2016 Presidential Elections Vote-All

Just a follow-up to the discussion about Coates / Reparations / and his supposed "attack on Sanders" that was viewed by many as evidence that he was in Clinton's pocket via the Atlantic. He's recently stated in an interview that he plans on voting for Sanders.

I think this superdelegate stuff is being blown out of proportion. This article has some good reasons as to why, the crux is that the super delegates can change their minds at any point, and that the superdelegates will change their minds to match the popular vote.

The damage to the Democratic party in this election if the Republican candidate can honestly say that "even the Democrats didn't want her as President, only the DC establishment did!" would just be astronomical.

Also, the importance of the superdelegates is overblown by the two primaries we just had. When you get to a bigger state like Texas, California, or New York the handful of superdelegates each state gets are going to be dwarfed by the elected delegates.

I also don't have any fundamental problem with superdelegates. As far as I'm concerned parties can do what they want. If that means 15 white men go into a dark room and pick their candidate, whatever. It's still the people who actually get to vote in the real election. Of course, that would hold a lot more water if there were lots of parties to choose from, so you had more opportunities to choose parties based on how they chose candidates, but considering that both parties have a decently democratic primary process as opposed to my hyperbolic example, the choices they have made don't bother me.

Especially when we have an example in this election cycle in Trump of exactly the sort of candidate that the superdelegate system is designed for. "Lets have a mostly popular vote, with enough of a handle on it to stop anyone super crazy from messing it all up."

IF the superdelegates actually lose the nomination for Bernie, sure, that would (IMO) be an example of party establishment choosing a worse candidate for selfish reasons. However the presence of Trump IMO invalidates the argument that "our current situation proves that anti-democratic measures like superdelegates are completely obsolete and indefensible".

This is not a defense of the electoral college. I don't like this sort of thing in a public election. It's just the private party elections that I don't care about.

Edit:

ClockworkHouse wrote:

We're running our democracy on an alpha code electoral system, but we're afraid to update it in case it breaks something.

Just want to clarify that I ABSOLUTELY agree with this. Just not in the specific case of party primaries.

I think it's hard not to have a two-party system where the head of state and government is elected as opposed to selected from within a Parliamentary system. We wouldn't need just a third party, we'd need a way for that third party to give their votes to another candidate--no one will be happy with a third party if that party spoils the chances of their candidate and the candidate they wanted least of all gets in.

Of course, I don't remember much joy over how the Lib Dems in the UK influenced things, so I'm not sure how great third parties are in any system.

I mean, when people say they want more choices, you don't really get what you choose. You get whatever most other people choose. I'm never sure how a third party would improve things unless it's a third party that soaks off the centrist elements of the party you disagree with more. In which case you didn't really want a third party, you wanted a new way for your party to win.

I guess if you're truly a centrist you want a third party, but are people really all that centrist when it comes to these issues? Are there really any issues where the will of a lot of voters are falling through the cracks? Are there that many people who would vote in, say, a fiscally conservative/socially liberal candidate? Would anyone actually be *happy* with such a candidate? Especially when more and more, fiscal questions are considered moral question?

Or is it more that people look at a third party like a unicorn, that will package up what they personally want in an attractive wrapper that will finally get everyone else to see things the way they do? I don't know. Maybe some long-term goal where that third party candidate can keep giving their votes to the established parties, allowing that outsider third party to grow? Then again, just having the obstructionist party in a two party system stop being obstructionist can fix that problem. Or what if that third party had just as crappy a nominating process as the two we have now?

It's always been hard for me to figure out how a third party is supposed to make things better given how much the parties have changed though the years. It's an especially difficult thing for me to figure out in a year when the establishment of both parties are under such challenge. I know things are bad right now, I just have a tough time figuring out how a third party makes things better. (minor edits)

tl;dr (because that's a wall'o'text right there): what will having a third party accomplish that fixing one or both of the existing parties won't? Or why would a third party automatically be better than the existing two?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Stele wrote:

Trump doesn't do debates with women, right?

