What if America had More Political Parties? - TLDR News
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 07. 2021
- TLDR Patreon: / tldrnews
America might be the archetypal two-party system, but what if they had more parties (well more serious ones). So in this video we take a look at the parties that the country could do with, what they'd represent and most importantly who would win.
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldrnewsus
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewsus
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewsus
Discord: tldrnews.co.uk/discord/
TLDR Patreon: / tldrnews
TLDR News Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/en-GB/stores/tl...
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is a super small company, run by a few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can’t wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing us on Patreon. Thanks!
A multi-party system would be good to have in the USA and it would bring more types of topics to the government and make cross-cutting political views and help would break down polarization.
However, it can't work with the current voting system. More than two parties is mathematically unstable with first past the post voting. If you look at the UK even in areas where more people voted liberal the conservatives have control because the liberal vote is split among too many parties and only the largest share matters. In order to make a multi-party system work we need a combination of ranked choice voting and proportional representation.
A multi-party system would mean gettign rid of the current voting system. A two-party system doesn't mean that there is only two major parties, but that the system gravitates towards only two parties.
See their videos on coalitions in TLDR EU
@@sevret313 It would mean more than just getting rid of the current voting system, it would mean overhauling the entire structure of power separation. You'd effectively need to throw out the constitution and start from scratch. I'm not saying it cannot be done, but it would be a massive job and require some sort of sweeping demand from virtually everyone to redo the system currently in place.
@@UrVileWedge So basically,,, it’s impossible?
Every time I think about our First Past The Post system of election, and our current de-facto two-party system, I think about the "Devil's Postpile", and "Giant's Causeway" geological formations, and the explanation on how such perfect hexagonal forms coalesce out of chaos.
Using the term "economically liberal", to describe left wing economics is really confusing. Because the term Economic Liberalism is free-market, right wing economics.
yeah i think that naming system changed with FDR as many of his supporters started calling themselves liberals due to intense hatred for socialists and conservatives (they were blamed for the great recession) which led many classical liberals (supporters of Adam Smith's vision) began to call themselves fiscal conservatives.
There's no such thing as a left party in the USA, unfortunately. You'd get called a commie if you tried to make one
@@DandyDan03 DSA?
@@DandyDan03 Communist party of the USA?
@@DandyDan03 Greens?
I would’ve thought Labour would be headed by Bernie Sanders
Possibly. Biden is pushing some legislation that aligns with this hypothetical party, and is already a national leader on the center-left, so I guess it makes sense why Biden was chosen over Bernie (who, on paper, is just a senator)
Labour is intended to be the centre-left party, not the far-left party.
@@lenno15697 Bernie isn't "far left"
@@gr9879 far left by American standards. The Overton window is Centre-Right in America so Far-Left is anything even remotely socialistic.
I would rather have said his place would be in the greens but now that I think about it, he is also quite fit for Labor.
First-past-the-post voting and winner-take-all elections are the reason this can't happen. Let's get ranked-choice voting and/or proportional representation up in here and see how that changes things
Canada (where I live) and Britain are both extremely powerful antitheses here...
Proportional representation is the most widely used election system in the world but US has to be different.
We DON'T have the same "first pass the post" system used in the UK. Most of the time in order to win an election, the candidate must win at least 50% +1 votes. Normally if no one gets this total then the top two candidates face off in a "run-off" election that is much harder to not have a majority winner in. We are starting to see ranked choice voting at the local election level that allows for "instant run-offs" by looking at the second and third choices of voters whose first choice does not win.
@@edwardblair4096 The UK is more mixed but, in Westminster (which is the proper comparison to be made with the American contests shown here), it's unmistakably FPTP
@@VFPn96kQT just because it's most popular doesn't make it the best,
The US needs to have a multi party system, but our system is designed for only two parties so no change will ever happen.
Presidency and senate are afaik, but what about the House? Could smaller parties be elected into the House with small percentages of the vote under the current system?
@@iwersonsch5131 third parties theoretically can get into any office. It is much harder for the bigger seats, but in the house, I think it is very possible. The problem is that resources aren't spent on these seats and the smaller parties expect to grab the presidency. Even that has been close to happening though, with Ross Perot and George Wallace.
@@iwersonsch5131 yeah they could, and that would be the easiest place to do it, but the 2 parties have such a stangle hold on politics that it has never happened.
@@iwersonsch5131 I think it's also important to note that it's easier for small parties to win in smaller constituencies, where they can reach more of the electorate and are less dependent on a party machine. But the House constituencies in the US have populations ~700,000, which are essentially too large for people to win without backing of a party machine.
American parties have way more diversity WITHIN them than most parties do in other countries. So "more parties" wouldn't necessarily mean more ideas than currently exist in the US congress. I'm not sure what sort of ideas are not currently represented in the US Congress, other than really unpopular ones. The Congress already has liberals, conservatives, progressives, socialists, libertarians, moderates, Christian nationalists... the list goes on.
When comparing the fictional 5 USA parties with real European examples, I was shocked that you didn't choose Spanish ones. They have basically that same 5 main parties since 2016, and they suit them much better than UK's 4 or Netherland's 20...
Ye but this channel doesn't do much research so....
The interesting question is "How many people in the US believe that the elections were tampered with?" None of the courts wanted to hear the sworn (affidavit) witnesses nor see the evidence of voter fraud. Those cases had no "standing" they said, because they were presented too late. That was part of a secret concerted effort behind the scene. Copy/paste in a new tab to see the Time's article:
"The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election"
From the article:
"Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result. “The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation,” says Norm Eisen, a prominent lawyer and former Obama Administration official who recruited Republicans and Democrats to the board of the Voter Protection Program."
About voter IDs, copy/paste on CZcams:
"Ami Horowitz: How white liberals really view black voters"
(My comments with URLs are being shadow banned.)
Well its not just Spain. Its a common pattern in Europe. We in Germany have nearly the same and also the EU-Parlament
Agreed
@@lodewijklangeweg742 I agree 100%
As an old joke from Soviet Era tolds: Why does America have 2 parties when even one Central Communist Party of USSR is enough? And the same pattern joke from 90s in Russia: How did they managed to have only two parties when we have ten in parlament alone ?
I haven't heard these jokes before, but I get them both!
And why have multiple Presidents over the years when Putin can just be the only candidate allowed?
The interesting question is "How many people in the US believe that the elections were tampered with?" None of the courts wanted to hear the sworn (affidavit) witnesses nor see the evidence of voter fraud. Those cases had no "standing" they said, because they were presented too late. That was part of a secret concerted effort behind the scene. Copy/paste in a new tab to see the Time's article:
"The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election"
From the article:
"Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result. “The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation,” says Norm Eisen, a prominent lawyer and former Obama Administration official who recruited Republicans and Democrats to the board of the Voter Protection Program."
