Would #45 been elected if the US did not have the 2 party system?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Mar 7, 2018.

  1. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #1
    Would #45 been elected if the US did not have the 2 party system?

    I think not.
    I also think the Electoral College will trend with the popular vote as it will be for the most popular candidate, not the most popular party (regardless of candidate).
     
  2. ViperDesign macrumors 6502a

    ViperDesign

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Location:
    Utah
    #2
    It's time to end party affiliated voting. It's time people actually know what each individual stands for and talks about. Sick of hearing people who just check R or D on their ballot. It means you probably haven't a clue who's running and what they stand for
     
  3. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #3
    No, generally speaking 3rd party candidates tend to siphon off from the republican side so Democrats would likely walk away with every national election (which I'm sure 90% of this forum would have no issue with).
     
  4. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #4
    I'm not a fan of Yellow Dog Democrats either. But people can vote how ever they want; it's THEIR vote. If we decide how people can or cannot vote, then may as well take away the vote completely.
     
  5. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #5
    I think he would have. But it would also depend on the makeup of that 3rd party. If it was the middle 50% of the country, then he might have as he was able to connect with those voters. The far right didn't trust him and the far left hated him. But the middle is where his support is.

    The biggest loser in 3rd party would be the Dems who are racing left as fast as they can. But doing so way before the country is ready. So even a makeup that was Dems on the left, new party in the middle and GOP on the right, the middle party will be able to pull form both ends a bit, but the ends will pull very little from the middle.

    It is time the middle 50% stood up to the nonsense of the fringes.
     
  6. darksithpro, Mar 7, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018

    darksithpro macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #6

    Instead, ask yourself this question: Would Trump have won if the main stream media didn't give him all that free air time? Trump is an entertainer, the MSM loved to air him, and still does, because he generates a lot of shock revenue for them. Some of these media giants said privately they'd loose somewhere around 40% of their revenue if trump suddenly disappeared. PRSI is a prime example of that, the majority of posts here are about Trump. To me, you asking this question leads me to think you and others are still in shock and disbelief that someone like him is POTUS, as it's just so outrageous and unthinkable. But see, it's as easy as pie when you think about it. The Democratic party saw Trump as a clown, a joke, so they told everyone to cover him as much as possible to make a fool out of the GOP candidate and the party. It however backfired, because they ran one of the worst, most flawed candidate of all time. Not only that, Trump was going around off script getting everyone riled up, while Hillary never went off script and people where falling asleep. Also her policy and ideas was just continue whatever Obama was doing, while Trump said he would make policy that conservatives favored.
     
  7. ViperDesign macrumors 6502a

    ViperDesign

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Location:
    Utah
    #7
    I'm not trying to not allow people to not vote their way. But we shouldn't allow you to just check a box that says all one party. Make them have to check each box

    You should be voting for someone for his platform not just because he has a R or D next to his name
     
  8. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #8
    My state did that recently. The sky didn't fall.
     
  9. s2mikey macrumors 68020

    s2mikey

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Location:
    Upstate, NY
    #9
    Yep - doesnt seem like it will ever happen though. People are soooooo entrenched in the red vs blue thing. I happen to like some ideas from both sides but thats just me.
     
  10. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #10
    How often does a Congress person vote against their party? The party has to at least factor in because you know despite what they say in a campaign when they get to Washington they will vote the party line.
     
  11. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #11
    And this is the biggest problem in DC. I would rather have a Congress Critter vote against my wishes on occasion vs. with the party on every single vote. They are elected to represent a district or state, not a party.
     
  12. Septembersrain Contributor

    Septembersrain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    #12
    Honestly I think the two party system is now holding us back. It's like going to a restaurant where there are a few choices but only the most popular two items will always be in stock. The others you will likely not be able to get. That model wouldn't work as inevitably those two items would both be unfavorable with a huge chunk of their customers. It also may not draw in new ones either.

    We had a large percentage who didn't vote at all. That says to me that we are making people feel that their vote is useless. That's a sad reality.
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    I’d be curious for a source
    --- Post Merged, Mar 7, 2018 ---
    Then you need proportional representation.
     
