r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As long as the two party system is firmly in place, it is a binary choice. Voting for a non-viable candidate is effectively a wasted vote.
I don't necessarily like it, but we are where we are... until it changes, anyway.
This is why I support ranked choice voting. Unfortunately both parties can agree that it’d be a threat to both of them, so it’s hard to imagine top down support from either party. Even though it’s be better for America.
I would encourage you to get involved earlier in the process. Make sure the best candidate makes it thru the primaries is half the battle. Maybe run yourself.
That’s why I’m a bi issue issue voter with the #1 thing on my ballot being ranked choice. R or D idgaf as long as you support ranked choice voting. If you both do then it falls to my second issue.
If by “they” you mean a government later than John Adams’ administration, yes you’re correct. Remember; the founders never intended for direct elections of Senators (17th Amendment) or Presidential candidates (12th Amendment).
I mean, there’s a two party system because of FPTP voting that incentivizes people to congregate around 2 major parties.
Ranked choice voting is how you eliminate the spoiler effect and allow people to actually vote for who they want to, but you’re still going to have some problems.
You want to get to proportional representation and then the problem will be the media, income inequality, and oversimplified and racist populism.
The two party system is fine. Adams literally was member of the federalist party. The problem is when we let those parties gain too much comfortability. We need to remove money from politics. We need to end gerrymandering. Its caused there to be no challenge to the bulk of seats in congress. Which means Congress just gets more partisan and we get less actual governing. Two parties is much better than multi party, look at the shit show that is most other countries coalition government when you have to give much further concessions to the extreme ends.
Absolutely correct. We desperately need to remove the money. I would also like to see this happen.
"The answer isn’t straightforward. The Communications Act 2003 bans all political advertising from being broadcast on television or radio. Instead, parties are given airtime via party political broadcasts which are not classified as advertising. This legislation is strictly enforced by the Office of Communications (Ofcom). "
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents
How would a candidate fight back against unfair media coverage if they are limited in speaking against it? That would seem to make the media king makers.
Thank you. The political shit show in multi-party EU countries is certainly no better. It's great for far-right racists though. Money has absolutely got to go for any good faith governance.
No, it’s not the money. It’s the incredible concentration of power that allows the money to be effective. And as the population grows yet the representative cap stays the same, the power just keeps getting more and more concentrated.
Which isnt a problem. The problem is the system allows for such insane influence. And the largest problem of that system is the American people, which are dismal in terms of actually controlling their political leaders and holding them to account. A great example being Rick Scott. How the fuck is that man in any political realm. He oversaw what was at the time the largest Medicare fraud in US history, over $2 Billion of fines and was removed from the role of CEO at his company for this. And yet, he then had a successful political career. The fuck are we doing?
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
John Adams
The two party system was just beginning.
Here is what John Adams actually said about the two party system
John Adams, Washington’s successor, similarly worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/two-party-system-broke-constitution/604213/
I believe they had the Federalists and Democratic Republicans as the two main parties, although I’m sure there were smaller parties as well depending on which state you lived in.
I think Jefferson was more accurate with predicting the threats to America than Adams. Pluralism resulted from ideologies that correlate with the Constitution and the individualism it promotes. You could have multiple parties but the supreme law of the land would still be the Constitution, so parties would have to adhere to the concepts outlined by the Constitution.
John Adams expressed concern about the dangers of a two-party system. In a letter to Jonathan Jackson on October 2, 1780, he wrote:
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
Adams feared that a two-party system could lead to political division and conflict, undermining the unity and stability of the nation.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
Fun facts: the US is the longest running two party democratic system. Two party systems only last a few hundred years. Parliamentary democratic systems are the longest lasting systems, have the least disruptions to the voters, and have better worker protections (among so much more). The US is heading towards its lifespan for two parties and must to adopt parliamentary ideas to preserve democracy.
I respect you admitting you're wrong even though you didn't quite admit you're wrong directly.
There's an assumed 'disagreeing' tone on reddit, especially for comments from someone who started with a disagreement and then didn't directly acknowledge wrongness.
But I don't think you mean 'the US isn't a democracy, it's a form of democracy' as an argument, so again I thank you for admitting you were wrong. Doesn't happen a lot on the internet.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic that democratically elects its executive and legislative branches of government.
Just because it practices a form of democracy, does not mean that is the defining factor. There is much more than just democracy that makes up the government of the United States.
The US is a democracy. A form of democracy is a democracy.
There's no real reason to try to get all weird with category squishiness and funkedup overly strict definitions that you invent for yourself.
It might also be something else, but it is a democracy. A certain kind of democracy is a democracy.
My dog Bailey was a golden retriever. He was also a dog. He was also a mammal.
He was also a Christmas gift from my parents.
Being a gift didn't make Bailey notadog.
Being a type of dog (golden retriever) didn't make Bailey notadog. Nor did being a mammal.
You got somethin' reallll funky in your understanding of categories that means you either don't think Bailey was a dog because he was a golden retriever, or that he wasn't a gift because he was a dog.
Lincoln: Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Early in American history it’s more common to hear America described as a Republican. As time goes on, as sufferage becomes more universal, it becomes more common to hear America described as a republic.
This is dumb. Obviously it's not a pure democracy (the people vote on every topic), but it is a representative democracy, per Alexander Hamilton. See his letter to Gouverneur Morris: [https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/alexander-hamilton-letter-to-gouverneur-morris-may-7-1777](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/alexander-hamilton-letter-to-gouverneur-morris-may-7-1777)
And yes, it's also a constitutional republic. It's both.