About voter IDs, copy/paste on CZcams:
"Ami Horowitz: How white liberals really view black voters"
(My comments with URLs are being shadow banned.)
@@lodewijklangeweg742 This isn't relevant at all to the comment, but I think I agree with you? I'm not really sure what you're saying here.
Better soviet joke from Stalin, the Best one party state is one with two parties and the illusion of choice.
Wait, wait, Bloomberg as the "reign capitalism in" leader? That...makes this hard to treat seriosuly...
Like most Americans, they go by what people say, not their actual actions..
Frankly based on these descriptions I don't think Biden in charge of the Labour party makes sense either, how could the study forget Bernie Sanders exists? Lol
Bloomberg is centre-left.
Well, I agree with it being weird but it is still a beleavable survey overall. It kind of reflects the tendencies of today but if you put the leaders' names, the vote chance would defenetly change. Trump would get a lot more votes and maybe even be the second if not first largest party, AOC would also get more votes than Blumberg I think and Biden would either be first as is or second after Trump. Mick Pence would probably be the third largest party as he is still from the right but more moderate than Trump albeit not by a lot
True.
"ACELA, Reform capitalism with sensible regulation" -- and you put Bloomberg as the proponent? Because that's like getting a fox to guard the henhouse.
I guess the 'sensible' there is subject to interpretation, and ACELA have their own interpretation of what is 'sensible'.
Yeah, at that point I struggled to take the study seriously, I would say Biden fits much more as the leader of that kind of party then Bloomberg and Sanders would bit more for the Labour leader.
@@zaleost this 100%
They meant reforming capitalism from a centre-right liberal or a centrist social-liberal perspective, not a left-wing social-democrat perspective. So one that promotes entrepreneurship and free trade but understands that market regulation is necessary to prevent monopolies. It would be a party for the well-educated professional/entrepreneurial class who holds progressive values when it comes to social issues. (The class that I suspect dominates the current democratic party).
But I agree with @Jerroser, Biden would be a better proponent for this group, or perhaps Buttigieg or something.
@@zaleost Sanders is a bit more of a democratic socialist leader though. There was no party for it, but it's what he fits perfectly in.
I would hope that in this universe they would also correct the red=right, blue=left mix-up.
Most the world uses red=left, blue=right.
“Trump is a very stable genius” - Tucker Carlson
That cracked me up 😂
@[redacted] • 90 years ago I honestly wish we had that Biden instead of this one.
@@macksea1158 Trump isn't wrong there though... when used correctly, Nationalism is a good thing
@@macksea1158 that's what?
@@macksea1158 obviously, I'm asking what specifically you see wrong with it
@@macksea1158 eh it's fine I'll go first. Basically, I like Nationalism because it places the needs of it's own people (In my case America) over all foreigners. It does this via stopping illegal immigration, preventing large transfers of money to foreign countries that do not benefit us and preserving American culture/traditions. There are other parts (such as the military and the economy as a whole) but these take more of a priority for me.
Labor party: *suggest Biden as leader*
"what, no"
Yea Biden would definitely be more of a Acela leader
I'd put Bernie as head labor
@@soopyboi4 no
@@hadi8699 why?
@@soopyboi4 some of his policies are a bit to left. However for something such as UHC or UBI there fine
Although the democratic voter base is more aligned with the hypothetical parties green and labor, the democratic establishment like Pelosi, Biden etc. fits more with the acela party
I’d suspect Pelosi and Biden would still fit in Labor but on the right of the party and would want to work with and form coalitions or build agreements with Acela which would have Democrats like Tulsi Gabbard, Bloomberg and Republicans like Collins and Kinzinger.
While Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris would probably want to more closely aligned with the Greens which would have the Squad and Bernie Sanders.
But who knows! Unless and until the US makes the move we may never know.
@@matthewlillywhite8014 Tulsi would 100% be in Greens. She's pretty left-wing.
Hard to say what Acela would be. I'd imagine Collins, Murkowski, Bloomberg, Polis types could all fit, though personally I'd hope more for a liberal party (maybe Weld as leader).
Pelosi and Biden would 100% be in Labour.
Labour = Democratic Establishment (Pelosi, Biden, etc.), Conservative = Republican Establishment (McConnell, Thune, etc.)
@@lenno15697 you’d probably see Weld, Phil Scott, Larry Hogan, Charlie Baker types all sit in Acela.
No idea about someone like Sinema or Manchin - could go either way however I somewhat suspect they could be Labor right but no idea.
Gabbard could honestly go anywhere - she has stuff that would fit in Acela and others that fit in Greens. Flip I coin a guess.
I thought Biden and Pelosi would align more with Conservatives. I think Elizabeth Warren and Ro Khanna (and Andrew Yang to a degree) would align more with Acela.
Without PR, ALL systems mathematically end up with two major partys.
Wait, do they? I know that assuming perfect information by one voter, they are always sometimes incentivised to vote tactically. But that doesn't exist in reality. No single voter has perfect information about the behaviour of every other voter prior to and election. As such, tactical voting may backfire if the voter doing it fails to accurately forecast other voters. In some voting systems, tactical voting *almost always* backfires, given reasonable conditions. No system of voting can avoid tactical voting in a deterministic mathematical model, but in probabilistic game theory, they can get pretty close. And real life is much closer to probabilistic game theory than a deterministic model, at least on a human scale.
I think Pence as the theoretical leader of the theoretical Conservative party is not the right choice. Personally I think Mitt Romney would be a better choice.
That’s what I was thinking Pence is just a little too far right for conservatives
Agreed and Bernie Sanders would be a better fit for Labour
@@ephraimduke I was screaming Bernie when he was talking about the labour party. Biden would fit better in Acela tbf
Centre right
ditto, as Romney had really positioned himself as anti-Trump conservative
A bit disappointed how you didn’t mention how the system of voting decides the structure of parties. First past the post pushes 2 parties pretty strongly because of the mentioned tactical voting. Other systems like proportional voting or stv do not. Multi party is good, not sure its doable without changing the systems
They could start it at the state level for the legislature. Some states already have legislation that allows for multi member districts, they just aren't widely used.
@@theuglykwan The politics of the US are all about money right now. If the federal parties are stuck at two parties the financing will also stay in the industry of the two parties.
Shit is crazy with political consulting and bit money. State level is better then nothing, but without wide adoption it won't cause to much structural change. It would only be a stepping stone.
