2020 Presidential election

[Gameface]

Then I wouldn't vote for them and likely no one else would. We choose not to vote for bad 3rd parties candidates and force ourselves to vote for bad main party candidates.

We need someone to step up and sponsor things like televised 3rd party only debates. Do a lot of groundwork to make it clear that "this time" a 3rd party has a legit shot, has major support and has a chance to win.

Too late for that this time. But if some super rich ******* was all about getting a 3rd party in the mix they could start working right after this election to get some stuff going.

 

[silesian]

no. The constitution actually encourages parties. Institutions like the Electoral College and House/Senate encourage the two party system. The Electoral College with its delegates and winner take call stakes force voters into voting for one of the two major parties. It states would base the delegates distributed equally to how voters voted, then you’d see more 3rd party candidates. Since the EC decides the president, this reinforces the need to elect someone who is part of one of the two political parties.

Want to break the two party system? Get rid of the EC. Go straight up with the popular vote and determine the makeup of at least one of the chambers of Congress by proportional voting. If you state votes something like 50 percent D 30 percent R and 20 percent 3rd, then distribute the representatives to reflect that. Thus, encouraging 3rd party candidates.

in utah right now, 49 percent of the population could literally vote D and they’d maybe capture 1/4 representatives and 0 senate seats. Thus discouraging even Democrats from running let alone 3rd party candidates.

I’m calling BS.

You are ignoring the entire 19th century of US history.

We had the constitution then.

We had the EC then.

And we had presidents from the Whig party and the Democratic- Republican Party. Parties emerged. Parties disappeared.

The constitution and EC did not stop this.

What stops the third party is the power of the two parties.

Parties in power have brainwashed Americans to believe that an emergent third party is impossible. They would love your arguments. But what your argument totally misses the obvious fact that if a candidate has enough popular support, the EC and constitution does absolutely nothing to stop that person from winning the presidency.

Human beings have limited imaginations and our biases make us believe that history always repeats. We need people with the imagination to reject the illusion that the status quo is inevitable.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I’m calling BS.

You are ignoring the entire 19th century of US history.

We had the constitution then.

We had the EC then.

And we had presidents from the Whig party and the Democratic- Republican Party. Parties emerged. Parties disappeared.

The constitution and EC did not stop this.

What stops the third party is the power of the two parties.

Parties in power have brainwashed Americans to believe that an emergent third party is impossible. They would love your arguments. But what your argument totally misses the obvious fact that if a candidate has enough popular support, the EC and constitution does absolutely nothing to stop that person from winning the presidency.

Human beings have limited imaginations and our biases make us believe that history always repeats. We need people with the imagination to reject the illusion that the status quo is inevitable.

And where’s the Whig party today?

The Whig party was only around for a relatively short amount of time. Then the (abolitionist) Republican Party swallowed the old Whig party (and any abolitionist Democrats). Was it because old whigs became brainwashed republicans then? Or was it because the structure of our government only supports two major parties?

If you look at 19th century, America was dominated by two major parties. Which continues today because of the “win all” structure of our constitution. It’s not a parliamentary system like you see in Europe.

For that during most of our country’s history we’ve been dominated by two parties. They’ve changed in name and on issues. Republicans today are the whites supremacist party while Democrats are the ones fighting for civil rights (which clearly wasn’t the case in the 1860s). But the main consistency has been two major political parties dominating the political landscape.

 

[silesian]

And where’s the Whig party today?

The Whig party was only around for a relatively short amount of time. Then the (abolitionist) Republican Party swallowed the old Whig party (and any abolitionist Democrats). Was it because old whigs became brainwashed republicans then? Or was it because the structure of our government only supports two major parties?

If you look at 19th century, America was dominated by two major parties. Which continues today because of the “win all” structure of our constitution. It’s not a parliamentary system like you see in Europe.

For that during most of our country’s history we’ve been dominated by two parties. They’ve changed in name and on issues. Republicans today are the whites supremacist party while Democrats are the ones fighting for civil rights (which clearly wasn’t the case in the 1860s). But the main consistency has been two major political parties dominating the political landscape.

