The American Two Party system

[hollodero]

well, is an unmitigated disaster.

I won't share all my reasons to say so right now. But to tackle a few points in advance. It is a system that creates division and tribalism. As evidenced, it allows extremism to become mainstream and get a guaranteed election win over time. It allowed for the creation of two party molochs fighting for power. Two molochs that can do whatever they want and they can never ever be replaced. Together they got all the money, all the influence, all the media connections, they would destroy every other viable movement with ease. And they both by design share around 50% of the power over time, and if they were demons from hell it would be so. The opposition party always wins at some point, see: midterms.
In the end, money is the main power and pretty much all influential politicians are either big money themselves or officially bribed. It's tough to call that system a democracy really. It's rather depressing. If you do not align with one of the two parties, you might as well not care at all. Unless there's a smaller evil to be chosen, so that democrats can celebrate a big win and see proof that their ideas and slogans are popular because Biden narrowly beat Trump and they lost less votes in the midterms than usual. Great stuff.

And there's the president, directly elected, hence a wild card of sorts, but of course in the end usually just strictly aligning with one of the molochs, how else could they run. Trump wasn't, an understandable appeal of his, sadly it was Trump though. And that's another issue. You had Hillary vs. Trump, then Biden vs. Trump and next most likely Biden vs. Trump, part 2. All deeply unpopular choices, detested by a majority of people. If being given such widely rejected choices again and again is not a sign of a sick system, I don't know what would count as one. Not withstanding that someone like Donald Trump can become president and actually increase his vote total after that embarrassing shitshow of a presidency. But that's on a more personal taste maybe.

One last point, giving one option in an election sure would be autocracy, China style. You have two options, very democratic, but it's quite a logical development that especially when the division seekers gain power, there will be the idea to end this back and forth with this domestic enemy and reduce the available choices by one. Better have emperor Trump than demonrats in the house, after all. And the constitutional safeguards against that appear severely flawed. Eg. when Trump says that as president he can do whatever he wants, it seems to me as though he is right. But even if not, it would take a president and his moloch only to conspire with five not so independent people to make it so anyway. Or some corrupted state secretaries or electors. A VP with less integrity than Pence. Or maybe a mob.

And considering these and many additional thoughts I wonder why Americans do not indeed divorce like MTG suggested, better a horrible end than endless horror.... or unite in refusing the one thing that is the root of so much rot, the rotten two-party system. But for sure, I guess most will defend that system in its entirety because founders and geniusses and stuff. Or other arguments I might consider. Thoughts?

[treee]

I think you can boil your assertion to the fact that you find the two party system to be the root of most of the issues in the country. To that end, I do agree to an extent. Also if you would expand on your religious terminology and how it relates to  your overarching thread I'm sure interesting conversation could come from it.

The reason I say I agree only to an extent is because I've noticed an issue with the perspective of some people who hyper-focus on the nature of the two party system. Yes, the two parties are in a symbiotic relationship to a degree. Yes, they both at times have prioritized specialized monied interests over the interests of your average citizen. All that is true. However, this specific focus on the nature of our political reality is also used as a kind of ward, an excuse for apathy, for the tired to be done with it all. It's all too easy to say they're both the same and exonerate oneself from the exhaustion that comes with caring about direction of a country as a whole. We're just individual people and it is not in our nature to be able comprehend this seemingly infinite web of interlocking institutions, people, interests, and so on. Frankly, we've already come so far and have so much to be proud of collectively. We shouldn't just focus on our prides our or shames. Only with both can we have a clear picture.

So you have this reality that a system, beyond the control of any individual, has sort brought about itself naturally. People over time, given their social abilities and intellect have organized into these systems over time. In the US specifically our political system has maturated into a sort of stalemate federally where stances have been made, lines have been drawn, processes have come and gone in the formation, interpretation, and practice of our collective will in lawmaking. This slowdown is not some insurmountable decay that is inescapable. Growth in this case is not linear. It will slow to a slog, and at times it will seem faster than we could imagine.

Essentially I agree with you but there is a thread of fatalism woven throughout your OP that I disagree with. There are many mechanisms that allow for US citizens to legally compel the system to change to closer align with their will. All it takes is the collective focus and will of it's constituents to enact it. I do think we can change our path on a fundamental level if we approach things with the right mindset.

