American Politics Discussion Thread

[Charriu]

Yes, the 2 party split has more to do with first past the post voting systems. For example look at the German voting system which isn't first past the post. The system started with 2 main parties and 1 minor party in the 50s and nowadays you have 6 relevant parties.

[Mr. Cairo]

The only multi-party system that uses FPTP is the UK...

Canada also uses FPTP.

edit: and a quick look on wikipedia shows a lot of other countries with more than two parties using FPTP.

[Charriu]

That's true, but if you look closer you will notice that there is a bigger mismatch between the share of parties in parliament and in the last vote.

[Mr. Cairo]

That's true, but if you look closer you will notice that there is a bigger mismatch between the share of parties in parliament and in the last vote.

No, actually the mismatch in the UK is quite comparable to other countries that use FPTP.

In the last UK election, the Conservatives won 56% of the seats with 43% of the vote, a difference of 13%. In the last Canadian election, the Liberals won 47% of the seats with 32% of the vote, a difference of 15%.

In the last Indian election, the BJP won 56% of the seats in the lower house with only 37% of the vote, a difference of 19%. Which is even less representative than the UK or Canada.

There's nothing that special about the UK's system. Every multi-party state that uses FPTP gets unrepresentative results.

[Charriu]

I'm sorry. I may not have made my point clear. The problem that I see with all of these FPTP is these differences.

[Jowy]

As far as America goes, I don't think a multiple party system would change much. What you need are stronger anti-lobbying and anti-corruption regulations, to stop representatives from becoming puppets to those who fund them. It is very hard to get to that point when all the power currently lies in people and companies who are the ones gaining from the current state of things.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

The level of corruption is both staggering in scope and staggering in how cheap it is to buy a politician. There's a weird cultural thing in the US where bribery is completely legal in some contexts (lobbying, campaign contributions, cushy no-show jobs, easy entry into media and university for family members) but not others (you can't just plonk $50M into someone's bank account outright). And the former is both common and doesn't require a large capital outlay. Which is how Sinema landed a paid internship at a winery while ostensibly full-time employed as a US Senator. And right now she's being lobbied by multi-level marketing parasites (some of which are owned by GOP cabinet members like DeVos!) to sabotage labor legislation.

[Mjmd]

The level of corruption is both staggering in scope and staggering in how cheap it is to buy a politician. There's a weird cultural thing in the US where bribery is completely legal in some contexts (lobbying, campaign contributions, cushy no-show jobs, easy entry into media and university for family members) but not others (you can't just plonk $50M into someone's bank account outright). And the former is both common and doesn't require a large capital outlay. Which is how Sinema landed a paid internship at a winery while ostensibly full-time employed as a US Senator. And right now she's being lobbied by multi-level marketing parasites (some of which are owned by GOP cabinet members like DeVos!) to sabotage labor legislation.

I've given this thought before, but the only way campaign finance reform is probably possible is a grass roots campaign for a constitutional amendment (due to supreme court decision). I just don't think there will ever be enough non "in on it" politicians for it to come through elected officials.

That being said I also don't think this idea has a shot in hell. Americans don't seem to understand that one party spouting "the election is rigged before, during, and if lose after" is bad for democracy, so I don't see how with you would ever persuade them that campaign finance regulations need to happen when both parties would probably put considerable effort into misleading and defeating any such attempt.

[Cyneheard]

The level of corruption is both staggering in scope and staggering in how cheap it is to buy a politician. There's a weird cultural thing in the US where bribery is completely legal in some contexts (lobbying, campaign contributions, cushy no-show jobs, easy entry into media and university for family members) but not others (you can't just plonk $50M into someone's bank account outright). And the former is both common and doesn't require a large capital outlay. Which is how Sinema landed a paid internship at a winery while ostensibly full-time employed as a US Senator. And right now she's being lobbied by multi-level marketing parasites (some of which are owned by GOP cabinet members like DeVos!) to sabotage labor legislation.

I've given this thought before, but the only way campaign finance reform is probably possible is a grass roots campaign for a constitutional amendment (due to supreme court decision). I just don't think there will ever be enough non "in on it" politicians for it to come through elected officials.

That being said I also don't think this idea has a shot in hell. Americans don't seem to understand that one party spouting "the election is rigged before, during, and if lose after" is bad for democracy, so I don't see how with you would ever persuade them that campaign finance regulations need to happen when both parties would probably put considerable effort into misleading and defeating any such attempt.

I don't see how a constitutional amendment is at all possible under any circumstances these days.

2/3 of Congress means both parties have to be on board.
3/4 of all states means you then need to get ruby-red states or deep-blue states on board, or both.

Anything that might look like it might possibly hurt the GOP politically will never ever get support from the GOP. And if it looks like it'll hurt Dems, it's going to be very difficult to convince them that it's the "right thing to do" even if there's a political downside.

[superdeath]

The level of corruption is both staggering in scope and staggering in how cheap it is to buy a politician. There's a weird cultural thing in the US where bribery is completely legal in some contexts (lobbying, campaign contributions, cushy no-show jobs, easy entry into media and university for family members) but not others (you can't just plonk $50M into someone's bank account outright). And the former is both common and doesn't require a large capital outlay. Which is how Sinema landed a paid internship at a winery while ostensibly full-time employed as a US Senator. And right now she's being lobbied by multi-level marketing parasites (some of which are owned by GOP cabinet members like DeVos!) to sabotage labor legislation.

I've given this thought before, but the only way campaign finance reform is probably possible is a grass roots campaign for a constitutional amendment (due to supreme court decision). I just don't think there will ever be enough non "in on it" politicians for it to come through elected officials.

That being said I also don't think this idea has a shot in hell. Americans don't seem to understand that one party spouting "the election is rigged before, during, and if lose after" is bad for democracy, so I don't see how with you would ever persuade them that campaign finance regulations need to happen when both parties would probably put considerable effort into misleading and defeating any such attempt.

I don't see how a constitutional amendment is at all possible under any circumstances these days.

2/3 of Congress means both parties have to be on board.
3/4 of all states means you then need to get ruby-red states or deep-blue states on board, or both.

Anything that might look like it might possibly hurt the GOP politically will never ever get support from the GOP. And if it looks like it'll hurt Dems, it's going to be very difficult to convince them that it's the "right thing to do" even if there's a political downside.

True, but if some sort of "grass roots" movement started, it would look REALLY REALLY bad for either side to actually be like "no, we will continue to take money from corporations!" Now, whether an actual grass-roots style movement can actually work anymore....


IMO, in the  next 30-40years due to how fast technology/society progressed previously, after the baby boomers and the other elderly die off i could see some serious changes coming into effect. The fact that there are people making laws in America that were alive pre-segregation and other horrendous periods of time is ridiculous. Honestly retirement age should be forced on congress. If they are 65+ they should not be in Government.