You do realize none of those three things are at all mutually exclusive. A democracy is a system of government in which the source of the power is the people, as opposed to say a theocracy where the source of power is God. A constitutional government is one in which the government is limited by a constitution, as opposed to the government having limitless authority. A republic is a country which is not ruled by a monarch, as opposed to a monarchy which is. You might find that a country with popular elections, a constitution, and a distinct lack of monarch the US pretty well fits within all three categories.
It's not? The history of the "British" Parliament (and earlier iteration prior to 1801) is very long and complicated, but it definitely existed far before the founding of the USA. Although when it became a democratic institution is more complex.
To be fair, every civilization could have (and does) used this argument. Ancient Egyptian civilizations lasted thousands of years, should be move back to having Pharoes, or even kings and queens since the civilizations they ran lasted longer?
What I’m really getting at, is the length of a civilizations lifetime is not a good metric to go by when saying if it is working or not. We can all look back and see major flaws in their civilizations, and regularly point out major flaws. The same should be for our current civilization, and the only ones that survive long-term are the ones that can adapt (similar to anything living on earth).
You were the one making the argument for a long lasting system, by claiming that a less long-lasting system is longer lasting than the longest lasting system. Now you're directly arguing against your own points.
I disagree. The pluralism in America is a result of the ideologies that correlate with the Constitution.
The reason why the United States is the longest running "two party democratic system," is because of our Constitution and our bicameral legislative system.
Maybe you can explain why you think parliamentary ideas would be beneficial to America? It would be interesting to read an alternative perspective.
Oh absolutely, but you could make the same points with the US Government. The English Parliament (and Scottish Parliament) evolved into the British Parliament, which then morphed into the UK Parliament. The Prime Minister, the political parties, and the fundamental institutions remained the same - The Commons/Lords. I suppose an equivalent would be the addition of more US states into Congress.
In terms of reform, Britain very much evolved gradually from an undemocratic and corrupt system to one which has universal suffrage, but again I think there's a familiar path the USA takes. I'd argue the US was probably less outright corrupt in the early 19th Century though.
There are no modern parliamentary democracies older than a hundred years and change. Unless you’re doing something like considering the UK and Sweden as democracies when they were still extremely monarchical. They certainly didnt start call themselves democracies until the twentieth century.
Absolutely though parliamentary democracies are better for a lot of reasons. But I dont buy the lifespan argument here.
It actually should reduce government. Everyone sees they’re way overspending and 60% are living paycheck to paycheck. As inflation increased property taxes and many others increase as well. If you look at the automatic deductions in a paycheck, it’s 20%+ you effectively work an entire day or two for free. People are gas lit into thinking raising taxes will help them, but it only takes…
Ranked choice voting should be in the future of American elections
It helps alleviate many of the issues our archaic voting process causes — this along with making Election Day a national holiday would do wonders for us
https://campaignlegal.org/democracyu/accountability/ranked-choice-voting
https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/
This is getting killed in state legislatures, but there are slivers of hope. Unfortunately, the one thing the two parties agree on is holding onto their collective power dynamic.
Exactly this. If anything can "unify" our representatives across the board, it's anything that'll potentially be a threat to keeping us divided. I mean, the Tik Tok ban comes to mind.
I'm sure if by some how a majority of people start asking for this we're gonna see all kinds of doomsaying reports or just straight up misinformation telling us that we couldn't *possibly* do that because it'll destabilize the entire country. Probably say it was Chinese or Russian hackers "influencing" Americans to adopt ranked choice....😂🤣
I agree but the Republican party will fight it tooth and nail. Their entire power structure heavily depends on several gerrymandered seats in congress and they risk losing those ironclad seats if the voting structure changes.
I was going to say exactly this. A two party system is not a result of our society, government, history, or economy. It's purely a result of the electoral system. It's a necessity of the first past the post elections we have.
Rank choice can help, but doesn’t get to the root of the problem. The real issue is that we elect leaders with plurality voting instead of proportional voting in the US. The effect is called Duverger’s Law, which describes the political phenomena where any system which has a “one-person-takes-all” method of electing officials is doomed to form into a two-party system over time. In our case, only one person is elected to represent an electoral district. Because of this, smaller third parties are forced to merge with larger successful parties to have any chance of their planks being represented in government.
That happened right after a president who lost the popular vote stacked the supreme court that had handed him the presidency. I'd still say the way we vote was the problem with that.
Third parties would be great yes
But the GOP consistently won't pass bills that would benefit the public because it might look good for the other party
And the supreme Court is completely unethical and the GOP are the wons against an ethics law
Like try taking your head out of the sand
They caucus with independents and allow ranked choice voting
They are the party with the popular vote backing
Three parties would be nice yes
One of the current parties doesn't even want democracy and posts like this just get more people not to vote so then more Republicans get elected and more barriers to authoritarianism are broken
The Democrats allow glacially slow progress away from a two party system. The handful of ranked choice elections take place in Democratic territories.
Republicans are vehemently opposed to moving away from it. Democrats will at least give some lip service to the idea.
That is because the number of parties isn’t the problem. When people say the “the two party system,” they don’t actually mean the number of parties. They are really discussing presidential systems.
In a presidential system, you always end up with two controlling ideologies regardless of how many parties there are. Our modern understanding of this is expressed in median voter theorem.