You need some amandemen in your constitution.
the big two have zero incentive to break them selves up. it keeps the duopoly in power
Maine (and I think Alaska come next election) now use ranked choice voting to send the congressmen and the electoral college. Breaking the 2 party system is not 1 big fight in Washington but 50 individual fights.
The problem is getting the political culture to break away from 2 parties may take much longer.
@@acommenter STAR voting is superior
@@acommenter True that. Some rare states like Maine and Alaska have elected politicians that do not neatly fit into these systems anyways, so they would probably be the ones to switch to this system first.
i have been a mainer for part of my life. It does some things right up there due to its small community links.
But never forget that a state like maine can get away with it, because the Duopoly allows it. Maine is a low population state, same for alaska. it throws a bone to small dog and is only a token.
@@acommenter But those are "less powerful" states in America which don't have as much influence over the electoral college. We need states like California, Texas, Florida, NY, etc to do the same thing to have any significant effect at all.
More like, “If only America had more political parties”...
That is literally the title of the video
U good man ?
@@AlecsNeo ???
@@ontheradar100 "What if" and "If only" do have noticeably different connotations.
@@zaleost it’s crazy how much people don’t read before saying something huh?
What if instead of states giving all their delegates to a single candidate, they give X amount of delegates based upon the amount of votes a candidate received. So if a state has 20 delegates and a person gets 50 percent of those, they get 10 instead of the full 20.
It's a reasonable idea, which is why Democrats and Republicans don't want it.
There are I think 3 states that currently do this, but I feel like it's a much better representation for a state. You could either do it by district or by overall percentage in the state, but it's a very good idea
Nebraska and Maine do this.
no more electoral college
You need to get rid of the president if you want a multi-party system. Any single-seat election which the presidential election is will end in just two candidates no matter how you organize it.
spotted a wrong expression at 3:53, "Economically Liberal" is a right wing position, it means you favor economical liberty as opposed to government intervention and redistribution
He is talking in the American sense of liberal than in the classical liberal sense. America has accepted classical liberalism in both parties but more regulations and taxes tend to refer to modern liberals/left wing while economic liberty and lower taxes refers to the Conservative/Right Wing.
Would “fiscally liberal” be better here?
Pro-business is probably a better term.
@@Nicoder6884 I think the term should be 'economically interventionist' or something to to that affect.
The US' polarization is an effect of its two-party system, not the cause of it.
As an American, I love this. This, Instant runoff, and no electoral college would be great.
@godless yuri fan even RCV, which alot of ppl are pushing for, is better. I do think having some combination of direct and proportional representation would be best
Your mistake is thinking those are 3 different things (more than 2 parties, instant runoff, no electoral college). In reality they are part of the same revolution. The electoral college should be scrapped, and replaced with a system that is more representative and friendly to multi-party politics. And instant runoff voting is one way of achieving such a system.
Ideally, no electoral college. However, this change won't happen overnight.
For single winner positions like the presidency, The next step would be a closed list PR with the college itself voting Instant Runoff.
When it comes to legislatures, Ireland's STV would be ideal but the Nordic list PR or Germany's MMP could work too.
The problem with getting rid of the EC is that the moment you do, and you operate on the popular vote only, then you're going to end up with instances where major cities will just get to make all the decisions. For the sake of argument, let's use New York state as an example here. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that a fairly sizable chunk of New Yorks population resides in NYC, with the next largest chunks being in Buffalo and Albany, and the rest living in the more rural parts of the state. Now, where you live tends to have an affect on how you vote, after all, if you own a farm, and someone is proposing policies that would negatively affect you (like raising the price of fuel for tractors or taxing you more for land, etc), you're not going to see that politician as a good bet. Conversely, someone living in a city isn't going to vote for someone that proposes removing regulations on vehicle and factory emissions. Without the EC, you end up with politicians getting elected to national office that would immensely screw over that farmer in favor of the guy in the city because there's more of him then there are the farmer.
Under the Electoral College, both have to be accounted for when running for POTUS or (idealy) the Senate. And thus, I think the best solution is not to get rid of the EC, but to amend it to a One County = One Vote system. Under such a system, a 'county' would be defined as a geographical area, with a population less than, say, 750,000 people living in it. This cap then means that when you get areas where a lot of people live in them, like NYC, you'd have about a dozen electoral votes, which can be either bolstered or canceled out by a number of smaller counties. Sure, a 10 vote lead is decent, but if ten counties don't agree, things might not work out for you in the end unless you can appeal to a wider base of voters (which, I don't think anyone would argue, is a good thing as politicians are supposed to be representing more than just their own self-interest).
The above, combined with a proper voting registration system (IE, where you have fewer, well informed voters than a bunch of people who vote based on who they're told to vote for by family or media), would make for a much better system than what we have right now. Yes, this would mean that many would not get to vote, but keep some things in mind. For starters, the ones doing the voting should be well informed about how our system works and why it works the way it does. Yes, it disenfranchises a lot of people, and that sucks... but it's far, far better that the people who can vote are informed enough that when they do vote, it's a vote that can be counted on as being from someone of a sound mind.
@@ColonizerChan representation doesn't come from the presidential election. That's what the house is for. Also urban areas aren't as solid or as populous as you might think. The 20 largest cities only account for about 10% (pulling this from memory so I'm might be wrong) which means rural areas still have alot of say in a popular vote system.
"What if America fundamentally changed its electoral system?" is a better title
A lot of us would love to see that, but it will never happen in our lifetimes. It would take decades of change at the state level to even set up a situation where the required constitutional amendments could be passed and ratified
You could get rid of the electoral college and still have a two party system.
This would be amazing.
And would make American politics way more interesting
For such a diverse nation, we'd expect they'd have more choices. We have 5 parties in Canada, thus they MUST work together to get sh*t done.
I think that more indicative of the two party system is how the media reacts. Their is almost no media coverage of the Greens or Libertarians and the coverage there is almost always focused on the idea the voters should support a 'proper' party rather than the idea the Democrats/Republicans should try to win their support.
Yeah it sucks i almost stuck to my guns and voted green but I was convinced to vote blue just because my state had a chance for the first time in a long time to flip but I don’t think I’ll be doing that again I don’t care if it’s a waste we need change and we can at least try to get it through elections and other peaceful direct action like strikes and protest so that’s what I’ll do
Historical precedent is as said in the video that those 2 parties rule since before granddad was a little boy.
Why cover something that in the current system circumvents mathematical inevitability, which is what first past the post system will trend toward.
The system has to be willing to change before it becomes worthy of covering as much as the other parties.
There is media coverage of libertarians and the greens but the reason its so little is because the republicans take the libertarians policies and the Democrats take the greens, so they are representing the minority but are incorporating it, which is something most people here don't seem to recognise
@@mframedeye37 god, someone with common sense finally
@@kapargTBH, in these comment sections very rare
88% is the new 100%
Nationalist 24
Conservative 19
Acela 10
Labor 26
Green 9
✨Maths is hard✨
the other 12% wouldn't vote or vote for other parties
Mf didn't notice the 'null' votes
There's a huge flaw in the logic of the report. All of the proposed leaders of these supposed non-existent parties.... are current US politicians. Which suggests that a diversity of views is already being provided within the US two-party system. This is the flaw of many critics of the American system: two parties does not mean only two options. America is so big and diverse "Democrat" and "Republican" does not mean the same thing in every state, or even district.
Can you give an example?
@@Jan.szczeaniak of what?
If there was a more proportional system you'd see far more diversity than now.
Even in the past the US had an informal 4 party system with 2 wings in each party with far more cross party voting. One faction in each party dominates now.
The minority faction are kept down via a variety of means.
If there was a multiparty system, the landscape would be quite different and the 2 dominant factions of each party would see their power reduced far more significantly.
That is a problem. Both parties have members that hold drastically different political views. You don't really know what the party you are voting for stands for anymore, as it holds a whole spectrum of political ideologies.
And Biden as Labor is 100% incorrect.
"economically liberal" and higher taxes contradict each other.
Economically liberal means leftist, not the classical-liberal definition.
Problem: The electoral college makes this entire discusion moot because the electoral college is designed that you MUST use stratigist voting which gravitates to a 2 party system
The USA used to have more then 2 parties but they were all swallowed by the 2 largest parties
its not just the electoral college, the political model for the west just gravitates towards a 2 party system, although the electoral college does make it much harder for American third parties to get ahead
The electoral collage isnʻt the problem, itʻs the fact that itʻs winner takes all
Isn't the electoral college redundent anyway in modern times.
People often say "reform the electoral system", but that would require changing the foundations of the USA's political system.
Even ditching voting districts and electing the house based off of proportion of vote per state would be a very sweeping change.
@@swanky_yuropean7514 republician will fight tooth and nails for it until the electoral college is not skewed their way
It would improve it massively. Assuming the voting system was improved too
The coalitions that would need to be made already exist today, its just they are hidden and the smaller voices more sidelined.
There would be some new faf when a new government starts but being able to vote easily for a party you actually like is a very good trade off imo
Yup, even if it ends up creating two coalition blocks (with the current swing seats being the "middle" party that goes with either block), it would still say something about which part of the block people support.
As a Dutchman, I love to see my small nation being used as an example in your vids 😁
If we went with a multi-party system, we'd also need to get rid of First Past the Post and go with Ranked Choice or Approval Voting. Otherwise, people would vote for one of the bigger new parties just to prevent the bigger new party that they disagree with from winning. For example, the conservatives and nationalists would vote for the same candidate to keep Labor/Green from getting their candidates elected. Eventually, parties would merge and we'd be back to two parties.
With Ranked Choice or Approval Voting, though, people could vote for every candidate they liked without worrying that this vote would cause a candidate that they didn't like from winning because they didn't vote for a major party candidate. In fact, if we went with Ranked Choice/Approval Voting first, it might strengthen existing third parties and allow them to grow into major parties.
Getting rid of fptp IS creating a multi party system.
Also mixed member proportional >>>>> all (for houses)
Sounds like you really understand the problem.
For anyone wanting to know more: CGP Grey has some good videos on voting systems, explained with animals.
@godless yuri fan Maybe we could do approval voting for an open primary, then ranked-choice to narrow the field from the top-n that get a general thumb's up from the population.
Edit. I am not a fan of the idea of STV because I think it'd reinforce the parties. Instead, I'd like to split the Senate between the half of a state population that is the most population dense, and the half that is the most rural.
Also, I'd like to see some method for preserving the purpose behind the Electoral College. I've dreamt up a few, but one based on the that Maine and Nebraska has is probably good enough.
Ranked and approval voting will not make a significant change. It should be used for the presidential election since there is only one winner for that. For legislative elections you need to go further than that and use something like MMP, multi-member district STV or something to get a multiparty system.
As long as FPTP is there it is going to be a 2 party system unless there are some extraordinary development. FPTP is the main obstacle to a multi party system. With FPTP, 3rd parties are greatly punished and they need to reach an insane bar to win unless they have concentrated regional support. RCV helps a bit but 2 parties will likely still dominate. It is especially so given polarization in the US. Some people may never ditch their party in the US so generational change will be needed as well.
In other words, if America had a democracy.
America does have a democracy
@@Haris1 Public opinion and policy has almost no correlation in the US. So no not really.
@@WasatchWind We are the textbook the Liberal Democratic Republic the first and the others are just wiered knock-offs.
How is it more democratic when you vote is split between a person a party and whatever randos they have one night stands with... look at Isreal right now I doubt they make israel whole parties and the keep it dived into subsections of the Abrahamic faith joining together to boot one guy out of office must make their voters feel bad for voting for them.
Both parties are in the pockets of corporations, highly capitalist, moderate authoritarian to authoritarian and globalist. The only variation is progressivism vs conservatism.
Take the limit on the amount of doctors approved per year. Republicans should support removing it to deregulate the free market, democrats should support removing it to increase access to medical aid.
I have never been a fan of political parties. I would prefer candidates run on individual merits.
And represent the people who voted for them not a party they'll sell their wife and kids to for power or work with strangers who have no idea you exist. It's what Geoge Washinton and half the founders wanted. It' would be harder to keep track of who's who but we have the internet now and no doubt independent CZcamsrs will capitalize on it.
I mean kids today can keep track of 800+ pokemon so why not under 1,000 representatives?
Honestly you could just get rid of parties all together and just ban people from having letters next to their names
Political parties are a natural part of any democracy and will always form because likeminded people will always from groups to better achieve their goals.
Parties actually keep representatives (somewhat) honest. If they promise something not in the platform, they are rebuked or even kicked out. If they promise something but fail to deliver, the party can remove them.
Further, in parliamentary systems, they (their members) choose the leader who will advocate for the issues they stand for, and become the prime minister should they be the largest party or largest coalition partner in parliament.
"They have to vote for someone"
Actually they don't and it's quite a big problem how many people don't
People who don't vote is only a problem if they care which of their options is elected. If they feel no one properly represents them then their non vote is appropriate.
@@z0mb1e564
The problem becomes precisely that they don't feel like they have a candidate representing their views. It is a problem by itself in a democracy.
@@Mrwutevah That's a good point. I suppose I should say that given their choices, their behavior is not the problem. But it is a sign of an unhealthy democracy. Whenever I see people complain about non voters I feel like they basically see them as votes that should support their candidate and that's the wrong way to look at it.
@@Mrwutevah Well, it's quite impractical to not have representative on the bigger scale though.
We have a bicameral legislature. one of the two chambers could use a party-based system and move to multiparty coalition based politics. The other could retain the first past the post system, and represent districts directly.
You absolutely should have mentioned the spoiler effect in this video. Big oversight.
things would have been really interesting if Perrot had got to become president or even if John B. Anderson in the 1981 presidential election got more mileage
Try something possible, like TR winning on the Progressive (Bull Moose) party. He beat Taft on the meaningless basis of the Popular Vote.
If Confederate Sympathizers had been excluded, Wilson would have lost big, rather than winning both Popular and Electoral votes because the Republicans/Progressives split their votes in every state that they could have won.
Our two party system always worked when we had many different wings of each party. We used to have blue dog democrats and northern liberal Rockefeller republicans. People broke away from their own party on legislation all the time. The problem is the radicalization that has happened over the last 20 years. The purification of the parties by a flawed primary system. If you want to fix American politics, fix the primary system. Go to a jungle primary or something. Anything but this system that forces candidates to the extremes.
CA has jungle primaries. Only once did someone from the same party beat the incumbent when 2 of the same party advanced. I don't think it is enough. Need open primary with top 4-5 advancing to the general if no one receives a majority of votes. Then use rank choice, approval, score, star voting etc for the general.
@@theuglykwan Sounds good!
We need to change the election system from Plurality/FPTP to a Proportional Representation format to have multi-party coalitions. Oregon (from where I come from) has Fusion voting where candidates can represent more than one party. But I think we need to rank type voting with PR to substantially change things. Also we need to stop or vastly limit gerrymandering since this also helps in maintaining the two-party system. What about a video about what Electoral system can best fit this video's premise?
that would take a constitutional Amendment or 2/3 vote of the House and Senate plus 2/3 of the states themselves must past the Amendment as well, this is not eazy to do.
@@Delgen1951 Not really, the 10th Amendment give the power to hold elections to the states. This will be the issue of federal oversight versus states' rights when it comes to protecting voting rights versus who has the right to vote.
Well maybe in the future,we will see these two major parties splited in other smaller parties,Democrat Party and Republican Party seem both very divided.
Both parties are schisming to me as well. I hope it’s inevitable
They're not going to do that, because if one of the parties splits, it immediately loses any winning chances for the next few elections, which is worse than the alternative of not splitting.
They’re one party, funded by the corporations
It would be interesting to see the GOP and Democratic parties split in two. You have the pro trump Patriot Party, the centrist, never trump Republicans forming a "True Republican" party, the left wing of the Democratic party forming the "Democratic Socialist" party leaving the "New Democrats" as the centre left.
@@Sam-vy8ye I think you'd get something quite similar to what was in this video, except Acela would be split across the other parties, probably mostly towards the center-left party I'd think. But maybe also a bit towards the True Republican party, which I can't really call center-right.
"If the US were to implement such a system..."
But the two party system wasn't implemented and nor could 'a multi party system be implemented'. Both are natural results of certain electoral systems.
USA needs proportional representation and that will naturally lead to more diversity in parties.
@@VFPn96kQT Yes. More specifically, it provides the game theoretical framework for other parties to succeed.
Stupid question, does the name "Acela" refer to the trains (like going forward, progress etc.)?
Acela refers to the trains in that the people who live in the Acela corridor are the people who would be the base of the party. Basically it means it's the party for the Boston-DC corridor.
Like the above user said, refers to "Acela" corridor. It's a term used to label moderate Republicans that tend to run in these more left-leaning states.
I love these kind of speculative videos and I'd like to see more of this type of content.
I'm not from the US, but I'd like to see them adopt a multi-party system with proportional representation.
Nah two parties is horrible enough
Same here, we have 5 parties in Canada, watching the USA is like watching literal insanity.
Would you mind linking the study this video is drawing from? It’s always interesting to see that kind of data
As someone who is economically left and socially right, the conservative or labour parties here seem much better than the two options currently for me.
I know your pain, brother. With the increased polarization, I don't even want to see how the parties are like in the mid-terms.
Sion's Media: You're a fascinating breed... I rarely ever meet people who are socially conservative, but left on economics. I guess I'd like to pick your brain and ask why... does religion drive your social positions? I've only met left-left, right-right, and left on social issues but right on economics (libertarians).
@@justinscott3545 There's probably actually a lot of voters like that in the south. Working class republicans. Fun fact in the 2020 election Florida voted for Trump over Biden, but they also voted for a minimum wage increase in the state.
@@Laz3rCat95 thanks! I'm from the Midwest so I never meet those people lol.
@@justinscott3545 Rare? In what circles? Libertarian vs ”nazbol light” seems to me a much more natural division than the current left vs right divide
As an Englishman seeing conservative being red and labour blue is messing my head up
Really interesting. Great vid!
"Labor. Although our one has a 'U' as let's be honest it should."
Australians: "That's fighting right words there"
You mean Labor, the Australian labour party? No, it doesn't have to make sense.
In terms of coalition forcing compromise making it similar to the system we have now, I’d disagree: with many parties, you don’t always have to form an exclusively left-wing or right-wing coalition. For example in Germany center-right CDU cooperates with center-left SPD instead of the right-wing/far-right AfD, as it might happen if Germany have only two major parties. Coalitions give more flexibility on who you can ally with.
It depends. Sometimes the coalition partners are close to set in stone. Other times they can be quite flexible like in Germany.
I’d say that there’s a decent ground of improvement with more larger parties than the big two, at least then it’s likely for the parties to focus on the consequences of any major candidacy as apposed to simply meeting that ends by whatever means at their disposal
I'd definitely go between labor and the greens. It'd be interesting to see a mapped out distribution of these parties.
I love this idea, but I don't know how it could be implemented successfully with first past the post. There would be no love lost if we got rid of that too, though. At least speaking for myself.
I would vote for ACELA since it's the closest to my views. I think the reason why a multi-party system will help and change something is the ACELA party which falls on the center between the democrats and the republicans and will improve democracy and the representation of these people who fall on the center like me.
Right in economics
Left is social issues
Just like Elon musk
Also I would Vote for Acela too
As some people have already noted, one of the best documented principles in Political Science (see, for instance, Maurice Duverger's work) is that the voting and political systems largely determine the number of parties. A presidentialist/FPTP system will always result in a two-party system. Conversely, a parliamentary/proportional system will produce a multiparty political system. It hasn't anything to do with political ideology. Even a country as big and culturally diverse as the US has become a two-party democracy under a presidentialist/FPTP system!