I mean that's why he bailed on the last FOX News one.

I actually think he was entirely justified for blowing off the debate.

I did enjoy the "he can't even face A GIRL" reaction on the left though.

Trump was a real pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis about it.

I guess if you're truly a centrist you want a third party, but are people really all that centrist when it comes to these issues?

Have they not seen the current Democratic party? Bernie may be something of a liberal outlier, but I continue to point to the ACA for pretty consistent proof that our system which was already pretty much center to right not left to right has shifted even more in that right direction. The ACA cribbed recommendations for a health care reform initiative from the Heritage Foundation, and it's still too liberal because Obama. A free-market health system with personal accountability rather than government assistance is somehow "too liberal".

Given that Bernie's not terribly likely to win the nomination, I'd say the Centrists are doing just fine unless they're just not paying enough attention to realize that they are being represented by and large by the Democratic party while the right is largely represented by the Republicans. As a socially and fiscally liberal person who believes in the usage of government as a tool to maintain a minimum standard of living for all with respect and dignity, I'm stuck with usually no candidate except the centrists who would at least stop friggin' Social Darwinism as a public policy initiative.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I think it's hard not to have a two-party system where the head of state and government is elected as opposed to selected from within a Parliamentary system. We wouldn't need just a third party, we'd need a way for that third party to give their votes to another candidate--no one will be happy with a third party if that party spoils the chances of their candidate and the candidate they wanted least of all gets in.

Of course, I don't remember much joy over how the Lib Dems in the UK influenced things, so I'm not sure how great third parties are in any system.

I mean, when people say they want more choices, you don't really get what you choose. You get whatever most other people choose. I'm never sure how a third party would improve things unless it's a third party that soaks off the centrist elements of the party you disagree with more. In which case you didn't really want a third party, you wanted a new way for your party to win.

I guess if you're truly a centrist you want a third party, but are people really all that centrist when it comes to these issues? Are there really any issues where the will of a lot of voters are falling through the cracks? Are there that many people who would vote in, say, a fiscally conservative/socially liberal candidate? Would anyone actually be *happy* with such a candidate? Especially when more and more, fiscal questions are considered moral question?

Or is it more that people look at a third party like a unicorn, that will package up what they personally want in an attractive wrapper that will finally get everyone else to see things the way they do? I don't know. Maybe some long-term goal where that third party candidate can keep giving their votes to the established parties, allowing that outsider third party to grow? Then again, just having the obstructionist party in a two party system stop being obstructionist can fix that problem. Or what if that third party had just as crappy a nominating process as the two we have now?

It's always been hard for me to figure out how a third party is supposed to make things better given how much the parties have changed though the years. It's an especially difficult thing for me to figure out in a year when the establishment of both parties are under such challenge. I know things are bad right now, I just have a tough time figuring out how a third party makes things better. (minor edits)

tl;dr (because that's a wall'o'text right there): what will having a third party accomplish that fixing one or both of the existing parties won't? Or why would a third party automatically be better than the existing two?

Because of the issues you mention, we're locked into the two-party system unless we go to multiple-representative districts or something like the single transferable vote. Then we could skip the primaries altogether and just submit rank-ordered votes. CGPGrey has some nice YouTube videos illustrating how this concept works. That whetted my whistle and I proceeded to fall into a voting theory Wikihole.

Demosthenes wrote:
I guess if you're truly a centrist you want a third party, but are people really all that centrist when it comes to these issues?

Have they not seen the current Democratic party?

Right? That's what I mean--how is a non-unicorn third party supposed to make things better?

As a socially and fiscally liberal person who believes in the usage of government as a tool to maintain a minimum standard of living for all with respect and dignity, I'm stuck with usually no candidate except the centrists who would at least stop friggin' Social Darwinism as a public policy initiative.

Yup. Of course, you're still stuck with no candidate if your third party isn't capable of winning the election. And if your third party is capable of winning the election, why can't they fit into the two existing parties? Like I said, looking at how much the parties have changed over the years and how the establishment is under challenge this year, how does a third party make a difference vs. fixing the two existing ones? Does a third party motivate those two parties to get better? I'm not sure it does.

And of course, by 'fixing' I mean something like if Bernie loses because of superdelegates. If he loses because he's just not popular enough, then, well, that's called democracy, and I don't see how a third party changes the equation.

peanut3141 wrote:

Because of the issues you mention, we're locked into the two-party system unless we go to multiple-representative districts or something like the single transferable vote. Then we could skip the primaries altogether and just submit rank-ordered votes. CGPGrey has some nice YouTube videos illustrating how this concept works. That whetted my whistle and I proceeded to fall into a voting theory Wikihole.

Sure, that's why I said we'd need a way for that third party to give their votes to another candidate--no one will be happy with a third party if that party spoils the chances of their candidate and the candidate they wanted least of all gets in.

Yonder wrote:

This is not a defense of the electoral college. I don't like this sort of thing in a public election. It's just the private party elections that I don't care about.

2 states split their electoral votes. Other states could follow. Then there wouldn't be this blue/red/purple thing, and candidates might actually have to campaign in other states except for the 10 or so swing ones.

Demosthenes wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I meant the "how can you stand up to a world leader when a girl scares you" reaction is implicitly sexist.

You saw very different things than I did. Most of what I saw were "how are you going to stand up to world leader when you can't deal with journalist moderator for an hour and a half?"

https://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/...

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I meant the "how can you stand up to a world leader when a girl scares you" reaction is implicitly sexist.

You saw very different things than I did. Most of what I saw were "how are you going to stand up to world leader when you can't deal with journalist moderator for an hour and a half?"

https://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/...

Apparently I missed that by ignoring Cher. Well, I wouldn't say I missed it... Certainly dislike it though. Stupid as hell, especially given Trump's actions thus far.

Kamakazi010654 wrote:

The polling over the next week should be really interesting with both Christie and Fiorina out.

I know, right? Possibly dozens of newly undecided voters are going to be up for grabs

peanut3141 wrote:

CGPGrey has some nice YouTube videos illustrating how this concept works. That whetted my whistle and I proceeded to fall into a voting theory Wikihole.

Great video.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Cher Tweet

Hey now - I don't go around claiming Ted Nugent's commentary is representative of conservatives...

It also ignores the context of that tweet coming from a woman, her using girl as a diminutive insult actually just speaks more to how even as a celebrity, she was still programmed through her upbringing and education to view her own gender as less powerful... which is just sad.

Stele wrote:
Yonder wrote:

This is not a defense of the electoral college. I don't like this sort of thing in a public election. It's just the private party elections that I don't care about.

2 states split their electoral votes. Other states could follow. Then there wouldn't be this blue/red/purple thing, and candidates might actually have to campaign in other states except for the 10 or so swing ones.

I was referring more to the concept of "voting for delegates that then vote on your behalf, just in case the mob wants someone the not-mob doesn't want". I'm totally ok with the leadership of a political party wanting to keep some sort of rudder for what they want the party to be, I'm not ok with the idea of any group of people having that same rudder over the actual country.

But yes, "winner take all" is dumb and I wish more states would get rid of it.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I think it's hard not to have a two-party system where the head of state and government is elected as opposed to selected from within a Parliamentary system.

3+ parties would be most useful in the legislative branches. They would be less useful for the executive branch, because at the end of the day you only have one person there (at least ever since we got rid of the vice presidential runner up). There are a couple ways that could work. The simplest being that you end up with two coalition-ish parties. For example for the Presidential debate everyone would vote Republican or Democrat, even though they may vote very differently for everyone else.

What I think is more likely is that many different parties would end up backing the same candidate. For example, say Sanders ran as for the candidate of the Republican, Democratic, Socialist, Justice, and Green Parties. He loses the Republican and Green Party primaries, but wins all the others. He could show up on the ballot with an icon for those other three parties next to his name.

However it ended up working out it would be complicated on the Executive Branch side, but I think the immense gains we have to make with a more representative Legislature would make it worth it.

Yonder wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I think it's hard not to have a two-party system where the head of state and government is elected as opposed to selected from within a Parliamentary system.

3+ parties would be most useful in the legislative branches. They would be less useful for the executive branch, because at the end of the day you only have one person there (at least ever since we got rid of the vice presidential runner up). There are a couple ways that could work. The simplest being that you end up with two coalition-ish parties. For example for the Presidential debate everyone would vote Republican or Democrat, even though they may vote very differently for everyone else.

What I think is more likely is that many different parties would end up backing the same candidate. For example, say Sanders ran as for the candidate of the Republican, Democratic, Socialist, Justice, and Green Parties. He loses the Republican and Green Party primaries, but wins all the others. He could show up on the ballot with an icon for those other three parties next to his name.

However it ended up working out it would be complicated on the Executive Branch side, but I think the immense gains we have to make with a more representative Legislature would make it worth it.

What I'm thinking about is where's the difference between a coalition in 3+ parties, and just two parties where one has a majority? Like, let's say the Socialists and Greens win some seats. Who do they win them from? If they're just winning seats that would have gone Democratic anyway then the coalition didn't improve upon the ability to legislate. More representative? Sure. More capable of getting things done? Not really, not unless the third parties are taking seats away from the Republicans.

So where are the immense gains? Maybe the inspirational effect of a more representative government. But that seems to be it. Maybe the Justice Party is taking away seats that would have went to the Republicans, but enough seats to make a real difference? I don't think so.

It just seems like the benefit from having more than two parties is to win some elections that Democrats are losing to Republicans because left wing voters are disenchanted, and is based on the idea that enough current Democratic voters will join with those further to their left. Certainly the Greens and the Socialists aren't going to be part of a coalition with the Republicans. So again we're left with the Justice party. I don't think that no-wing quasi-libertarian electorate(?) is large enough to elect enough people to play kingmaker, unless Internet Forums become the 51st state. And like I said, I don't remember the Lib Dems in the UK ushering in a golden age, so I'm very skeptical that a third party is going to make a big difference until I actually see a plan for how this coalition gets elected and put together.

The more nuanced representation is better all by itself. Right now when each party has to be an umbrella for 48% of the country people on both sides have no mechanism for actually getting candidates that agree with them. If they are conservative on 3 issues and liberal on 2 issues they vote Republican, knowing that 40% of their views are not shared by their candidate.

The beauty of the multiple parties (not 3 parties, say, 8 parties) is that those coalitions (in the legislature, ignore the Executive branch) can be different on every issue. Maybe the Tea Party candidates vote with the Republicans for all foreign affairs, but they are writing legislation to legalize marijuana, or whatever. Democrats and Republicans both vote against campaign finance reform, but the Tea Party and Socialist party team up and get it passed.

It also does a better job at tracking with changes over time. What happens when you agree with a party 100%, and then 90%, 70%, and so on and so on. Right now this crazy Tea Party/Republican schism that could tear the party apart any year is the natural result of one of the parties in a two party system being pulled in different ways. Having a system that does not penalize to the point of invalidating a multiple party system means that no party every needs to go through the distorted fun house mirror process the Republican party is going through right now.

Edit: I want to emphasize that a multiple party system is not about ushering in a liberal utopia. It is about getting EVERYONE, liberal, conservative, laise-faire, authoritarian, whoever, better representation.