We are not debating whether we have usually had two parties, but rather why. The argument that "it is the EC/ Constitution's fault" lacks causal connection. The fact that parties have been born while others have died, within our constituational framework, is direct evidence that we are not constitutionally stuck where we are. That notion is defeatist / nihilistic

Trivia Q: In which election did we have four candidates from the same party receiving electoral votes?

 

[Red]

Here's is the online letter published by 80 former national security and homeland security professionals, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, endorsing Biden, and describing their reasoning:

https://thesteadystate.org/

 

[Deleted member 365]

We are not debating whether we have usually had two parties, but rather why. The argument that "it is the EC/ Constitution's fault" lacks causal connection. The fact that parties have been born while others have died, within our constituational framework, is direct evidence that we are not constitutionally stuck where we are. That notion is defeatist / nihilistic

Trivia Q: In which election did we have four candidates from the same party receiving electoral votes?

What we're arguing about are two different things. You're arguing whether parties can change or evolve. I'm arguing that no more than two parties can exist in our political system because of the way our Constitution was written.

'm saying is that our Constitution actually prevents more than two political parties from existing. What you seem to argue is that political parties can't evolve or that new political parties can't form. They have and will. Federalists, Your Whig argument actually supports mine, you just didn't recognize it. The Whig party was swallowed up by the Republican party. But our country's history shows that no more than two political parties can exist for a sustained amount of time because of the structure set forth by our Constitution.

Or do you think having more than just 2 parties is just a mental block that we need to "get over?" How do you suppose we "get over" this mental block seeing how we're over 200 years into this thing and never has there been a sustained 3rd party success?

 

[infection]

Well Tulsi Gabbard has dropped out and endorsed Biden. So much for @The Thriller ’s insistence on a third party run to help Russia. Unless the Russians want Biden to win. Or maybe they are doing this to provide cover for Tulsi so she can continue to operate from the inside.

 

[Zombie]

All fifteen of her supporters have got to be pretty sad and confused right now.

 

[JazzyFresh]

So Bernie the Rat is basically done for. Though Biden is like Obama and will get absolutely nothing done at least we still have our America.

 

[candrew]

All fifteen of her supporters have got to be pretty sad and confused right now.

LOL - pretty simple - she heard Biden was going to select a female VEEP.

3 months ago she was a far left darling and Bernie's heiress apparent.

Now reality has set in and she's looking for a job.

Not a shock to be honest - she has all the window dressing (young, attractive, ex-military) and zero substance.

Can't wait to see what Jimmy Dore thinks of his dreamboat today.

 

[Gameface]

LOL - pretty simple - she heard Biden was going to select a female VEEP.

3 months ago she was a far left darling and Bernie's heiress apparent.

Now reality has set in and she's looking for a job.

Not a shock to be honest - she has all the window dressing (young, attractive, ex-military) and zero substance.

Can't wait to see what Jimmy Dore thinks of his dreamboat today.

So not true! She can also play the ukulele and sing.

 

[silesian]

What we're arguing about are two different things. You're arguing whether parties can change or evolve. I'm arguing that no more than two parties can exist in our political system because of the way our Constitution was written.

'm saying is that our Constitution actually prevents more than two political parties from existing. What you seem to argue is that political parties can't evolve or that new political parties can't form. They have and will. Federalists, Your Whig argument actually supports mine, you just didn't recognize it. The Whig party was swallowed up by the Republican party. But our country's history shows that no more than two political parties can exist for a sustained amount of time because of the structure set forth by our Constitution.

Or do you think having more than just 2 parties is just a mental block that we need to "get over?" How do you suppose we "get over" this mental block seeing how we're over 200 years into this thing and never has there been a sustained 3rd party success?

Any new party is going to swallow up people from the old parties. The people have to come from somewhere.

I don't buy that the constitution is the reason for the situation we are in. There are many factors and this is an oversimplification