[hollodero]

(03-01-2023, 08:54 PM)treee Wrote: I think you can boil your assertion to the fact that you find the two party system to be the root of most of the issues in the country. To that end, I do agree to an extent. Also if you would expand on your religious terminology and how it relates to  your overarching thread I'm sure interesting conversation could come from it.

Oh right, I sure used the word demon a lot. First time, I just did so to drastically illustrate my point. Second time, I used the term demonrats that Jeanine Pirro used as replacement for democrats. A term I chose because its mere existence in main stream media can be seen as part of my point.
There were zero religious insinuations behind it.

(03-01-2023, 08:54 PM)treee Wrote: The reason I say I agree only to an extent is because I've noticed an issue with the perspective of some people who hyper-focus on the nature of the two party system. Yes, the two parties are in a symbiotic relationship to a degree. Yes, they both at times have prioritized specialized monied interests over the interests of your average citizen. All that is true.

Well, if these things are true then imho there's hardly any hyperfocusing. These things deserves a severe amount of focus. Of course I would add several additional points, but yeah.

(03-01-2023, 08:54 PM)treee Wrote: However, this specific focus on the nature of our political reality is also used as a kind of ward, an excuse for apathy, for the tired to be done with it all. It's all too easy to say they're both the same and exonerate oneself from the exhaustion that comes with caring about direction of a country as a whole.

I can be an excuse for laziness, but that is hardly an argument against critizism of the two-party system. And as far as what caring about the direction is concerned. For one, many people very well might not like either of the two directions they are offered. That is not apathy, it's being left voiceless when not in the two big choirs. Also, the two-party system created a climate where topics are seldomly discussed in sincerity, but with anger, tribalism, hysteria and bad faith arguments. And disclaimer, that is not about me stating that both sides are equally bad or just the same in the end. I don't think so, specifically I think the republican party is worse. It's just that I guess for many people, and it would include me were I an American, both directions offered lead to an unsatisfactory choice in an environment hostile to nuance. Or in short, it's about both options just being bad. Judges, congressmen, governors, presidents, state secretaries and so on and so on. All parts of the same molochs, always red vs. blue, other options bitterly missing. Calling people that are frustrated with that apathic and telling them to just pick a lane and be constructive would be unfair.

(03-01-2023, 08:54 PM)treee Wrote: So you have this reality that a system, beyond the control of any individual, has sort brought about itself naturally. People over time, given their social abilities and intellect have organized into these systems over time. In the US specifically our political system has maturated into a sort of stalemate federally where stances have been made, lines have been drawn, processes have come and gone in the formation, interpretation, and practice of our collective will in lawmaking. This slowdown is not some insurmountable decay that is inescapable. Growth in this case is not linear. It will slow to a slog, and at times it will seem faster than we could imagine.

I find that a bit dreamy. Not untrue per se, but I'm just more cynical maybe. System's not only built by skills and intellect, so in short well-meaning people, but also by interest groups and big money and lots and lots of self-centered people that only consider their own riches and power maintenance. I don't think that is controversial, unless one thinks people like the Koch brothers or other superPAC members are warriors for some greater common good. I rather see them as the ruling caste that are not elected and hold those dependant that are. I find that hard to disagree with really, it's pretty much in the open.
And adressing the growth aspect and how proud you can be (sorry for deleting that part of your response), sure I will not argue with that. What I will argue is that the two-party system and its specifics probably had nothing to do with any of it. All of it could have been achieved with a system less adversiarial to pluralistic ideas.

(03-01-2023, 08:54 PM)treee Wrote: Essentially I agree with you but there is a thread of fatalism woven throughout your OP that I disagree with. There are many mechanisms that allow for US citizens to legally compel the system to change to closer align with their will. All it takes is the collective focus and will of it's constituents to enact it. I do think we can change our path on a fundamental level if we approach things with the right mindset.

I confess to fatalism, I think this very well can be fatal. I see things like the Jan 6 riot [and then some] as an indirect consequence of the two-party system, and I don't think this is getting any better in the future. The US appears to have a more and more radicalized society, two sides that can't constructively communicate any longer, only getting whipped and rant about each other. I consider this to be the potential downfall of US democracy, there's no mincing words, there were some valid coup attempts recently and many people don't seem to mind. And when it comes to the right mindset creating a real change for the better within the boundaries of the sclerotic two-party system, I am sceptical. Erin Brochovich stories might rather be the exception than the usual outcome. More specifically. My point would be that getting rid of the two-party system in its current form might be the right mindset, not fighting within it (and getting frustrated in the end like Bels was).

