm. They fucked up bad.

Early in summer 2020, on SVT (our state TV,) a group of doctors and healthcare experts (these fall into the group that say it was around 70% of all deaths) said we if had similar nursing home deaths and overall elderly deaths per million rates that Denmark has, our deaths per million OVERALL (for all age cohorts) would only be a wee bit higher than the Danes. They also said that if you adjusted for the vastly increased level of COVID-19 in the immigrant/refugee saturated areas of Sweden, and make their percentages of population the same as Denmark or Norway (let alone Finland which has by far the fewest number of immigrants and refugees as a percentage of the population in all of the Nordics, most who go there are only going to immediately flood over the Finnish/Swedish border, as Denmark cut them off down south at the Öresund) that our overall death (when combined with a similar elderly care death rate as discussed above) would not only be lower than Denmark, but would possibly be approaching Norway levels.

They also said that other Nordics were being far more conservative than Sweden has been with their COVID-19 death attributions so all the other Nordics have higher death rates than they are letting on (that war of words was going on for months in 2020, and has gotten REALLY nasty at times, especially with Denmark versus Sweden, quelle surprise).

All the other Nordics (especially Denmark) have a very hostile stance in regards to Sweden in terms of our refugee/immigration policy. That group (the refugees/immigrants) have also be really hard hit here as well, as they do not practice social distancing to a level anywhere near to what the native Swedes do, plus they are less well-off income wise, and also health wise (for a number of reasons.)

That is the reason for the lowered death rates when adjustments are made for an apples-to-apples comparison, as opposed to the chalk and cheese raw numbers that are rammed in our face far too often. I do, however have to add, that ANY discussion, as I said above, of immigration/refugee here is Sweden has been a minefield for ages, although the Syrian conflict several years back finally broke the silence (at peak, we were taking in the US equivalent of 3 to 5 MILLION a month and the far RW white nationalist Sweden Democrats (SD, in Swedish Sverigedemokraterna) were surging towards a historic, terrifying victory, until some of the other parties finally caved in and slowed the inflows and changed the laws (to a point).

(A bit of an aside, SD, whilst hardcore white nationalists, are also pretty much VERY anti-Russian as well, for centuries-long historical reasons that are almost never talked about in the foreign press as well. We do have some hardcore, actual neo nazi parties who DO love Russia, but they are microscopic in size. The biggest, Alternativ för Sverige, has only around 1200 members, most other have less than 100)


more on the false charge of herd immunity being our basic strategy

Sweden hits back at Trump's 'herd immunity' criticism

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/sweden-hits-back-at-trump-s-herd-immunity-criticism-1.1419502

Sweden’s foreign minister Ann Linde has dismissed criticism by U.S. president Donald Trump concerning the country’s outlier strategy to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic. “He has used a factual error,” the minister said in an interview on broadcaster TV4 on Wednesday. Her comments follow Trump’s remarks a day earlier when he told reporters that Sweden is trying to achieve “herd immunity” and “is suffering greatly” from not doing enough.

The Nordic country is under intense scrutiny as it continues to experiment with a laxer policy response to the virus despite an accelerating death toll. Restaurants, shopping centres and primary schools all remain open in Scandinavia’s biggest economy. “Some countries seem to think that we aren’t doing anything, but we’re doing a lot of things that suit Sweden,” Linde said.

President Trump’s comments have also drawn the ire of Sweden’s top epidemiologist. “If you compare the situation to New York, where I have a relative working, things here are working well,” Anders Tegnell said in an interview with state broadcaster SVT. Meanwhile Sweden’s prime minister Stefan Lofven has said he sees no reason to respond to Trump, according to Swedish newspaper Expressen. “I have spoken lately to about 10 heads of state and I note that we are all following the same lead strategy,” Lofven said.

snip


The vast bulk of foreign reporting simply ASSUMED that if we were not in total lockdown then that instantly meant we are going for herd immunity. That is a pure logical fallacy, one that goes by multiple names: the Either/Or Fallacy, also sometimes called the Black-and-White Fallacy, or the Excluded Middle, or a False Dilemma/False Dichotomy.

Finally, to reiterate, many of the stories I have seen pushed also erroneously try and paint a picture that there are no restrictions (or very little) in place at all (my 'Wild West' analogy above), and certainly do not do any sort of deep, nuanced dive into what actually happened, why it happened, and what's happening at present, here on the ground.

MSNBC had so much made up bullshit that we never shut down, in any way, that all restos, clubs, bars, and large events were open for business as usual, which was just another lie.

Here is a flyer from an online clubbing event from March 2020 (because all the main clubs were closed). I actually posted this event and streamed it here on DU.




As for the number of deaths from the very start to now, here are the latest numbers from Folkhälsomyndigheten (our state health agency)

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa


since the beginning of the pandemic:

Ages 0-9 years old death totals: 9 deaths (4 deaths ages 5-9yo, 5 deaths from birth to 4 years old, almost all had massive comorbidities)

Ages 10-19 years old death totals: 4 deaths

(so total school-age (5 years to 19 years of age) children's deaths are 8, despite our schools never really closing, other than the majority of high schools for a period in 2020)

Ages 20-29 years old death totals: 22 deaths

Ages 30-39 years old death totals: 47 deaths

Total deaths for youngest 50% of the Swedish population: 82 out of over 5 million people (around 2,706 US population adjected equivalent deaths for 166,500,000 people). The total deaths for all people under 30 years old is 35

99% of deaths here were 50 years and older, 96% of deaths were 60 years old and over, 89% 70 years of age and older


Deaths by age group (Avlidna per åldersgrupp) totals from the start of the pandemic