Just to kindly bring a little fun into the comments section, the legendary 8:55 speech bubble has got to be the most British pun about parliament I have seen on the channel to date~
A multi-party system would help the US, people feel underrepresented here. It will do the American public good to actually feel truly represented because the Republicans and Democrats aren't filling that role.
People feel under represented here
Believe me you do not speak for the majority
If you really didn't feel represented, you don't have to vote for them
@@mframedeye37 If none of the parties know they can get me to vote, they have no reason to care about my interests. (although if you live in the wrong place they might never need to care)
@@metarmask so you arr complaining that the parties pay attention and care about people who do oor might vote for them
Duhhhhhhhhh, I mean if you're a far left democrat you're not gonna wake up one day and go republican, same thing with if you were a Christian Conservative from nebraska, you're not gonna suddenly go to the dems
@@mframedeye37 I'm saying you have to vote for someone even if you don't feel represented, or you'll be ignored. Then I'm complaining that in some areas your vote literally won't matter because of gerrymandering or that it isn't proportional.
@@metarmask
Yes gerrymandering is bad
But your vote matters, especially now with most if not all states adding or already added anti gerrymandering laws
Americans know we need a multi-party system but that’d mean the constitution would have to be amended and there’s no way anyone is touching the constitution in this political climate
Why are you claiming to represent all Americans when you say this
@@mframedeye37 because polls and stats show that a majority of Americans support the a third us political party already. Literally just look it up
@@flounder4285 what would you define as support
Support is voting for them and that is certainly not the case, and also please provide the studies and polls, not.ery scientific response
You could make some changes without amending the constitution. It could also start at the state level as it is easier to make changes there. In CA they could do it with simple majority to change the state legislature races to some form of PR. Once people get used to it at the state and local level they will be more open to change at the federal level.
They can also switch to ranked choice voting so there is a slight change for the federal level in the mean time.
@@theuglykwan the process of electing a representative into government is in the constitution. State governments can change their constitution all they want, but when it comes to the federal constitution an outright majority would be needed. So an amendment would be needed to change it. Unfortunately the political climate of today will prevent that from happening democratically
Great video!
EXCELLENT video. Great abstracted view of the political system. I very much like the idea of doing away with colors/symbols for the parties so we can focus on policies.
Such an interesting thing to discuss and I hope this happens for them some day. 2 parties are just ridiculously unfit for today, but will it ever change? I don't think so.
It would be interesting to see how a multi-party system could work in the US.
This was an incredibly cool video!
A good video idea would be on the number of House seats being fixed at 435 meaning reapportionment hapoes and states that grow will lose seats if they don't grow fast enough. If a seat was awarded for a set amount of population (originally it was 30k in 1789) imagine how much cheaper running for office gets and much better chances at being represented and feeling one's vote matters. A combination of this with awarding electoral votes based on how the district voted and ranked voting might fix a lot of what ails American democracy.
The modern US Democrats would largely stand around the Acela Party area, not the Labour Party area
Here's my theory how such a political system would look:
Firstly, it would be proportionately representitive. If it wasn't, it would just collapse back into a two party system within a couple of elections due to the Spoiler Effect. Most likely this system will be modelled on the Irish or the EU electoral system where each state would have a number of electors, determined by proportional representation. Each state will have as many representitives as electoral votes minus 2. So for instance, if the state of Missouri, which has 10 EV - 2 = 8 elected representitives. If Party 1 got 50% of the vote, party 2 30%, Party 3 14% and Party 4 6%, we divide 100 by the number of representitives, meaning to get a representitive, a party needs at least 12.5%, until it's not possible to subtract 12.5 from any party, and once that happens, the largest number gets the representitive.
The final result is
50/12.5 = 4 (0% remaining)
30/12.5 = 2 (5% remaining)
14/12.5 = 1 (1.5% remaining)
6/12.5 = 0 (6% remaining)
4+2+1= 7, and the largest remainder goes to Party 4, thus giving them the final representitive.
Parties: Such a political system would offer a lot of parties the opportunity to get representation, so I think many would. I'll offer a name, description, and finally a political idol that will epitomise this party's philosophy the best.
Party 1. Labour (or Labor) - Party built from union representation, strong proponent of labour rights, better working conditions, would be left-populist in terms of economic positions. Supporters will mostly be working class, young-ish to middle-aged people. Tries to avoid the culture war issues, leaving that to the Progressives whilst this party chaces a purely economic vision. - Political Idol: Bernie Sanders
Party 2. Progressives - Party built on social equality. Focuses its attention on social issues, racial issues, gender issues, etc. Supported by mostly young people, college educated people, especially of minority backgrounds. - Political Idol: Stacey Abrams
Party 3. Greens - Party based on environmental issues like climate change, pollution, etc. Mostly supported by young college educated people, overlaps with the Progressives, probably more economically left, primarily focuses on green issues, like Green New Deal and preventing harmful climate catastrophe. - Political Idol: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Party 4. Democrats - The remainder of the original Democratic party. A big tent, inclusive party that focuses on compromise with surrounding parties. Wants to get along with most of the other parties. Runs a more safe approach focused on electability and working across the aisle - Political Idol: Joe Biden
Party 5. Freedom - An economically right party valuing social freedoms. Runs on individual liberty, property rights, and other related issues - Political Idol: Rand Paul
Party 6. Moderates - A party funded by a popular technocrat as a centrist, socially liberal institution. May have some gimmick that tries to set it apart from other parties. Deep down is a centrist party that tries to satisfy all sides - Political Idol: Andrew Yang
Party 7. Patriots - A right wing populist party. Runs on national sovereigety, protectionism, anti-immigration, national pride, etc. Largest supporter base is from non-college educated whites. Channels the populist anger against the establishment. Focuses most on culture war issues to whip up a frenzy - Political Idol: Donald Trump
Party 8. Christ Party - A right wing party centred on a Christian identity. Supports biblical law under the name "religious freedom", supports teaching creationism in school science class. Most socially conservative of all the main parties with representation in the government. Mostly supported by older people, especially Southerners. - Political Idol: Mike Huckabee
Party 9. Republican - The remainder of the original Republican party. Would try to connect with the other right wing parties as a sort of big-tent right wing party. This contrasts with the Democratic party that would be more big tent in compromising with right wing parties. Many of your economic conservatives and neoconservatives would be in this party - Political Idol: Lindsey Graham
Single issue parties are also a thing, and looking at the US demographics I could see a southern PoC party emerge. The population is thee and big enough to gain representation.