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

[hollodero]

(03-04-2023, 09:39 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:

Ah, I remember that... wise people, your cartoonists.

For sure, the trap always is that people claim one side is marginally better, and because of that no such viiewpoint is allowed. Rather folks are encouraged with furor to go all in with the marginally better side and engage in the us vs. them battle.
But I guess the Simpson episode makes the point better than I can. Don't know if anyone watched the latest Maher show. He had an incredibly annoying guest from England who nonetheless said a lot of right things... and for sure got shut down by constant reminders that one side is worse and hence the other side it is and no further critizism is viable.

[*michaelsean*]

It’s not great, but all in all we are still a pretty outstanding place. The people who hate each other are the loud mouths. Most people just go about their day and think very little about it. Maybe that’s not good, but for the most part we just keep trucking along despite the horrid group of people in DC. In the end that actually don’t seem to accomplish much and I’m fine with that.

[*Nately120*]

(03-04-2023, 08:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It’s not great, but all in all we are still a pretty outstanding place. The people who hate each other are the loud mouths. Most people just go about their day and think very little about it. Maybe that’s not good, but for the most part we just keep trucking along despite the horrid group of people in DC.  In the end that actually don’t seem to accomplish much and I’m fine with that.

I read this as "drink very little about it."  


.....and don't mind if I do!

[guyofthetiger]

I feel the 2 party system represents the haves and have nots pretty well. That is what it is all about.

[*Nately120*]

I was 6 years old for the 1988 election and I recall our class cutting out which candidate we wanted to win and taping him to our desk.  I was a 6 year old with Michael Dukakis affixed to the front of his crappy wooden desk.

Fast forward to the 1992 election when I was in 5th grade and I was one of the few oddball kids with Ross flippin' Perot on his desk.  I had made the 3rd party switch.  Go me.

[Belsnickel]

So, here is the issue. In a winner-take-all, first-past-the-post system, we will only ever have two viable parties. There is no chance for a third-party to form and gain traction enough to make a splash on the national scene. Typically, the only third-party candidates or independents that do well in general elections do so because they made their name as a Democrat of Republican and gained the recognition.

I think one of the things that needs to be considered in this discussion, though, is that our parties do not operate the same way European countries do. In Europe, a politician's positions are much more in step with their party. The way it has been here for the 20th century the political party's sole purpose was to win elections. That's it. In the 19th century it was more about single-issue topics. Parties coalesced over one issue and they were very ad-hoc. In the 20th they became these behemoths that just bankrolled candidates who were not at all beholden to the platform of their party. It evolved into a system where the platform doesn't matter at all, it's all about gaining power. This is evidenced by the GOP not even adopting a platform in 2020 at their meeting and McConnell saying as much: they only care about winning. Then, when they are in office, the lobbyists are writing the legislation.

There has been a brain drain in Washington. 40-50 years ago, the halls of Congress were filled with staffers that were subject matter experts working on legislation for elected officials. They knew their topics and would hammer out details, advising their bosses on the issues. However, we have seen a continual decline of staffers of DC and officials sending more staffers to their district and state offices to work on constituent services. This sounds great, right!? They are listening to their people more, right!? Nope. What is happening is that the lack of subject matter experts on staff created a vacuum filled by lobbyists for special interests. Industries are writing the legislation intended to be oversight for their own industry. CRS reports go unread or misunderstood.

In addition, we have the same number of Representatives as was set in 1911. Our population has increased by 259% since that time. We have more than three times our population but the same number of Representatives. So how effectively can our Representatives truly represent our interests when they have to cover so many people? For comparison's sake:

Germany - 83.2 million people, 736 in Bundestag, 113,043.5 people per representative (to be fair, this is the largest directly-elected legislative body out there).
Austria (choosing this for Hollo's sake) - 9 million people, 183 in National Council, 49,180.3 people per representative.
UK - 67.3 million people, 650 in the House of Commons, 103,538.5 people per representative.
Canada - 38.3 million people, 338 in the House of Commons, 113,313.6 people per representative.

Now, the US - 331.9 million people, 435 in House of Representatives, 762,988.5 people per representative.

The more people a representative represents, the less democratic the system is. It means that the voice of the citizen is diluted further and the representative has no chance of truly speaking for their constituents.

Tl;dr: Our system is broken and there are a lot of things beyond just the two-party system that needs fixing.

