It Is a Two Party System Here, After All...

[MineralMan]

Once again, some Democrats are talking about purifying the party - ridding it of all except the most progressive Democratic candidates that can be found. And once again, a very simple fact gets ignored, and it's one that could doom this country to tyranny.

The United States of America has a Two-Party Political System. It is governed based upon what is essentially a majority rule. Unless you have more than 1/2 of the votes, you lose. Of course, that's not always literally true, but in the end, it is a fact. Changing that would require a complete rethinking of our system and a rewriting of our Constitution.

Sometimes, a third party sticks its head out and is noticed. When it does, though, the effect is to destroy the chances of the major party that is closest in politics to the new, third party. One of the two parties in our system gets divided and loses in the process. Every last freaking time. It never fails.

We cannot win if we divide. That is all that needs to be understood. That is why we now have Donald Trump clowning his way toward tyranny.

Will we learn? We had better. And fast.

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Yes that is simply the way the system works.

If I knew them better and had actually read them, I'd suggest a reading of The Federalist Papers on factions or mobs, as they called parties in the day, to glean some deeper insight. The system was set up for and by selfless patriots who thought of nothing but the long term viability of the Republic. We're a long way from Peoria now.

[MineralMan]

2. There is no perfect system of governance.

There cannot be. There can, however, be systems that function without cruelty or widespread injustice. That's what ours has done, at least some of the time. It has done badly from time to time, as well. It is doing badly right now, it seems to me.

We need to return to a more balanced condition. We will never reach perfection. That is impossible in any society as large and varied as our. On the other hand, it's fairly easy to morph into tyranny. That situation is very difficult, and sometimes deadly, to correct.

[RandomNumbers]

3. I think ranked-choice voting could help, BUT

1. it has to start with more local elections, and organizational elections, so people get accustomed to how it works.

2. the bigger problem - the "purists" might STILL be idiots and fail to cast their second or third choice ballots for a more centrist candidate who has a better likelihood of winning.

That said, I like it because it would give the opportunity for people to more truly use their vote as "their voice". Going back to Gore v. Bush - post election surveys indicated that about 2/3 of Nader voters preferred Gore to Bush. Had RCV been in effect, and had those Nader voters used their second choice votes - the world would be a different place today.

But now we have an even tougher hill to climb, because the tools of disinformation have become so effective, that the vilification of the mainstream Dem might be so successful as to deter the effective use of RCV. That is, the people refusing to give their one vote to the Dem nominee today, because "reasons", would now be targeted to believe that they are too pure to even rank that "awful" D at all.

I don't know how we solve it.

[MineralMan]

5. We use it here in Minnesota for some races.

It gets mixed reviews. Mostly, though, voters don't understand it well, and it takes longer to call elections. I can't see it working for statewide or national office elections. It's just too complicated, overall.

[RandomNumbers]

6. Yeah, it really isn't THAT complicated ...

(in my opinion, but I'm a geek)

I am sometimes amazed at what the majority of alleged "adults" call "complicated".

To be clear, it is A LITTLE "complicated", and if one is accustomed to the current system, it's a bit of a leap. That is why it will be years, maybe decades, before it is refined and fit for mass use in our elections.

But the current system is AWFUL. I am open to other alternatives to RCV.

[Trust_Reality]

4. A two party system is automatically divisive. It is either this party or that one. BUT, potential good news...

Perhaps the large number of independents is what can save us - IF they are well informed, IF they can avoid the disinformation of sources like FOX, IF they avoid a narrow/radical religious point of view, IF they will pay attention, and IF they will vote.

[delisen]

7. Looking forward to a different 2 party system

Democratic and Democratic Progressive.
But first we have to stay united and make the US safe for democracy again.

[WhiteTara]

8. Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton

and for that, I'm grateful. Bill was a loose willy, but he did some good.

[StevieM]

16. The polling data tells a different story.

The exit polls show that Perot took equally from Bush and Clinton. And that was on Election Day. Up until Election Day, polls consistently showed that Perot took more votes from Clinton than he did from Bush.

There has never been any evidence that Perot threw the election to the Democrats. That is just something the GOP started claiming after they lost. Sadly, even some Democrats bought into that baseless assertion.

[WhiteTara]

17. That's interesting. Thanks for the reality check

[DJ Synikus Makisimus]

9. It was the most effective change-prevention mechanism the founders could think of.

Well, that and the electoral college. OK, a two-party system wasn't there originally, it came a bit after. "Because we've always done it that way" is hardly an effective argument for a future, assuming there is one.

[betsuni]

10. I'm expecting a well-funded third party or disruptor running as a Democrat (money & media) next election.

The disinformation is a steady hum already. Whip up hate to persuade people to vote against Democrats. The Working Class Revolution Gaslight Party.

The one running as a Democrat will probably follow in the footsteps of the one insisting FDR was a democratic socialist, making them the true Democrats, not the Democratic Party which they say is corrupt and immoral and right-wing and cares nothing for the working class (then you have people running around claiming to be FDR Democrats as if that's different from a regular Democrat). In a recent speech I was surprised to hear FDR's Second Bill of Rights come up again, the quote "economic rights are human rights" because that person has said "Economic rights are human rights. That is what I mean by democratic socialism." Here we go again. History is revised and words redefined to fit an ideological agenda.

[H2O Man]

11. Respectfully disagree.

The two party system has not been the reality in all US history. Also, I do not think anyone has advocated ridding the party of everyone that isn't progressive.

[betsuni]

12. Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats PACs and Our Revolution superPACs goal: take over the party.

Brand New Congress: Huffington Post explained at the time, were "looking ahead to the 2018 midterm elections to replace Congress all at once" with lawmakers who supported a progressive revolution. They wanted to run 400 Congressional campaigns. Not only replacing Democrats with those thought progressive enough but flipping red seats (because the mistaken belief Trump voters were secretly progressive populists).

Justice Democrats especially have been very clear: "Our organization is a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party. Not trying to be a part of it."

[H2O Man]

13. Okay.

So Huffington Post said that in 2018 there was a terrible danger of progressive candidates running for office. Yet we know that 2018 was a very good year for our party. In the best known example, AOC beat Crowley and went on to become one of our party's very best spokespersons. If this is an example of the terror that progressive Democrats pose, I think we will be better for it.

[betsuni]

14. The plan was to run hundreds of candidates. Huff Post quote was the plan, nothing of "terrible danger" --

where did you see that? AOC and nine other winners were Justice Democrats candidates. No red seats flipped.

What's this "terror"? Don't worry, the Democratic Party will never be taken over by a fantasy revolution which will only spend all their time on infighting and purity tests. Attacking Democrats as corrupt "establishment" enemy is extremely polarizing. People want to fight against Republicans and Trump, not Democrats.

[H2O Man]

15. The "terrible danger"

can be found in the OP.

Progressive Democrats merely want their seats at the table. There are times when that includes an AOC entering a primary against a Crowley. And that's a good thing.