Deaths per day (Avlidna per dag)

Over the last 3 months



Over the entire duration of the pandemic


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #19)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 11:36 PM

42. false framing, false claims, & a ludicrous attempt at false correlation in regards to proportional

representational governments and some negative outcome. PR systems of governance make up the vast majority of the rest of the advanced Western world, and many have long ago outpaced the US on a tonne of social metrics and wealth equality in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #11)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 08:26 PM

34. A Government strutted by our Constitution will never evolve into Parliamentary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #34)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 10:15 PM

38. True enough, but if it ever came to it and there were several...

parties of some strength, I could see where alliances/agreements would evolve between two or more parties to elect favored candidates, a feature of a parliamentarian system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:40 PM

12. Need a parliamentary system for that. Our winner-takes-all system insures two parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:41 PM

13. No - 7 party system

I will remain a Democratic Party Member thank you very much.

I think this is the second time I've seen this here.

I wonder why there is the push to destroy the big tent of the Democratic Party coalition? Like - is this a last ditch attempt by the lock step and goose step GOP (talking about the Republicans who just 'couldn't vote for Biden and pressed a button for Trump) -

If black, Asian, Latino, Native folks all get together for the next 20 years -we can bring the GOP to its knees. Let's address this again when I'm a little old lady and white supremacy isn't at the root of everything in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #13)

Fri Sep 10, 2021, 12:13 AM

45. The multiple party scenario has little chance of coming about...

of course. As it is now Blacks, Browns, Asian and native Americans do vote mostly Democratic and once we add progressive whites, the physically challenged and others, we have the present day Democratic Party.

We have before us now the chance to make generational change if we can get the two infrastructure bills passed. Both physical and human infrastructure has been left undone for several decades due to republican obstruction. We can change all that and keep our Congressional majorities in the mid-terms. I feel we are on the cusp of doing that. We just have to schmooze our few reluctant senators to get on board with the party.

We'll get it done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #45)

Fri Sep 10, 2021, 12:07 PM

46. Amen!



We don't need multiple parties - the opposition does. What I didn't see on that was Stand Up America - that's the one Evan McMullin is pushing out there. I follow them on Facebook and on their site directly . . . I could see those voters getting fed up entirely with the GOP and joining us IF we have measurable, quantitative changes we can show them - benefit them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:45 PM

15. I got 'New Liberal Party'

New Liberal Party

The New Liberal Party is the professional-class establishment wing of the Democratic Party. Members are cosmopolitan in their social and racial views but more pro-business and more likely to see the wealthy as innovators.

Its potential leaders include Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Eric Garcetti and Beto O’Rourke. Based on data from the Democracy Fund’s VOTER survey, this party would be the best fit for about 26 percent of the electorate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:55 PM

16. This is meaningless, theoretical dorm room debate, best done when drinking beers and/or smoking weed

Without changing to a parliamentary system this is irrelevant. There's little support for that and real danger in the only way it could be done: a new constitutional convention.

Right-wing zealots and billionaires have been stalking a 2nd CC for decades now, laying a groundwork to 1) bring one about and 2) have it run on their terms if they can get one. The goal: to lock in their privileges and hobble democratic means of reform. The result would be for all intents and purposes a second Confederate Constitution.

Ideas like this are shiny objects. Don't be distracted. That's not how our system works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 05:59 PM

18. NO NO and NO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 06:03 PM

20. Sure it makes some sense, but yeah, that ain't happening.

The system is hard coded for a two parties. You have to be able to unwind that first. On top of that, how do you tell them that 2/3rds of their funding is going to vanish.

The idea is to encourage more compromising, but what happens when you get the opposite? It's possible to have even more deadlock with multiple parties. Not saying what we have now is better, just pointing out the issues you could face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 06:45 PM

23. If you want moderates to win, sure...

Unless you’re switching to a Parliamentary system (which we’re not), the American Labor and Progressive Parties will combine support to a left wing candidate, and the Patriot Party and the Christian Conservative Party will combine to support a right wing candidate. The Parties in the center will be the deciding vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 07:14 PM

24. New Liberal Party...Hmmm, interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 07:22 PM

25. Nothing stopping this now.

A number of states have smaller political parties. They usually don't get much of the vote.


The US didn't always have just two dominant parties. But whenever power was split, it fairly quickly coalesced back to two parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 07:26 PM

26. There is at least a third dimension -- globalist versus nationalist

and a fourth -- libertarian versus authoritarian

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 07:49 PM

29. The "Patriot Party" should be "The Flag Waving Party". Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 07:52 PM

30. New Liberal Party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 07:56 PM

31. Looks a lot like divide and conquer. NO.

Question: Given their trouble in shaking trumpism and moving on, why shouldn't this be about how the Republicans need more than one party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 08:06 PM

32. New Liberal Party. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 08:22 PM

33. Game theory.

will never happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 09:45 PM

37. Not sure I like their examples, but I do think we would be better served with more viable parties

I don't agree with everything within our party platform, but I vote for and support Democrats because the alternative is repulsive.

I'd love a more complex and nuanced political landscape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Reply #37)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 11:49 PM

44. unfortunately, to arrive at a multiparty outcome, you would have to scrap a large amount of the

US Constitution and put into play a proportional representation structure. That is never going to happen as long as the union of states holds together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Original post)

Thu Sep 9, 2021, 10:35 PM

39. the parties arise naturally and are not formal

if people don't join third parties, they don't have influence. No one can tell people "there are six parties now and you have to pick one and it has to even out." Two of the parties would still end up with the bulk of the people. Parties are informal alliances trying to win elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread