Trumps is in!

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

It seems like we need a compromise candidate but a third party is near impossible in a duopoly.

It's not an artifact of some 'duopoly,' it's an artifact of the Constitution. Third parties lose, taking one of the two majors down with them if they get very much support. That's unless there's a 4th party in it taking votes from the other major, too. For that, we must say 'thank god for the Libertarians.'

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

It's not an artifact of some 'duopoly,' it's an artifact of the Constitution. Third parties lose, taking one of the two majors down with them if they get very much support. That's unless there's a 4th party in it taking votes from the other major, too. For that, we must say 'thank god for the Libertarians.'

Please explain how it is that the Constitution prevents third partied from winning.

[merrylander]

If we did what the Framers of the Constitution really wanted we would get rid of bot parties, then we would really be voting for the person.

[donquixote99]

Well, let's say there were no parties. Then let's say the liberals formed a bit of one. The conservatives would see the liberals winning more, so they of course would want one too. And there you go.

The framer's wish was very unrealistic, and I daresay that behind the groupthink, the majority of them knew it.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Well, let's say there were no parties. Then let's say the liberals formed a bit of one. The conservatives would see the liberals winning more, so they of course would want one too. And there you go.

The framer's wish was very unrealistic, and I daresay that behind the groupthink, the majority of them knew it.

You're telling me the rationale for political parties but you're still not telling me why the Constitution is to blame for limiting their number and effectiveness, especially since nowhere in the Constitution are parties even mentioned.

[donquixote99]

The reason is that the elections, according to the Constitution, are all winner-take-all. One district one representative. Two senators per state, but separate elections in separate years. There is no prize for coming in second, let alone third or fourth. The prize of winning office is the life blood of political parties. The two majors can take turns, but small parties that never win never have any power.

A constitutional change that provided for some proportional representation scheme would be necessary for parties beyond the two majors to thrive.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The reason is that the elections, according to the Constitution, are all winner-take-all. One district one representative. Two senators per state, but separate elections in separate years. There is no prize for coming in second, let alone third or fourth. The prize of winning office is the life blood of political parties. The two majors can take turns, but small parties that never win never have any power.

A constitutional change that provided for some proportional representation scheme would be necessary for parties beyond the two majors to thrive.

The real problem is the number of third party candidates with anything resembling a political record of accomplishment. Much of the problem could be solved by the widespread use of of instant runoff elections. This, of course, would have to come at the state and local level where there is no federal impediment. This would make the state and local elections into "incubators" for strong third party candidates who would have a shot in three way races and, after gaining experience become capable of winning elections at the federal level.

[donquixote99]

You still have the problem that if one side is split, it hands victory to the other. An absolute majority requirement with runoffs is one way around that.

But primaries are sort of the same thing....

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

It's not an artifact of some 'duopoly,' it's an artifact of the Constitution. Third parties lose, taking one of the two majors down with them if they get very much support. That's unless there's a 4th party in it taking votes from the other major, too. For that, we must say 'thank god for the Libertarians.'

And countering the Libertarian effect is a suggestion from some left leaning media (not so enamored by the charm of HRC) that three out of four 'millennials for Berine' are going to skip voting in this election.

[donquixote99]

That's media telling you what you want to hear, in a post-factual world.