[hollodero]

(03-05-2023, 11:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: In addition, we have the same number of Representatives as was set in 1911. Our population has increased by 259% since that time. We have more than three times our population but the same number of Representatives. So how effectively can our Representatives truly represent our interests when they have to cover so many people? For comparison's sake:

Germany - 83.2 million people, 736 in Bundestag, 113,043.5 people per representative (to be fair, this is the largest directly-elected legislative body out there).
Austria (choosing this for Hollo's sake) - 9 million people, 183 in National Council, 49,180.3 people per representative.
UK - 67.3 million people, 650 in the House of Commons, 103,538.5 people per representative.
Canada - 38.3 million people, 338 in the House of Commons, 113,313.6 people per representative.

Now, the US - 331.9 million people, 435 in House of Representatives, 762,988.5 people per representative.

The more people a representative represents, the less democratic the system is. It means that the voice of the citizen is diluted further and the representative has no chance of truly speaking for their constituents.

I get the value of the argument. I wonder though whether your implicit proposal would change anything for the better. First, for practitcal reasons. If you employ 435 representatives times 7, so around 3.000 representatives, things would not get done any easier. Even if halving that number, you'd have to persuade around a thousand people for any proposal, which also means a thousand backroom deals, a thousand goodies, and amendments and whatnot. Imho completely unpracticable, and in the end probably only solved through strictening party discipline. And then what about the guy who speaks for his constituents. His voice isn't as loud anymore. 
But mostly, it does not tackle what I deem the main issue. It's still two molochs, you'd just add more people into them. People that by design don't represent their constituents, but neglect up to 50% of their constituent's will, those that picked the only other option available. And more often than not, a person that was picked for the sole quality of not being a QAnon believing, Trump-loving election denier, or most often just because the color fits the district and it doesn't matter who runs. How would more of those people turn anything for the better.  

Now if things were different, like 15% of people with a certain philosophy actually being represented by 15% of congresspeople, instead of having all of their votes counted for someone else, then I can see the point in arguing over that particular aspect. If you were a bit more like Canada or Germany in that regard. But as things stand, I feel bringing up the low number of congresspeople in the end is a distraction from the overarching issue.

(03-05-2023, 11:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Our system is broken and there are a lot of things beyond just the two-party system that needs fixing.

That is certainly true. Doesn't change that the two-party system needs fixing. And to me it seems it's the biggest issue of them all. And most other issues might not be fixable as long as the two-party system stands as is.

I find it hard to understand at times how Americans don't quite seem willing to just agree to that.

[hollodero]

(03-04-2023, 08:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It’s not great, but all in all we are still a pretty outstanding place.

Sure, but not because of the two-party system. In spite of it, maybe.

(03-04-2023, 08:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The people who hate each other are the loud mouths. Most people just go about their day and think very little about it. Maybe that’s not good, but for the most part we just keep trucking along despite the horrid group of people in DC.  In the end that actually don’t seem to accomplish much and I’m fine with that.

Well, that sounds nice. The friendly American going about his day and leaving politics to the radicals and idiots. But actually, this is a very sad state of affairs, where the best strategy for the reasonable person seems to be just staying away from any relevant political topic and thinking about gingerbread instead. I read that as idolizing the uninformed voter as a role model for getting along just fine. If that's the state a society is in, than democracy is not in a good state.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-05-2023, 08:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure, but not because of the two-party system. In spite of it, maybe.



Well, that sounds nice. The friendly American going about his day and leaving politics to the radicals and idiots. But actually, this is a very sad state of affairs, where the best strategy for the reasonable person seems to be just staying away from any relevant political topic and thinking about gingerbread instead. I read that as idolizing the uninformed voter as a role model for getting along just fine. If that's the state a society is in, than democracy is not in a good state.

I understand it doesn’t sound great, but we run on our own pretty well, and a lot of us would prefer to be left alone. You can be an informed voter and not live it day to day. I’m done with Republicans for now and I’ve never had any time for Democrats (nationally speaking) so I don’t have much to discuss as your OP suggests. We are supposed to have a very limited government. That means we shouldn’t be constantly talking about what they are doing. Cutting back the worldwide military presence would be a good start. If someone starts something with us or an ally then fine, otherwise let people deal with their own crap.