Yonder wrote:

The more nuanced representation is better all by itself. Right now when each party has to be an umbrella for 48% of the country people on both sides have no mechanism for actually getting candidates that agree with them. If they are conservative on 3 issues and liberal on 2 issues they vote Republican, knowing that 40% of their views are not shared by their candidate.

edit: still thinking this one through, but what about the other person who is liberal on three issues and conservative on two? 100% of the time some candidate represents each of them. 60% of the time it's the one they voted for, 40% of the time it's someone the other person voted for, but still adds up to 100% of the time there's a voice for them.

I realize you're giving a simple example here, but that's what I was trying to get at in the other post--how hard it is to find a situation where someone isn't basically liberal or conservative on an issue, or how there's some important issue where a third party could play kingmaker.

The beauty of the multiple parties (not 3 parties, say, 8 parties) is that those coalitions (in the legislature, ignore the Executive branch) can be different on every issue. Maybe the Tea Party candidates vote with the Republicans for all foreign affairs, but they are writing legislation to legalize marijuana, or whatever.

What's stopping Tea Party Republicans from voting that way right now?

Democrats and Republicans both vote against campaign finance reform, but the Tea Party and Socialist party team up and get it passed.

Well, then we're not just talking about going beyond two parties. We're talking about reducing the Democrats and Republicans down to where even when they're united they can't stop something from happening. That's going far beyond just ending the two party system.

It also does a better job at tracking with changes over time. What happens when you agree with a party 100%, and then 90%, 70%, and so on and so on. Right now this crazy Tea Party/Republican schism that could tear the party apart any year is the natural result of one of the parties in a two party system being pulled in different ways. Having a system that does not penalize to the point of invalidating a multiple party system means that no party every needs to go through the distorted fun house mirror process the Republican party is going through right now.

Well, no--this is the result of the Republicans selling more and more of their souls each election just to beat the Democrats. They brought being pulled in different ways on themselves. Unfortunately, the whole country has to pay the price. The irony here is that the same Tea Party you're talking about playing a role in ad-hoc coalitions went after the kind of Republicans who would work with the Democrats.

Edit: I want to emphasize that a multiple party system is not about ushering in a liberal utopia. It is about getting EVERYONE, liberal, conservative, laise-faire, authoritarian, whoever, better representation.

Sure, but here's the thing: it's great when we keep imagining what happens when the Tea Party and the Socialist party get together, but what happens when the Tea Party and the Republicans get together with a Republican President and tell the Greens and the Socialists and the Democrats to go to hell?

There are some viewpoints that nobody in either of the current parties represents. For example, reducing domestic spying, copyright reform, term limits, patent reform, limiting gerrymandering, ending our failed conquest of the middle East, etc.

There are a few people in each party who discuss these things, but they're fringe positions and not inherently liberal or conservative values (at last as represented by Democrats and Republicans). In a world with more than two parties, these kinds of issues which aren't core to any party identity now have more chance to be represented as parties are forced to form coalitions.

gore wrote:

There are some viewpoints that nobody in either of the current parties represents. For example, reducing domestic spying, copyright reform, term limits, patent reform, limiting gerrymandering, ending our failed conquest of the middle East, etc.

There are a few people in each party who discuss these things, but they're fringe positions and not inherently liberal or conservative values (at last as represented by Democrats and Republicans). In a world with more than two parties, these kinds of issues which aren't core to any party identity now have more chance to be represented as parties are forced to form coalitions.

But what I'm asking is how that works. This party that represents any of those viewpoints you listed. Where do they get their votes from? Are there enough pockets of voters large enough and concentrated enough to turn certain districts? I don't see where these candidates are going to win. Or at least how the two-party system is the problem here.

It sounds more like the solution here is at-large representation, where you've got a diffuse group of voters spread out over a geographical area who can elect someone based on those kinds of single issues. Like a Vermont-sized group of voters but they're spread out over an entire state like New York, so you can start getting Sanders-type candidates elected all over the country.

Of course, a third party isn't the solution there. A third party would just be the consequence of the solution of at-large representation.

