The American Two Party system

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-05-2023, 11:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

At one point in the 92 election, after the debate, Perot was actually leading the three way race. The next election cycle featured a much more stringent set of rules to be able to debate on the national stage enacted by the Debate Commission. Gee, I wonder why?