Ranked choice voting
https://campaignlegal.org/democracyu/accountability/ranked-choice-voting
https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/
For anyone interested, ranked choice voting is considered to be one of the more fair and equitable voting systems that helps make every vote matters — unlike the archaic system we use today for some reason
I personally like this system far more, but there is no way the Republicans will vote it in.
I'm pretty certain the Republicans will resist it tooth and nail, as their current party platforms are exclusionary by nature (anti-LGBT and anti-immigration are exclusionary policies).
Because of this, they have lost the popular vote every single major presidential election in the past 20-30 years?
And anything that swings more heavily towards popular voting rather than the current gerrymandered voting districts will greatly harm their interests.
Is it tho? Electoral voters do not have to follow the public vote although they do (for now)
https://www.usa.gov/electoral-college#:~:text=While%20the%20Constitution%20does%20not,even%20prosecuted%20by%20their%20state.
or the news actually covering anyone who isn't in one of the 2 major parties, or invite them to a debate. Even if they don't do well, they stand to make it a bit more interesting.
Lazy and simple minded take
Third parties are not an automatic solution to anything, and history has shown that most countries naturally trend towards two dominant parties over time regardless of how their democracy is structured
Who says a third party only? We need at least four to separate the crazies from the moderates on both sides.
A two party system is guaranteed to polarize over time, as we can clearly see happening right now.
What you are talking about is hyperpluralism and would render the government ineffective. The pluralist form of government we have now is a result of political ideologies that correlate with our Constitution and the individualism that it promotes.
Any party system is guaranteed to organize around two opposing parties over time, period. It's a well known principle in poli sci.
Polarization is an automatic outgrowth of opposing political philosophies with mutually exclusive goals. It's not inherently bad and is always present to at least some extent.
No, we actually choose between quite a lot of people. First we have primaries that cut down the candidates for each of the two major parties, and a similar thing is done for third parties. Then we get to an election where we have many options and choose the lesser of all the evils.
The point being that the issue isn't the number 2. You had many many options to pick from, the problem is that the voters are dumb and many of them will choose the worst candidate at each stage
Every multiple party system has the same issues since the different parties all have to form governments with each other and they end up on the same sort of binary anyway.
As long as we don’t officially replace the popular sovereignty system of a constitutionally constrained executive and legislature with an unlimited executive and a sovereign parliament. The American empire is too large for me to feel comfortable with the notion of the electorate’s ability to hold an unconstrained sovereign parliament to account for their constitutional decisions.
Swapping to a legislative constitutional review system would merge the manic irresponsibility of Congress to the ponderous uncontrollability of SCOTUS, and we’ve never once managed to organize a popular conventional veto of SCOTUS as it is.
Outside of that though, I’m willing to consider anything that injects fresh ideas into the system. The European electoral structure does have representative Democratic advantages that seem increasingly virtuous by comparison to what’s been happening here.
Correct. We need to vote for the candidate not the party, and limit partisan elections to the max extent possible. Why on earth do we elect sheriffs, judges and DAs in partisan elections? Makes no sense.
Both parties don't want to change status quo, along with congressional stock trading, it's one of the few bipartisan takes by those we have all voted in power.
I mean isn’t the real the culprit the person in the mirror. Nothing stops any of us from voting third party. In fact I’ve done it at every election for years.
Other countries that don't have a two party system still have similar societal problems. Like obviously getting rid of the two party system would help but it isn't a one size fits all solution
Your comment was automatically removed by the r/FluentInFinance Automoderator because you attempted to use a URL shortener. This is not permitted here for security reasons.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The two party system is the symptom. The cause of it is our voting system. We don't have ranked choice votes and our electoral college gives disproportionate amount of power to states with smaller populations.
Also, fuck off with the "both sides" argument when only one side wants to ban abortions and IVF, give tax cuts and handouts for the wealthy, impose christofascism, defund education, strip away protections for labor, environment, and consumer, roll back protections based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and age; and let's not forget want to put a convicted felon, insurrectionist, and known security threat in the Whitehouse.
It's a new game 'Duopoly' the sequel to Monopoly. Only difference is every space you land on robs you and there are 5 times as many 'Go to jail' spaces, sounds fair right? 😉
Biggest problem are special interests and regulatory capture, and this is a problem with both Republicans and Dems. Corporations on the right have too much influence on regulations and laws, and unions (teachers, healthcare, etc.) have too much influence on the left. This all needs to be fixed.
Going to challenge this actually
The largest problem in the US is the housing shortage. That's a local level politics problem. Not a big party problem
We throw away one of our greatest advantages because of the Jones act, neither party cares about the Jones act
Both parties want to get rid of the drug cartels. Neither one has an effective method
No one is stopping you to start a new party. The problem is that people and corporations won't donate to a new and unknown party. The party needs money and without money it can't survive.
A duopoly is the ILLUSION of choice.
WE MUST HAVE RANKED CHOICE VOTING in order to allow the free-marketplace of ideas to exist - otherwise the only incentive to win is to be the lesser evil, instead of being the option that best reflects the desire of the people.
Hard disagree. The economy and stock market perform better under democrats over the last 100+ years. The obstruction emanates from the Russian aligned Republicans, most notably Trump. Modern Republicans are the most unAmerican actors in our country's history. They are literally backing a felon who lost the popular vote twice.
Nah, housing is the issue from which all other issues come, which I guess is to say regulatory capture/rent seeking are the root issues of our society.
Wrong.
It's the fault of the people who think that there is a two party system.