  14. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #14
    Do we really need a source for every conservative post? I don't think he's trying to pass it off as fact.
     
  15. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    That’s cool :).
     
  16. DanielDD macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Location:
    Portugal
    #16
    I would say presidentialism itself has a much greater influence in electing Donald Trump. This article is one of the most influential works in Political Science. This kind of regime incentivizes personalism and thus, the chances of charismatic leaders to get to power.
     
  17. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #17
    You do bring up a good point, about being a money generator for the mass media.
    Still #45 had a very long media presence (he adores the spotlight), so there is not much more he would gain getting his name out.

    My though is the Party system is just that, for the Party, regardless of who is the chief candidate, be it #45 or HRC.


    As for me, I have completely accepted #45 is Pres. I accepted it about 3 hours after the polls closed.
    Yes I was somewhat surprised but not in disbelief he won on the hopes of Coal, Steel, and other BC workers who felt disenfranchised.
    I even held hope as Prez he would be more growth driven (infrastructure programs, large employment industries) and well researched, planned policies.

    Instead he decided to break Obama's record for EO's.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 7, 2018 ---
    It was published in 1990.
    I would really like to see what Juan Linz will say about 2016.
     
  18. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #18
    Quite possible, yes. He won the Republican primary, which did not feature party loyalty voting.
     
  19. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #19
    We're pretty used to having two parties (albeit each with some special-purposed caucuses) in the House, and two parties in the Senate. Maybe it means everything ends up in the center when it comes to negotiating language for our laws, but maybe that's not all bad either.

    We've had a taste of what more than two parties could mean though, in the past few years, when the House Freedom Caucus has at times acted more like a separate party from the GOP. The same sort of thing could occur on the Democrats' side in future if the progressives don't feel they're getting anywhere even after winning more seats in the House.

    However, US voters don't seem particularly fond of the spinoff from a caucus getting strong enough to "wag the dog"... since that behavior tends to lead to threats of government shutdowns when the caucus doesn't get its way.

    That aside, the way it is at present, with two parties vying for a majority and then having to find 60 of 100 votes for certain measures to pass in the Senate, we don't have the anxiety some European countries have when there are enough splinter parties so that a viable government is still a question mark after elections and it's a struggle even trying to stand up a coalition government.

    Our real problem is not holding Congress accountable for how they accede to the lobbies who fund their campaigns in exchange for expectation of being able to help draft our laws. That's a problem completely outside the manner in which we count votes or present options on our ballots.
     
  20. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #20
    It’s probably true, the biggest third party is the Libertarians who are basically Republicans who like Pot. And while you also have the Green Party that pulls from the left you have the Constitution Party who want a theocracy that pulls similar vote totals to the Green Party.
     
  21. RootBeerMan macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #21
    Obviously you are not even remotely familiar with actual Libertarians and the LP. They are not Republicans in any sense of the word. They have just as much overlap with Democrats as with the GOP, on some issues, but they are far removed from both. I'd suggest a look at their platform if you want to see their stances. I've been a member since 1980 and can say you're just dead wrong. I agree with democrats on some issues and with some of the issues that republicans pay lip service to (they have very few rock hard principles any more).

    https://www.lp.org/platform/
     
  22. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #22
    I’m quite familiar with them, and voted for their candidates in the first election after I turned 18. After that I grew up and realized that they are mostly nuts and just a lite version of the GOP.
     
  23. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #23
    Look at Italy's recent election. 2-party system has problems, but hardly the cause for disasters (such as Trump).
     
  24. DanielDD macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Location:
    Portugal
    #24
    That’s the thing with the classics. If you read it, you will find it strangely descriptive of current events.
     
  25. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502a

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #25
    Guess it depends on how you you plan to get rid of the 2 party system.

    Every 3rd party under the current system would either be shortlived or would destroy one of the other parties, leaving you again with a 2 party system.

    If you go for a 2 round election system like in France you would have seen a dozen or more candidates in the 1st round and a good chance that neither Trump nor Hillary would have made it to the 2nd.
     

Share This Page

32 March 7, 2018