Question: which one would be the gun party? The Freedom or the Patriots?
And would a true centrist party be stable? I mean, we used to have a catholic centrist party and somewhere around 4-8 liberal parties (from left liberal to national liberal) before the war, and none of that survived. The catholic centrists basically got absorbed to the whole christian center-right conservatives and the liberal parties created exactly one party that ended up being the deciding factor in parliament for 30 years.
If I born in US in this reality,I will be an Moderates voter (Andrew Yang)
Sorry about the late reply, but yes I do think the centrist party has a niche as that technocratic futurist growth and innovation party. The kind of thing we thought Elon Musk was before he bought Twitter.
I think the Black vote would most align with either the progressives or the establishment Democratic party, depending on their age and positions on social issues.
One change I would make is add a dedicated Latino party. "La Partido", which in my view leans left economically but is socially conservative. Perhaps as an extension the party is also Catholic. I think because of the language barrier, a dedicated party for their interests makes more sense than a dedicated black party, which I feel is already served by other parties.
Gun rights would vary party to party. The Freedom party has this obviously in their platform, but I could imagine the Labor Party being relatively pro-gun with their trade union working class steel mill machismo energy. Basically what John Fetterman used to be before he became a raving Zionist. I'd probably replace Bernie as leader with Sherrod Brown. On the fence about that though.
I would split each of our parties into three factions.
Republicans:
-Patriot Party: People that'd vote for Trump
-Conservatives: People that'd vote for Haley or Scott
-Christians: People that'd vote for Pence or Pompeo
Democrats:
-Labor (the right way to spell it): Biden folks
-Progressives: Sanders people
-Social Justice: AOC type of people
And then there'd be other random niche parties that would spring up that are very minor factions in the current Republicans and Democrats. Libertarians, socialists, a green party, a centrist party, a liberal party.
Great video! Could you do this for Canada if we had PR ?
2 words: JJ Mccullough 😁
The thing people misunderstand about the two party system is that they assume it’s the first past the post system that causes it but many countries with fptp have multiple parties the cause is that dems and reps have very little control over individual members meaning most people would rather make a faction in one of them then form their own parties
The issue is how that FPTP system is implemented. Usually countries that have it only use it on a regional level so you still end up with enough diversity. If the UK would use it like the US does it. Allowing only one party to win the whole of Scotland, Wales, England or NI you would end up with the same problem as in the US.
@@swanky_yuropean7514 while true, it is not enough to destroy third parties as the us in the past has had third parties like the populist free soil and silver in congress but these parties only went away when they joined the dems and gop
The biggest issue is the first past the post system that favours the two party system. If there was proportional representation then “third” parties would actually have a chance
Great video
I would definitely put Bernie Sandars as the hypothetical president of the labor party.
Exactly lol
Then what about Biden and all the moderate dems lmao, who make up the clear majority of the democratic party....
They should've made Bernie leader of greens and labor a bit more moderate
@@user-vg8td7qd8z Dude, the labour leader needs to be someone who is at least on the center left. Biden isn't even a social liberal by heart let alone being a social democrat or a democratic socialist. He is more fitting into the acela which seems to be a centrist elitist party.
@@outsiderkk well, you maybe don't consider Biden center left, but if you look at voting records and ideology, Biden is exactly in the middle of the democratic party, which is to the left of the center for American standards, regardless if you consider him centrist or not, he's the current leader of the American center left.
@@user-vg8td7qd8z Even by American standarts, the description made for the labor party doesn't meet Biden's ideology. He might be a very liberal and open minded person, but the policies suggested for the party are mostly progressive and social democratic policies. Which is not very fitting to the "middle of the Democratic Party" as you call it.
Personally I would lean towards either Labor or the Greens. Both of those parties have policies that I would really align with.
As far as a coalition making things worse, I think part of the problem is first past the post voting. If there was a switch to either the approval system or RCV, that would help with the tactical voting and longer-term strategy.
If we get rid of that, then potentially the smaller parties can grow, or these other parties can emerge and become reality.
I like the thumbnail, you have the recycling party, the arson party, and the Barney flag party
Bloomberg.... lmao whoever picked this... give me whatever drugs you were taking. XD
Thank you TLDR!! You guys are the best in the business. Right down the middle of the road. Keep it up, and I'll keep supporting you guys on patreon and by telling my friends!
The middle of the road????
This channel is hardly middle of the road
If they had more parties some kids would probably start a party like the amogus party
A multiparty system cannot work with the current setup of separation of powers. In a parliamentary system, the executive is an extension of the legislative. Some party or set of parties form a government, and they appoint the senior executives, often from the dominant party if it has an outright majority, or some kind of mixup if its a coalition. Even if we did proportional voting for the legislature and wound up with 5 major parties in the house of representatives and the senate, there can still only be one president at a time, and that one president has more or less unlimited scope to pick a cabinet and other senior executive positions. And that one president is going to be from one particular party, and be able to throw a LOT of weight around in a way that is unlikely to lead to any sort of legislative action at all.
Nice one lads
what does lads mean? does that mean ladies?
@@almond3963 nah its another word for men
Biden is definitely not labour, he is far too right-wing for that. Bernie Sanders would actually be the better fit.
Biden is centre-right, closer to Acela than Labour.
I disagree
Labour parties often are only center-left and in fact in some sense are defined as the center-left party, i.e. the largest left-wing party. It makes perfect sense that such a party would be lead by someone like Biden in the US. If Sanders was the leader it would be a more fringe party and some other party would probably become the largest left-wing party.
it would be SO much better, i'm super jealous of europe... i normally vote democrat and under this system i'd probably vote labor (with green as a close second). i wish we could just get rid of the dumb electoral college and implement this system! I'd actually be excited about voting again
Just vote for Libertarian or Green. I won't ever vote D or R again in anything until things change.
I like the electoral college, it makes it easier for states to go to 3rd party because you can split the vote and then win by default
@@KarimAlKharsa The only vote splitting to occur would be a third party taking away votes from one of the two major parties, unfortunately, since the two major parties don't necessarily have much overlap with eachother. The only thing it would accomplish is making it easier for one of the established big tent parties to win, hence why the electoral college is an obstacle to third parties becoming competitive in presidential elections.
UK doesnt have it
@@yee2631 What if you made the EC proportional to vote percentages. So if a candidate gets 50% of the vote in a 20 EC state they only get half towards their total. The candidate with the highest EC count wins.
Would love to see one of these for the UK, even though we do have more smaller parties itd still be interesting to see what would happen with a proportional system over here!
I'm guessing more regional parties.