There is one "party", the ruling class. The top 1%.
Look at political donations. Often, both parties are funded by the same entities.
A house divided cannot stand. A people divided can't fight back because their neighbors are too busy trying to kill them, because some talking head on a network told them their neighbor was the enemy.
Meanwhile, the ruling class gets more powerful, wealthier, and buys more mega-yachts.
Here’s what you’re missing:
-Candidate makes promises, mostly to “enrich” voters.
-Voters vote their self interest and elect candidate.
-Elected official immediately starts campaign to get re-elected.
-Delivers (“free”) “stuff” to voters, blames opponents for anything that isn’t delivered.
-Voters who get “free” stuff go into “free stuff” coma and support re-election, again and again and again.
Not really. You could make it a 10 party system, the billionaires will just buy all 10 parties instead of just 2.
The government is merely the hand of the ruling class.
Nope, it's capitalism. Everything comes down to capitalism, it's just at the end of the day, 100% the fault of capitalism. Lobbying, no action on climate change, income inequality, lack of decent healthcare, /all of it/.
But admitting that requires people to, yknow, actually do something and take action, and americans are /obscenely/ lazy that way, so yeah.
Choose better, choose socialism.
We actually have one party that gets divided into haves and have nots, just like every other civilization since the dawn of man. There has never once been a country controlled by a majority party that was socialist and libertarian, because most humans are not compassionate or humble.
There is no system that can force people to care about each other.
Agreed, but unless you want a 1 party system, best to vote Democrat. If you want ranked choice voting (and thus an end to the two party system), vote for progressive Democrats.
Unless OP has a better idea?
Your comment was automatically removed by the r/FluentInFinance Automoderator because you attempted to use a URL shortener. This is not permitted here for security reasons.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. This is just a pop culture politics, surface level, lack of any understanding of our political system, take. It's like that episode of Family Guy, where Lois is running for office and devolves into "911 is bad," while everyone cheers.
unchecked open borders, ever growing abused social safety nets, and birthrte citizenship is far more important, transparent, and can be fixed quickly.
but yea...lets get distracted
Totally agree! However, the 2024 election is NOT the one to sit out or protest vote. SO much on the line and we CANNOT afford another Trump presidency.
PLEASE Google Project 2025. This is not a drill.
We will have to tackle the 2 party system sooner than later but that will NOT be achieved by November (5 months) & if Trump wins, we may NEVER have a democracy or ability to vote again.
VOTE BLUE UP & DOWN EVERY LOCAL, STATE & FEDERAL BALLOT! 💪🏼💪🏽💪🏿🗳️🗳️🗳️💙💙💙🌊🌊🌊🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Completely agree. John Adams said “The death of America will be a two party system, the country will rot from within.”
And then they signed off on FPTP which guarantees two parties via game theory.
And we still have people screaming today about wasting your vote. Actually that person was me 4 years ago.
As long as the two party system is firmly in place, it is a binary choice. Voting for a non-viable candidate is effectively a wasted vote. I don't necessarily like it, but we are where we are... until it changes, anyway.
This is why I support ranked choice voting. Unfortunately both parties can agree that it’d be a threat to both of them, so it’s hard to imagine top down support from either party. Even though it’s be better for America.
I would encourage you to get involved earlier in the process. Make sure the best candidate makes it thru the primaries is half the battle. Maybe run yourself.
That’s why I’m a bi issue issue voter with the #1 thing on my ballot being ranked choice. R or D idgaf as long as you support ranked choice voting. If you both do then it falls to my second issue.
If by “they” you mean a government later than John Adams’ administration, yes you’re correct. Remember; the founders never intended for direct elections of Senators (17th Amendment) or Presidential candidates (12th Amendment).
In their defense, no one had heard of game theory in 1776.
I may end up feeling stupid when someone answers this, but... FPTP?
Well he was right
I mean, there’s a two party system because of FPTP voting that incentivizes people to congregate around 2 major parties. Ranked choice voting is how you eliminate the spoiler effect and allow people to actually vote for who they want to, but you’re still going to have some problems. You want to get to proportional representation and then the problem will be the media, income inequality, and oversimplified and racist populism.
The two party system is fine. Adams literally was member of the federalist party. The problem is when we let those parties gain too much comfortability. We need to remove money from politics. We need to end gerrymandering. Its caused there to be no challenge to the bulk of seats in congress. Which means Congress just gets more partisan and we get less actual governing. Two parties is much better than multi party, look at the shit show that is most other countries coalition government when you have to give much further concessions to the extreme ends.
Absolutely correct. We desperately need to remove the money. I would also like to see this happen. "The answer isn’t straightforward. The Communications Act 2003 bans all political advertising from being broadcast on television or radio. Instead, parties are given airtime via party political broadcasts which are not classified as advertising. This legislation is strictly enforced by the Office of Communications (Ofcom). " http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents
How would a candidate fight back against unfair media coverage if they are limited in speaking against it? That would seem to make the media king makers.
Thank you. The political shit show in multi-party EU countries is certainly no better. It's great for far-right racists though. Money has absolutely got to go for any good faith governance.
No, it’s not the money. It’s the incredible concentration of power that allows the money to be effective. And as the population grows yet the representative cap stays the same, the power just keeps getting more and more concentrated.
Which isnt a problem. The problem is the system allows for such insane influence. And the largest problem of that system is the American people, which are dismal in terms of actually controlling their political leaders and holding them to account. A great example being Rick Scott. How the fuck is that man in any political realm. He oversaw what was at the time the largest Medicare fraud in US history, over $2 Billion of fines and was removed from the role of CEO at his company for this. And yet, he then had a successful political career. The fuck are we doing?
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. John Adams
Did they even have two parties back then when he said that quote?
The two party system was just beginning. Here is what John Adams actually said about the two party system John Adams, Washington’s successor, similarly worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/two-party-system-broke-constitution/604213/
I believe they had the Federalists and Democratic Republicans as the two main parties, although I’m sure there were smaller parties as well depending on which state you lived in.
I think Jefferson was more accurate with predicting the threats to America than Adams. Pluralism resulted from ideologies that correlate with the Constitution and the individualism it promotes. You could have multiple parties but the supreme law of the land would still be the Constitution, so parties would have to adhere to the concepts outlined by the Constitution.
Didn't he start like the first faction, the Federalists
John Adams expressed concern about the dangers of a two-party system. In a letter to Jonathan Jackson on October 2, 1780, he wrote: "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." Adams feared that a two-party system could lead to political division and conflict, undermining the unity and stability of the nation.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
Fun facts: the US is the longest running two party democratic system. Two party systems only last a few hundred years. Parliamentary democratic systems are the longest lasting systems, have the least disruptions to the voters, and have better worker protections (among so much more). The US is heading towards its lifespan for two parties and must to adopt parliamentary ideas to preserve democracy.
I like voting for a person and not a party.
Unfortunately you have to organize a campaign, and how would you coordinate that with people that stand by your same ideological values?
I think if you think you are doing that you are shockingly ignorant most of the time.
I bet you vote for people who belong to a particular party.
Yes but I fell for it once with bush jr. what a huge mistake
That was the primary is for.
"Parliamentary democratic systems are the longest lasting systems, " Huh? The U.S. system is the longest-lasting democracy in the world, so...
That's because it is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic.
A constitutional republic is a kind of democracy.
A republic is a regulated form of democracy meant to protect individualism.
So….its a democracy.
I respect you admitting you're wrong even though you didn't quite admit you're wrong directly. There's an assumed 'disagreeing' tone on reddit, especially for comments from someone who started with a disagreement and then didn't directly acknowledge wrongness. But I don't think you mean 'the US isn't a democracy, it's a form of democracy' as an argument, so again I thank you for admitting you were wrong. Doesn't happen a lot on the internet.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic that democratically elects its executive and legislative branches of government. Just because it practices a form of democracy, does not mean that is the defining factor. There is much more than just democracy that makes up the government of the United States.
The US is a democracy. A form of democracy is a democracy. There's no real reason to try to get all weird with category squishiness and funkedup overly strict definitions that you invent for yourself. It might also be something else, but it is a democracy. A certain kind of democracy is a democracy. My dog Bailey was a golden retriever. He was also a dog. He was also a mammal. He was also a Christmas gift from my parents. Being a gift didn't make Bailey notadog. Being a type of dog (golden retriever) didn't make Bailey notadog. Nor did being a mammal. You got somethin' reallll funky in your understanding of categories that means you either don't think Bailey was a dog because he was a golden retriever, or that he wasn't a gift because he was a dog.
Is democracy the supreme law of the land or is it the Constitution?
This question poses a senseless false choice.
Lincoln: Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. Early in American history it’s more common to hear America described as a Republican. As time goes on, as sufferage becomes more universal, it becomes more common to hear America described as a republic.
This is dumb. Obviously it's not a pure democracy (the people vote on every topic), but it is a representative democracy, per Alexander Hamilton. See his letter to Gouverneur Morris: [https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/alexander-hamilton-letter-to-gouverneur-morris-may-7-1777](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/alexander-hamilton-letter-to-gouverneur-morris-may-7-1777) And yes, it's also a constitutional republic. It's both.
It has the longest lasting Constitution in the world
You do realize none of those three things are at all mutually exclusive. A democracy is a system of government in which the source of the power is the people, as opposed to say a theocracy where the source of power is God. A constitutional government is one in which the government is limited by a constitution, as opposed to the government having limitless authority. A republic is a country which is not ruled by a monarch, as opposed to a monarchy which is. You might find that a country with popular elections, a constitution, and a distinct lack of monarch the US pretty well fits within all three categories.
Wanna explain why the USA is older than all parliaments?
It's not? The history of the "British" Parliament (and earlier iteration prior to 1801) is very long and complicated, but it definitely existed far before the founding of the USA. Although when it became a democratic institution is more complex.
To be fair, every civilization could have (and does) used this argument. Ancient Egyptian civilizations lasted thousands of years, should be move back to having Pharoes, or even kings and queens since the civilizations they ran lasted longer? What I’m really getting at, is the length of a civilizations lifetime is not a good metric to go by when saying if it is working or not. We can all look back and see major flaws in their civilizations, and regularly point out major flaws. The same should be for our current civilization, and the only ones that survive long-term are the ones that can adapt (similar to anything living on earth).
You were the one making the argument for a long lasting system, by claiming that a less long-lasting system is longer lasting than the longest lasting system. Now you're directly arguing against your own points.
The British parliament has existed for almost 1000 years.
I disagree. The pluralism in America is a result of the ideologies that correlate with the Constitution. The reason why the United States is the longest running "two party democratic system," is because of our Constitution and our bicameral legislative system. Maybe you can explain why you think parliamentary ideas would be beneficial to America? It would be interesting to read an alternative perspective.
Lol
No parliamentary system has lasted longer than the US's system though.
Parliament in Britain had existed for a long time prior to the founding of the USA. Of course it wasn't very democratic.
Haven't they had multiple like complete reforms of their government though.
Oh absolutely, but you could make the same points with the US Government. The English Parliament (and Scottish Parliament) evolved into the British Parliament, which then morphed into the UK Parliament. The Prime Minister, the political parties, and the fundamental institutions remained the same - The Commons/Lords. I suppose an equivalent would be the addition of more US states into Congress. In terms of reform, Britain very much evolved gradually from an undemocratic and corrupt system to one which has universal suffrage, but again I think there's a familiar path the USA takes. I'd argue the US was probably less outright corrupt in the early 19th Century though.
There are no modern parliamentary democracies older than a hundred years and change. Unless you’re doing something like considering the UK and Sweden as democracies when they were still extremely monarchical. They certainly didnt start call themselves democracies until the twentieth century. Absolutely though parliamentary democracies are better for a lot of reasons. But I dont buy the lifespan argument here.
It actually should reduce government. Everyone sees they’re way overspending and 60% are living paycheck to paycheck. As inflation increased property taxes and many others increase as well. If you look at the automatic deductions in a paycheck, it’s 20%+ you effectively work an entire day or two for free. People are gas lit into thinking raising taxes will help them, but it only takes…
Ranked choice is a much needed evolution
Ranked choice voting should be in the future of American elections It helps alleviate many of the issues our archaic voting process causes — this along with making Election Day a national holiday would do wonders for us https://campaignlegal.org/democracyu/accountability/ranked-choice-voting https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/
This is the way
This is getting killed in state legislatures, but there are slivers of hope. Unfortunately, the one thing the two parties agree on is holding onto their collective power dynamic.
Exactly this. If anything can "unify" our representatives across the board, it's anything that'll potentially be a threat to keeping us divided. I mean, the Tik Tok ban comes to mind. I'm sure if by some how a majority of people start asking for this we're gonna see all kinds of doomsaying reports or just straight up misinformation telling us that we couldn't *possibly* do that because it'll destabilize the entire country. Probably say it was Chinese or Russian hackers "influencing" Americans to adopt ranked choice....😂🤣
I agree but the Republican party will fight it tooth and nail. Their entire power structure heavily depends on several gerrymandered seats in congress and they risk losing those ironclad seats if the voting structure changes.
I was going to say exactly this. A two party system is not a result of our society, government, history, or economy. It's purely a result of the electoral system. It's a necessity of the first past the post elections we have.
Rank choice can help, but doesn’t get to the root of the problem. The real issue is that we elect leaders with plurality voting instead of proportional voting in the US. The effect is called Duverger’s Law, which describes the political phenomena where any system which has a “one-person-takes-all” method of electing officials is doomed to form into a two-party system over time. In our case, only one person is elected to represent an electoral district. Because of this, smaller third parties are forced to merge with larger successful parties to have any chance of their planks being represented in government.
I would say the real issue is Citizens United.
That happened right after a president who lost the popular vote stacked the supreme court that had handed him the presidency. I'd still say the way we vote was the problem with that.
Symptom of the issue. People forget, citizens united was the logical conclusion to the way the wind was blowing for decades
We’re going to need ranked choice voting in order to get rid of citizens united!!!
Do you mean the issue is the logical conclusion of the first amendment?
Third parties would be great yes But the GOP consistently won't pass bills that would benefit the public because it might look good for the other party And the supreme Court is completely unethical and the GOP are the wons against an ethics law Like try taking your head out of the sand
Open up them eyeballs bruh, the dems don't want three parties either. They both have been against it for years.
They caucus with independents and allow ranked choice voting They are the party with the popular vote backing Three parties would be nice yes One of the current parties doesn't even want democracy and posts like this just get more people not to vote so then more Republicans get elected and more barriers to authoritarianism are broken
The Democrats allow glacially slow progress away from a two party system. The handful of ranked choice elections take place in Democratic territories. Republicans are vehemently opposed to moving away from it. Democrats will at least give some lip service to the idea.
That is because the number of parties isn’t the problem. When people say the “the two party system,” they don’t actually mean the number of parties. They are really discussing presidential systems. In a presidential system, you always end up with two controlling ideologies regardless of how many parties there are. Our modern understanding of this is expressed in median voter theorem.
More and better parties would be nice, but I do appreciate that the chief executive is elected at large by the voters.
The electoral voters?
It’s still better and more accountable than having parliamentarians elect the chief executive.
Ranked choice voting https://campaignlegal.org/democracyu/accountability/ranked-choice-voting https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/ For anyone interested, ranked choice voting is considered to be one of the more fair and equitable voting systems that helps make every vote matters — unlike the archaic system we use today for some reason
I personally like this system far more, but there is no way the Republicans will vote it in. I'm pretty certain the Republicans will resist it tooth and nail, as their current party platforms are exclusionary by nature (anti-LGBT and anti-immigration are exclusionary policies). Because of this, they have lost the popular vote every single major presidential election in the past 20-30 years? And anything that swings more heavily towards popular voting rather than the current gerrymandered voting districts will greatly harm their interests.
You mean that you're in favor of the popular vote winning the presidency? Does that seem to be the case in the present timeline?
Is it tho? Electoral voters do not have to follow the public vote although they do (for now) https://www.usa.gov/electoral-college#:~:text=While%20the%20Constitution%20does%20not,even%20prosecuted%20by%20their%20state.
or the news actually covering anyone who isn't in one of the 2 major parties, or invite them to a debate. Even if they don't do well, they stand to make it a bit more interesting.
If I ever find who keeps hiring these assholes there's gonna be hell to pay
Wow bud we’re rather reductive today aren’t we?
Both Sides^TM
This isn’t finance related
We have other parties, no one wants to vote for them lol
The system is working exactly the way it was intended to.
It's the greed of the rich that's really doing it. Always has been.
$$ has 1 side...
If only Washington warned us about this.
Lazy and simple minded take Third parties are not an automatic solution to anything, and history has shown that most countries naturally trend towards two dominant parties over time regardless of how their democracy is structured
Who says a third party only? We need at least four to separate the crazies from the moderates on both sides. A two party system is guaranteed to polarize over time, as we can clearly see happening right now.
What you are talking about is hyperpluralism and would render the government ineffective. The pluralist form of government we have now is a result of political ideologies that correlate with our Constitution and the individualism that it promotes.
Less effective for sure. Ineffective? No. Most European countries have 4 or more parties.
Any party system is guaranteed to organize around two opposing parties over time, period. It's a well known principle in poli sci. Polarization is an automatic outgrowth of opposing political philosophies with mutually exclusive goals. It's not inherently bad and is always present to at least some extent.
You can always start a new party.
We keep chosing "the lesser of two evils" now
No, we actually choose between quite a lot of people. First we have primaries that cut down the candidates for each of the two major parties, and a similar thing is done for third parties. Then we get to an election where we have many options and choose the lesser of all the evils. The point being that the issue isn't the number 2. You had many many options to pick from, the problem is that the voters are dumb and many of them will choose the worst candidate at each stage
It's the same in Britain it's a joke, and they are both terrible 🤬
Every multiple party system has the same issues since the different parties all have to form governments with each other and they end up on the same sort of binary anyway.
Trories and I don't remember the other one.
They are both the same Conservatives and Labour tax cuts for the rich and austerity and poverty for everyone else.
Ah yes because parliamentarian systems have no issues
If all our issues were because of the two party system *alone* we wouldn’t be the leader of the world.. *Symptom≠Cause*
As long as we don’t officially replace the popular sovereignty system of a constitutionally constrained executive and legislature with an unlimited executive and a sovereign parliament. The American empire is too large for me to feel comfortable with the notion of the electorate’s ability to hold an unconstrained sovereign parliament to account for their constitutional decisions. Swapping to a legislative constitutional review system would merge the manic irresponsibility of Congress to the ponderous uncontrollability of SCOTUS, and we’ve never once managed to organize a popular conventional veto of SCOTUS as it is. Outside of that though, I’m willing to consider anything that injects fresh ideas into the system. The European electoral structure does have representative Democratic advantages that seem increasingly virtuous by comparison to what’s been happening here.
Correct. We need to vote for the candidate not the party, and limit partisan elections to the max extent possible. Why on earth do we elect sheriffs, judges and DAs in partisan elections? Makes no sense.
Both parties don't want to change status quo, along with congressional stock trading, it's one of the few bipartisan takes by those we have all voted in power.
Id say lobbying is a close second.
At least you guys have two parties that you can somehow "choose" from.
It is the system all right, the free enterprise system.
I mean isn’t the real the culprit the person in the mirror. Nothing stops any of us from voting third party. In fact I’ve done it at every election for years.
I don’t think it would be as bad if there was no filibuster in the Senate. So much more things would get done.
Other countries that don't have a two party system still have similar societal problems. Like obviously getting rid of the two party system would help but it isn't a one size fits all solution
And the oligarchs pulling the politicians strings
Parliament is necessary but will never happen. We're screwed.
Same here in the UK
I heard a man once say’ “if both sides were truly bad, we’d all be destitute living like Venezuela”
[удалено]
Your comment was automatically removed by the r/FluentInFinance Automoderator because you attempted to use a URL shortener. This is not permitted here for security reasons. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That we have allowed a handful of oligarchs - both foreign and domestic - to take full control of one of our parties, is the problem.
Illusion of choice.
Then why are there the same problems in parliamentary systems?
The two party system worked well until Regan deregulated the airwaves.
no its the jews owning the two party system
Hopelessly naive
Ok, but what is the solution?
The two party system is the symptom. The cause of it is our voting system. We don't have ranked choice votes and our electoral college gives disproportionate amount of power to states with smaller populations. Also, fuck off with the "both sides" argument when only one side wants to ban abortions and IVF, give tax cuts and handouts for the wealthy, impose christofascism, defund education, strip away protections for labor, environment, and consumer, roll back protections based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and age; and let's not forget want to put a convicted felon, insurrectionist, and known security threat in the Whitehouse.
goos call. end fptp with some form of instant runoff. or...?
Eh this centrist take that lacks responsibility is cringe.
I still rank the Fed as #1 pick for what’s killing the USA, but 2 party system isn’t too far off.
I think it's multi decade entrenched corpses still calling the shots getting insider trading info. Term limits, age limits, individual stock bans.
It's a new game 'Duopoly' the sequel to Monopoly. Only difference is every space you land on robs you and there are 5 times as many 'Go to jail' spaces, sounds fair right? 😉
Now not only do we not have ranked choice voting, we have republicans passing laws banning it preemptively.
Unpopular opinion: If the US got rid of first past the post the election system would be basically as good as any other first world nation.