Demosthenes wrote:

It also ignores the context of that tweet coming from a woman, her using girl as a diminutive insult actually just speaks more to how even as a celebrity, she was still programmed through her upbringing and education to view her own gender as less powerful... which is just sad.

If I misinterpreted the intent of that post as a sick Trump burn instead of a nuanced statement on gender, my apologies.

I believe in a representative multi-party government the ideal situation is to not have districts. You vote for a party, if they get 4% of the votes they get 4% of the seats. It is less about choosing an individual and more about choosing an ideology. So there may only be tiny little pockets of socialists out there spread all over the country, but their voice is heard. However, that is such a fundamental change in how the government would work that it is pretty much inconceivable.

Also, to answer a previous question, the reason that we are stuck in a two party system and the Tea Partiers won't fully break from the Republican Party and the Feeling-The-Berns won't fully break from the Democratic party is because every person who does break away might as well just swap to voting for the other side.

cheeze, do you really believe that a two-party system is the ideal system?

I think that works if there is only one issue*. (*not the real world) Even if there were only a collection of black and white issues, I absolutely think there's value in multiple parties representing different permutations of those issues.

Kamakazi010654 wrote:

I believe in a representative multi-party government the ideal situation is to not have districts. You vote for a party, if they get 4% of the votes they get 4% of the seats. It is less about choosing an individual and more about choosing an ideology. So there may only be tiny little pockets of socialists out there spread all over the country, but their voice is heard. However, that is such a fundamental change in how the government would work that it is pretty much inconceivable.

Also, to answer a previous question, the reason that we are stuck in a two party system and the Tea Partiers won't fully break from the Republican Party and the Feeling-The-Berns won't fully break from the Democratic party is because every person who does break away might as well just swap to voting for the other side.

Sure, that's why I talked about at-large elections. Therefore, third parties aren't the solution, they're the (just a possible?) consequence of the solution. Lack of a third party doesn't look like the disease, it looks like a symptom of the underlying illness.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

cheeze, do you really believe that a two-party system is the ideal system?

edit: well, let's leave "ideal" systems out of this because I don't think anyone's talking about that, and stick with "better" or "good enough." What I can see is that all the solutions that go towards making a third party viable ALSO go towards making the two parties more diverse.

I mean, for years the New Deal coalition that was the Democratic Party was incredibly diverse. What broke it up was the Democrats choosing black voters over Dixiecrat voters, so you know--not all coalitions are the kind of coalitions most of us here want to see. The Republicans were a three-legged stool of the Religious Right, Defense Hawks, and Fiscal Conservatives. We've had coalitions in American political history, they just operated under one party or the other. So I think this is a more complex question than just "if we had third parties, we'd need coalitions, and (edit) some major problem would be fixed."

I think that works if there is only one issue*. (*not the real world) Even if there were only a collection of black and white issues, I absolutely think there's value in multiple parties representing different permutations of those issues.

Great, but like I asked, where do the votes for those third parties come from?

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

cheeze, do you really believe that a two-party system is the ideal system?

edit: well, let's leave "ideal" systems out of this because I don't think anyone's talking about that, and stick with "better" or "good enough." What I can see is that all the solutions that go towards making a third party viable ALSO go towards making the two parties more diverse.

I mean, for years the New Deal coalition that was the Democratic Party was incredibly diverse. What broke it up was the Democrats choosing black voters over Dixiecrat voters, so you know--not all coalitions are the kind of coalitions most of us here want to see. The Republicans were a three-legged stool of the Religious Right, Defense Hawks, and Fiscal Conservatives. We've had coalitions in American political history, they just operated under one party or the other. So I think this is a more complex question than just "if we had third parties, we'd need coalitions, and (edit) some major problem would be fixed."

I think that works if there is only one issue*. (*not the real world) Even if there were only a collection of black and white issues, I absolutely think there's value in multiple parties representing different permutations of those issues.

Great, but like I asked, where do the votes for those third parties come from?