[hollodero]

(03-05-2023, 09:23 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I understand it doesn’t sound great, but we run on our own pretty well, and a lot of us would prefer to be left alone.  You can be an informed voter and not live it day to day. I’m done with Republicans for now and I’ve never had any time for Democrats (nationally speaking) so I don’t have much to discuss as your OP suggests.   We are supposed to have a very limited government. That means we shouldn’t be constantly talking about what they are doing. Cutting  back the worldwide military presence would be a good start. If someone starts something with us or an ally then fine, otherwise let people deal with their own crap.

So first things first, as an European I forbid you to cut back on the military. You make us safe. And not only that, we still can make fun of you and your absurd military spending, call you names, feel all complacent and superior for we thought our pacifism through and have left ourselves defenseless. You have to be there for us, what if someone does not respect our peaceful selfs? Just think of all the jobs in the industrial complex, the one industry that will not be outsourced to China. And all the young men that can get healthcare through the military. No, please keep arming yourself... except when you vote for Trump again, then stop immediately, he scares us.

As for the other point, yeah it doesn't sound great and it's not really getting better through expanding on it. Limited government or not, political decision are to be made, concern society as a whole, are impactful and important and in a healthy democracy need a public engaging in a nunaced debate. Your bipolar political system is detrimental to that. Not great at all.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-05-2023, 09:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: So first things first, as an European I forbid you to cut back on the military. You make us safe. And not only that, we still can make fun of you and your absurd military spending, call you names, feel all complacent and superior for we thought our pacifism through and have left ourselves defenseless. You have to be there for us, what if someone does not respect our peaceful selfs? Just think of all the jobs in the industrial complex, the one industry that will not be outsourced to China. And all the young men that can get healthcare through the military. No, please keep arming yourself... except when you vote for Trump again, then stop immediately, he scares us.

As for the other point, yeah it doesn't sound great and it's not really getting better through expanding on it. Limited government or not, political decision are to be made, concern society as a whole, are impactful and important and in a healthy democracy need a public engaging in a nunaced debate. Your bipolar political system is detrimental to that. Not great at all.

I’m still for helping our allies if they are under direct threat.

No I guess it doesn’t sound great. But we are diffent from Europe. We are raised to think differently. We look at the accomplishment over the past 200+ years and think we did pretty well. The gearing up for WWII was just astonishing. Put someone in the moon 50 years ago with calculators and a trig book. Hopeless optimism that we always seem to find a way I guess. I never feel a concern about the US and its ability to move forward. Arrogance? If I’m wrong then it was a pretty impressive run if you ask me, and something else will evolve. We still have the fattest poor people in the world so it can’t be all that bad.

[hollodero]

(03-05-2023, 09:51 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’m still for helping our allies if they are under direct threat.

Thanks. I wonder why at times, but cool!

PS I wonder if I should tell you that technically, Austria and the US are not allies. We're neutral!

(03-05-2023, 09:51 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No I guess it doesn’t sound great. But we are diffent from Europe. We are raised to think differently. We look at the accomplishment over the past 200+ years and think we did pretty well. The gearing up for WWII was just astonishing. Put someone in the moon 50 years ago with calculators and a trig book.  Hopeless optimism that we always seem to find a way I guess. I never feel a concern about the US and its ability to move forward. Arrogance?  If I’m wrong  then it was a pretty impressive run if you ask me, and something else will evolve. We still have the fattest poor people in the world so it can’t be all that bad.

I never meant to speak against American greatness per se, and I get that mentality might play a huge part in that, besides other advantages. (I did say that it probably has nothing to do with the particular brilliance of two-party system.) I also think ongoing success is never guaranteed over time. Not to attack all your argument's sake, but my problem with it is that it can be used quite arbitrary. As in because that is true, there can be nothing wrong with anything.
Eg. capitol storms or coup attempts or attacks on politicians and an increasingly brutalized debate - and all the other symptoms for a not so healthy democracy - are not worrisome because the US landed on the moon before the Soviet Union could. I know your point is more sophisticated than that, but just to explain what my philosophical issue with it is.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-05-2023, 10:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: Thanks. I wonder why at times, but cool!



I never meant to speak against American greatness per se, and I get that mentality might play a huge part in that, besides other advantages. (I did say that it probably has nothing to do with the particular brilliance of two-party system.) I also think ongoing success is never guaranteed over time. Not to attack all your argument's sake, but my problem with it is that it can be used quite arbitrary. As in because that is true, there can be nothing wrong with anything.
Eg. capitol storms or coup attempts or attacks on politicians and an increasingly brutalized debate - and all the other symptoms for a not so healthy democracy - are not worrisome because the US landed on the moon before the Soviet Union could. I know your point is more sophisticated than that, but just to explain what my philosophical issue with it is.