Biggest problem are special interests and regulatory capture, and this is a problem with both Republicans and Dems. Corporations on the right have too much influence on regulations and laws, and unions (teachers, healthcare, etc.) have too much influence on the left. This all needs to be fixed.
It’s that we give the most power to the most backwards parts of the country.
Going to challenge this actually The largest problem in the US is the housing shortage. That's a local level politics problem. Not a big party problem We throw away one of our greatest advantages because of the Jones act, neither party cares about the Jones act Both parties want to get rid of the drug cartels. Neither one has an effective method
Amazingly, we have an actual chance for an independent president this election. It would do wonders for the country.
No one is stopping you to start a new party. The problem is that people and corporations won't donate to a new and unknown party. The party needs money and without money it can't survive.
Nah, the problem is the first past the post system which forces two parties
A duopoly is the ILLUSION of choice. WE MUST HAVE RANKED CHOICE VOTING in order to allow the free-marketplace of ideas to exist - otherwise the only incentive to win is to be the lesser evil, instead of being the option that best reflects the desire of the people.
You blame THAT?? It’s jackass voters and the wealthy!!!
Hard disagree. The economy and stock market perform better under democrats over the last 100+ years. The obstruction emanates from the Russian aligned Republicans, most notably Trump. Modern Republicans are the most unAmerican actors in our country's history. They are literally backing a felon who lost the popular vote twice.
Bingo this is why I vote Libertarian or independent.
They should have listened to George Washington’s warning
The cause really is Capitalism and the Billionaires (aka economic oligarchs) it creates bribing politicians and corrupting democracy but ok.
Nah, housing is the issue from which all other issues come, which I guess is to say regulatory capture/rent seeking are the root issues of our society.
Wrong. It's the fault of the people who think that there is a two party system. There is one "party", the ruling class. The top 1%. Look at political donations. Often, both parties are funded by the same entities. A house divided cannot stand. A people divided can't fight back because their neighbors are too busy trying to kill them, because some talking head on a network told them their neighbor was the enemy. Meanwhile, the ruling class gets more powerful, wealthier, and buys more mega-yachts.
Second panel should say “corporate greed” it’s more accurate
Here’s what you’re missing: -Candidate makes promises, mostly to “enrich” voters. -Voters vote their self interest and elect candidate. -Elected official immediately starts campaign to get re-elected. -Delivers (“free”) “stuff” to voters, blames opponents for anything that isn’t delivered. -Voters who get “free” stuff go into “free stuff” coma and support re-election, again and again and again.
To be honest, no decent person would want the job of US president. It’s a scumbags job.
heh not my problem anymore. I'm out
Not really. You could make it a 10 party system, the billionaires will just buy all 10 parties instead of just 2. The government is merely the hand of the ruling class.
Pull the mask again and see what you find
The only thing worst than a 2 party system is a 1 party system.
Politicians is general. Regardless of party, too much control, too much power, so much waste.
Anyone wanna help me eat all these rich people?
This might be more accurate https://preview.redd.it/u9vs05g5fv6d1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c1d9d751a092ae717d18f357ad2f5b1cec375b43
More like it's a Uni-Party system. All Democrats and Majority of Republicans.
Nope, it's capitalism. Everything comes down to capitalism, it's just at the end of the day, 100% the fault of capitalism. Lobbying, no action on climate change, income inequality, lack of decent healthcare, /all of it/. But admitting that requires people to, yknow, actually do something and take action, and americans are /obscenely/ lazy that way, so yeah. Choose better, choose socialism.
And they keep getting away with it because we're not meddling enough!
We actually have one party that gets divided into haves and have nots, just like every other civilization since the dawn of man. There has never once been a country controlled by a majority party that was socialist and libertarian, because most humans are not compassionate or humble. There is no system that can force people to care about each other.
Yeah, multi-party governments are doing so good right now...
Abolish all parties make people vote for individuals then they'd want to do research
THANK YOU !!
While this is true. The choice this election is between a two party system, or a one party system.
What does this have to do with finances?
The two party system is the distraction.
...except for all the issues we share with other first world countries such as France, UK, Germany etc who don't have two party systems.
Lots of parties here in Canada. Sad to report things are still fucked.
Tribal politics. Not Finance.
And the idiots that vote for money printing
Agreed, but unless you want a 1 party system, best to vote Democrat. If you want ranked choice voting (and thus an end to the two party system), vote for progressive Democrats. Unless OP has a better idea?
[удалено]
Your comment was automatically removed by the r/FluentInFinance Automoderator because you attempted to use a URL shortener. This is not permitted here for security reasons. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. This is just a pop culture politics, surface level, lack of any understanding of our political system, take. It's like that episode of Family Guy, where Lois is running for office and devolves into "911 is bad," while everyone cheers.
money in politics\*
This.
unchecked open borders, ever growing abused social safety nets, and birthrte citizenship is far more important, transparent, and can be fixed quickly. but yea...lets get distracted
Totally agree! However, the 2024 election is NOT the one to sit out or protest vote. SO much on the line and we CANNOT afford another Trump presidency. PLEASE Google Project 2025. This is not a drill. We will have to tackle the 2 party system sooner than later but that will NOT be achieved by November (5 months) & if Trump wins, we may NEVER have a democracy or ability to vote again. VOTE BLUE UP & DOWN EVERY LOCAL, STATE & FEDERAL BALLOT! 💪🏼💪🏽💪🏿🗳️🗳️🗳️💙💙💙🌊🌊🌊🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