I can't believe you made a video this long on this topic without even mentioning the effects of a first-past-the-post voting system and how it tends to shape a theoretically open electoral landscape into a two-party system (that might flip at some point with a new party replacing one of the old ones). I mean, if you don't agree with that analysis I'd really like to hear why as that is the conventional wisdom on why there are only two major parties in the UK an US.
I find it interesting that my reactions as a non-American (pretty centrist by Canadian standards), 4 of the suggested leaders just strike me as different flavours of conservative (fringe right to centre-right) and AOC is at most centre-left (closer to what I would think of as a Western centrist with liberal social views really - she's hardly calling for workers to control the means of production but rather for workers to get treated decently). The American Overton window is a wacky thing.
I wish we could get a tiered voting system and more parties. I would vote for green but heavily support labor as well.
Multi party coalition would help in moving policy more towards the center and reduce polarization and increase co-operation among parties.
Europe has Party Coalitions, America has Coalition Parties.
I really hope we see the end of the two party system in my lifetime...sooner the better. I'd be with the greens as described here. I'm quite surprised that only 9% came out for those policies when placed on an even playing field though. :/
For better or worse, most parties are capable of hijacking the majority of the Greens agenda. Climate protection can be a universal policy (many past republicans fought for reservations and EPA until Oil and Gas lobbies gained too much power).
I just don't think it's mutually exclusive enough of a platform to truly have broad appeal.
If I have one vote, and the options are presented, I'm going to go with healthcare rather than climate and hope that enough vote Green that a coalition could be made, rather than the other way around.
While I do recognize the importance of protecting Earth (literally everything is secondary to that) I'm not confident enough in my fellow citizens to vote for it. I'll go for the guarantee, Everytime.
@@edwardsantiago9109 If the only thing in this proposed Green's platform were the environmental aspects, I would be inclined to make another choice. But since Green is being used here to also encompass breaking up the big corps and fixing systemic inequalities, as well as dealing with economic and social justice...well. I'd feel pretty confident that medicare for all and addressing the multitude of issues with our existing disability support system would be supported by the Green's as well -- but the proposed Labor party is much less likely to work to address the non-climate aspects of the Green's platform.
Though perhaps I'm too accustomed to viewing things primarily along our existing left-right scale. But I find it hard to believe that AOC would not be fighting for Medicare for All, strengthening labor unions, or taxing the rich to support systems to assist those who need it...I'm pretty sure she's got shirts for all of those on her merch store iirc.
Unfortunately, two parties is the natural endgame of single-vote FPTP, we have to change _that_ flawed methodology first.
1 exception:
First past the post does allow for the formation of regional parties. Since every legislator has to answer to a specific place, rather than just a certain percentage of the electorate writ large, things like the Scottish National Party (UK) and the Bloc Quebecois (Canada) can form where sufficiently distinct regional cultures want to ensure that the power of their voice is maximized in the central government.
As long as difference between leftists and rightists in a region is smaller than the difference between the regional identity and that of the central government, regional parties can be viable.
In America's case, if the Republicans completely abandon social conservatives and become a pure pro-business party, I could definitely see a more "God and Charity" Bible-belt party being a stable minority party.
You can't really compare UK and US political parties since British right (Conservatives) and centrist (Liberal Democrats) party still the left of American Democratic Party.
Echelon Insights really did a great job with this study!
Smaller parties lack publicity and they are often not spoken about in schools which is a major problem
No in schools the kids are taught 1 thing
Republicans ate somehow racist and Democrats are they're saviours
Education is a broken system in the us
@@mframedeye37 Exactly they only talk about two parties
And yeah education in the US is very unevenly distributed and lack credibility especially in history and geography class which is just propaganda distribution
@@4arcadeRGB they only talk about 2 parties because the minor ones are incorporated Into the 2 big ones
For example the greens, many Democrats support green policies and vice versa, they incorporate the greens into the democrats
Same with the libertarians, they are incorporated into the republican party, many republicans are libertarians and vice versa
@@mframedeye37 I see your point but I’m trying to say that if you don’t teach people about their existence they’ll never be be elected because even if they do share most of the same ideals as either Republicans or Democrats they don’t share all of them
@@4arcadeRGB true, you make a good point, but the schools would have to remove something to make time for this
So they could add it in political studies/science sure, I'm on board with that but teaching 7 year old's what the libertarian position on gun control, I'm not so on board with
So to summarise yes but not to little kids
Where exactly does the name "Acela" come from??
9:14
If you’re wondering where the SGP stands, it’s so far right that it fell off the screen.
its really interesting that despite economic liberalism and social conservatism came out on top, the US continues to go towards a socially liberal, economically conservative “ideal”. Really makes you think.
Love the concept and I strongly feel USA need a multiparty system to divide the power structure. But that study sounds poorly ran. If the people being polled thinks that Biden is for the middle class and AOC is more qualified than Jesse Ventura for the Green Party, then they are asking lay people that get their news from twitter about politics.
The way that each race in each district of both state and federal requires 50+%. Therefore multi party races would favor only two parties. The idea is that the political coalitions are done at the party primary level ie one of the two parties. Each candidate tries to build his individual coalition to capture 51%. The “swing” voters control the outcome by choosing which of candidate coalition they most favor. Historically this favors drawing parties to a centerist position. In past voters often complained they could see no differences between the two resulting in low voter turnout. That.has not been a problem recently. George Washington warned against the formation of political parties at all saying they would promote discord between the people charged with managing the central government.
Multi member districts?
You technically don't even need 50% in most cases, though you *do* have to get close. Third parties currently have just enough strength to lower the plurality line while _still_ not having enough to be politically viable.
Not trying to _blame_ them; just telling it like it is.
@@theuglykwan Can't do that in the House since you have several states with just 1 representative. Allowing multi-member House Districts in larger states could be seen as giving the more populous states a "better" say than the less populous ones.
Theoretically possible in the Senate, except that we'd have to amend the Constitution to place both Senators from the same state in a single "class" (6-year group). Viable with air travel, which was in its infancy when the 17th Amendment was passed, but I'm not sure if the Greens would go for that.
Now there are several states where the ratio of the membership of the Lower House and the Upper House is an Integer. If those states were required to have Common Districts for both Chambers, that means that the Lower Chamber would have multiple members per district, with each district having the same number of members. Of course, they'll also need to stand for election _in common_, as opposed to what happened in Georgia where both Senate Seats stood for Election _individually_.
Is there a link to the study by Echelon Insight that was mentionned in this video?
China has 9 Political parties in their parliament. The US only has two.
China has over 400 Independents in the parliament, the US only has 2.