My point is not more sophisticated than that. We, or many of us, can be rather sophomoric when it comes to the US. Yes we had a coup attempt that had no chance of accomplishing anything. Assholes can be assholes, but on January 20th Biden became president and it was never in doubt. I don’t mean to minimalize it, but if they went in and killed twenty senators, Biden would still have become President because there isn’t another option. We survived the American Civil War. We’ve had four presidents assassinated. If someone were to lay odds on the country surviving after having the Civil War and then weeks after it’s over Lincoln being assassinated they would not be very good.

I just bring up the moon landing and what we did to produce the weapons and everything else during WWII to show our perspective. We don’t think anything is too big to overcome. I imagine someday we will be wrong, but I don’t think this is it.

I’m not great at expressing myself philosophically. I go off on tangents and can bring up things that seem irrelevant, but make sense in my head because I have the whole picture of what I’m thinking but don’t always lay it all out.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-05-2023, 09:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: No, please keep arming yourself... except when you vote for Trump again, then stop immediately, he scares us.

You know I will never ever EVER vote for Trump, but I will always find it funny in a "huh, how the hell did that happen" sorta way that our unhinged orange President was likely our least war-initiating President since probably Jimmy Carter (1977-1981).

[Belsnickel]

(03-05-2023, 08:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: I get the value of the argument. I wonder though whether your implicit proposal would change anything for the better. First, for practitcal reasons. If you employ 435 representatives times 7, so around 3.000 representatives, things would not get done any easier. Even if halving that number, you'd have to persuade around a thousand people for any proposal, which also means a thousand backroom deals, a thousand goodies, and amendments and whatnot. Imho completely unpracticable, and in the end probably only solved through strictening party discipline. And then what about the guy who speaks for his constituents. His voice isn't as loud anymore. 
But mostly, it does not tackle what I deem the main issue. It's still two molochs, you'd just add more people into them. People that by design don't represent their constituents, but neglect up to 50% of their constituent's will, those that picked the only other option available. And more often than not, a person that was picked for the sole quality of not being a QAnon believing, Trump-loving election denier, or most often just because the color fits the district and it doesn't matter who runs. How would more of those people turn anything for the better.  

Now if things were different, like 15% of people with a certain philosophy actually being represented by 15% of congresspeople, instead of having all of their votes counted for someone else, then I can see the point in arguing over that particular aspect. If you were a bit more like Canada or Germany in that regard. But as things stand, I feel bringing up the low number of congresspeople in the end is a distraction from the overarching issue.



That is certainly true. Doesn't change that the two-party system needs fixing. And to me it seems it's the biggest issue of them all. And most other issues might not be fixable as long as the two-party system stands as is.

I find it hard to understand at times how Americans don't quite seem willing to just agree to that.

I think you misunderstand me a little. I am simply pointing out that our woes go well beyond just the two-party system. I really want to change that and I think our party structure is in dire need of reform. There are just a lot of other compounding factors that we have to figure out where to start. For example, increasing the number of representatives dilutes the authority any one member of Congress holds. With that in mind, and political parties being all about gaining and holding onto power in this country rather than any sort of actual platform, could increasing the numbers in Congress then cause a party upheaval? Would it make it easier or more difficult to pass election reforms like RCV or other tools that could make third parties more viable? More Representatives also means a higher number of third-party and independent members of Congress because that is where we would see them emerge, especially in smaller districts. Do they come together and form coalitions that end up becoming closer in design to the parties we see in other WEIRD nations?

I study political science and work at a university, believe me, these are conversations I have had way too many times around here.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-05-2023, 02:19 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I was 6 years old for the 1988 election and I recall our class cutting out which candidate we wanted to win and taping him to our desk.  I was a 6 year old with Michael Dukakis affixed to the front of his crappy wooden desk.

Fast forward to the 1992 election when I was in 5th grade and I was one of the few oddball kids with Ross flippin' Perot on his desk.  I had made the 3rd party switch.  Go me.

I was a sophomore in 1992, and our history teacher divided the class into thirds for each candidate and staged a debate. I was put on Perot's team, and have been a third party advocate ever since. A lot of what Ross said came to fruition. If only people could see past the cultism of the duopoly of corruption.