From people that agree partially with party A and partially with party B? Sorry; I don't really understand the question. Fundamentally, coalitions should be around issues, not around parties. The question should be "are there enough elected officials that agree with X", and whether they are party A, B, or C shouldn't enter into it. I would vote for party C candidate because I want more representation on the issues that they stand for. You would vote for party A candidate because you want more representation on the issues they stand for. When the agreement Venn diagrams overlap enough for a given issue, legislation is enacted around that issue.

If that was the way things worked, I think it makes a lot of sense to have multiple parties. For 5 given issues (yes or no), let's say party status is
A - y y n n y
B - n n y y n
C - y n y n y

If my preference is, y y y y y, I can vote for party C because they align most closely with what I want. They will also have support from the other parties depending on which issue is being discussed. In a two-party system, I'm screwed - I'm never getting any of the things I want.

Cheeze, how does your analysis not work even better when there's only *one* party? Maximal diversity, maximal representation, no need for years-long campaigns or dumping huge amounts of money to both parties to fight it out. Just vote for the candidates you like and let them govern.

What could go wrong?

Robear wrote:

Cheeze, how does your analysis not work even better when there's only *one* party?

I can answer this one quickly, so I'll jump right to it: why would there be one party unless the government is outlawing other parties? See, this is what I'm getting at. We seem to be talking about the existence of third parties as if we're declaring them into (or out of) existence by fiat. I'm asking where the votes for this third party come from. So my response to why things will not work even better when there's only *one* party is the same, just the flipside: where did all the votes for that second party go?

Robear wrote:

Cheeze, how does your analysis not work even better when there's only *one* party? Maximal diversity, maximal representation, no need for years-long campaigns or dumping huge amounts of money to both parties to fight it out. Just vote for the candidates you like and let them govern.

What could go wrong? :-)

it works perfectly and you don't even need voting.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Robear wrote:

Cheeze, how does your analysis not work even better when there's only *one* party?

I can answer this one quickly, so I'll jump right to it: why would there be one party unless the government is outlawing other parties? See, this is what I'm getting at. We seem to be talking about the existence of third parties as if we're declaring them into (or out of) existence by fiat. I'm asking where the votes for this third party come from. So my response to why things will not work even better when there's only *one* party is the same, just the flipside: where did all the votes for that second party go?

I think that CGP Grey video I linked on the last page does a great job of describing where third parties go in a firat past the post system.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Are there enough pockets of voters large enough and concentrated enough to turn certain districts? I don't see where these candidates are going to win.
...
A third party would just be the consequence of the solution of at-large representation.

Oh yeah, I think that we were talking about different things without realizing it. I am not (and I assume the others aren't) talking about trying to squeeze a third party somewhere into our current system. Our current electoral system makes that basically impossible. First past the post voting has substantial historical and theoretical evidence proving that.

I am describing some of the benefits that multiple parties have, assuming that you had a system that made such a situation at all tenable.

And those other systems would all require Constitutional amendments. As stated the Executive Branch is the area least able to benefit from multiple parties, so that's pretty much out. The Senate can have partial representation, but at only two seats per "district" that still doesn't foster multiple parties. And then the House is specified as being one representative per district in the Constitution. The only way you could change that to be more friendly to third parties is if you very carefully drew the districts such that some areas were super conservative, or super liberal, or whatnot, so either a "Tea Party" or "Socialist" candidate could sneak through, or run successfully as a fringe candidate barely in the umbrella of the larger party.

Obviously that last one is sort of what we are seeing now. Districting actively trying to accomplish that could get us farther down that road, but obviously such purposeful political districting is fraught with peril and susceptible to fraud and corruption.

There are many different amendments we could make to get better representation, but some of them would be very drastic changes indeed. And I fear that when we do finally get around to another amendment the more popular options will be some bandaid on the system like Congressional term limits with no actual effect whatsoever while the nation pats itself on the back for saving Democracy.