Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
...No, the Republicans would either "phase out", as you say, or they would collapse and another party which shares many values, but which is more centrist, would emerge in its place. Or the Democratic Party might end up splitting for some reason or another, though that's much more unlikely. Or, the Republican Party will continue as they are like a zombie until a new leader emerges to transform them and lead them out of the wilderness, much like what's said to have happened to the Democrats after Carter.
Exactly. Don't start predicting doomsday, it's far too early and I'm not sufficiently awake or fed yet.
edited 26th Jan '13 12:19:51 PM by darksidevoid
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.That's because the one party status was ignored and every candidate that wanted to run has run. That's what happened with JQ Adams and Jackson. Normally a party would have some dominance over its candidates through primaries.
I think the primaries nowadays would have more force.
I'm saying that such a transition wouldn't fix the more underlying problems with the system itself. By supporting the two-party system and rejecting multiparty reforms, the Democrats are fueling the partisan gridlock.
edited 26th Jan '13 12:23:22 PM by Trivialis
Paul Ryan: Obama 2nd term ‘won’t be pretty’
Senator Harkin, Iowa Democrat, won't seek 6th term in 2014.
So Rockefeller, Chambliss, and Harkin won't be running for reelection.
Apparently Christianity became the only monotheistic religion.
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016![]()
Actually, the Abrahamic religions make up the bulk of monotheistic beliefs. I think Sikhs only have one god, but I'm not sure.
Besides, you know they'll pitch a fit if a Muslim student wants to sub out "Allah" for "God", or a Pagan student wants to sub out "Goddess".
edited 26th Jan '13 1:02:31 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianDuring 1980s the Democrats had Tips O' Neill, Robert Byrd, Mario Cuomo, and Ted Kennedy to lead them.
They basically played damage control throughout most of the decade.
Allah is just "God" in Arabic.
Rupert Murdoch: Keep Piers Morgan in U.S.
But by supporting multiparty reforms, the Democrats risk losing power.
Which is why there not gonna be supporting any of those reforms.
Anyway if the Republicans phase out, someone will replace them (I think it'll be the Libertarians). Just like the Republicans replaced the Whigs.
edited 26th Jan '13 1:37:23 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Senator Cruz (R-TX): GOP needs to use fiscal crises as bargaining chips
Obama calls Clinton 'one of the finest secretaries of State' in joint interview
@Deviant
Party strength is superfluous if the only reason to maintain is to fight back against Republicans.
A lot of independent voters are tired with the party gridlock in general. If Democrats represented multiparty democracy and the other party didn't, that gives advantage to Democrats. It's a decisive difference. If, however, Democrats are just as stubborn as Republicans in turning down democratic reforms, then independents will be begrudgingly voting for one party. That makes them jump to Republicans whenever an issue attracts them. The party is therefore causing itself problems by trying to keep things together.
edited 26th Jan '13 1:42:16 PM by Trivialis
![]()
Again if the Republican Party collapse a new party would likely rise to take its place. Be it a Third Party (Libertarian, Constitution, Reform, etc) or the Blue Dog Wing of the Democrat Party.
By supporting multi-party reforms the Dems risk giving power to liberal third party groups like the Greens or the Peace and Freedom Party.
The Electoral System isn't helping the situation either.
Sarah Palin has parted ways with Fox News after a three-year run with the network
edited 26th Jan '13 1:58:15 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016I don't see a lot of mainstream support for third parties right now. Focus is important in delivering political messages; the Democrats are busy enough as it is just holding on to what gains have already been made and making immediately obvious reforms; if they start advocating a multiparty system before the public is ready to support it along with everything else, they'll just look like the scatterbrained idealists the GOP would like everyone to believe they are.
I mean, I strongly support a multiparty system in theory, but circumstantial factors would seem to indicate that this is the wrong time to try for it.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.![]()
![]()
Independents aren't actually independent, you know. There's only a very small number of people, ten to fifteen percent, who qualify as truly undecided. All the rest lean toward one party or another strongly enough not to switch over. That's an empirically verified fact, accepted by the vast majority of Political Scientists.
We already have mechanisms for the creation of third parties; It's just that the third parties we do have are too niche and lack enough popular support, and the nature of our system favors the consolidation of many competing factions into two parties. As a matter of fact, multi-party, proportional representation systems tend toward empowering radical factions. In contrast, our system favors moderation and gradual reform, as the Framers intended - although the GOP leadership is gumming up the gears by treating it like a Parliamentary system, as I mentioned earlier.
The Democratic Party instituting multiparty reforms - if voters would even be willing to accept that, which I highly doubt - would be the equivalent of slitting its own throat, because the Democratic base has historically been much less united than the Republican base. Hence, with the splintering of the Democrats, the Republicans would have no need to reform themselves after all, because they could still manage to win a plurality of the vote. Oops.
And by the way, party strength is far from superfluous, nor is the only reason for having it to push back against another party. The entire idea of having a party in the first place is to get people elected and thereby attempt to pass laws that favor one's ideological bent. Neither the Democratic nor Republican parties exist solely for the purpose of opposing one another, but rather for the sake of pursuing their favored reforms, reforms which are increasingly at odds.
edited 26th Jan '13 2:28:28 PM by darksidevoid
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.The best way to introduce a multiparty system is for Canada to annex the United States.
![]()
![]()
Because of the aforementioned tendency in our system toward two parties. First-past-the-post inherently discourages the creation of third parties and encourages strategic voting behavior, by which I mean voting for whichever of the two most-likely-to-win parties is closer to your views. AKA, the tendency that multiparty reforms would destroy.
Then how does, Britain for one, have three major parties yet uses FPTP?
Keep Rolling On

If the Republicans do phase out (as some people in this thread predict), then nobody would be powerful enough to stand up to the Democrats. Then US will become a dominant-party system and it will need to consider this reform sooner or later, because said pressure will happen from inside.