The two-party system has destroyed democracy

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 26 вер 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 489

  • @LouisFoglia
    @LouisFoglia 5 років тому +295

    As a couple of commenters have noted, not all parliamentary systems have proportional representation. I should have said, "This is opposed to a proportional representation system." My mistake.

    • @LouisFoglia
      @LouisFoglia 5 років тому +7

      Mistake is at 2:26

    • @thejquinn
      @thejquinn 5 років тому +11

      Hey Lou I wanted to point at the beginning of what you said about toothpaste. This is a fallacy. Most toothpaste brands are owned by Colgate or Crest, so the choice is extremely limited

    • @Oscar_Armstrong
      @Oscar_Armstrong 5 років тому +2

      @@thejquinn that's besides the point though. It was just meant to make the point that we have a lot of selection in everything, although the story of these "fake" brands is actually a very interesting one.

    • @sethorama4702
      @sethorama4702 5 років тому +2

      Most democrats aren't socialist dude. They're center right on the political spectrum. The DSA granted is part of the democratic party but have few members and their current policies fall center left. To go any farther left is to leave the economic system of capitalism.

    • @cks7548
      @cks7548 Рік тому

      Q: What's the difference between Ukrainians and Republicans?
      A: Ukrainians will fight for their country.
      Democrats are a lot morally better than Republicans are, and actually care about the country unlike them.

  • @rajanlad
    @rajanlad 5 років тому +159

    George Carlin was right, we have lot of choices for dumb things , but virtually nothing when it comes to important stuff like elections and rights.

    • @jackyzhu9761
      @jackyzhu9761 5 років тому

      rajan lad, you mean dumb things. Choices for stupidity, and for elections, which aren't stupid, a absurdly small amount that's very stupid compared to the choices for stupidity,

    • @George-lt6jy
      @George-lt6jy 4 роки тому

      yes let's change rajan. you and I.

    • @Cod4Wii
      @Cod4Wii 4 роки тому +2

      The illusion of choice...

    • @timdeathly
      @timdeathly 2 роки тому

      @@jackyzhu9761 what? No u lyi

  • @bandrija1
    @bandrija1 5 років тому +288

    Here in europe third parties are called parties

    • @MarioAtheonio
      @MarioAtheonio 5 років тому +1

      And in some EU countries what's becoming more of a problem is the constant influx of new parties :)

    • @bandrija1
      @bandrija1 5 років тому +30

      @@MarioAtheonio no, not realy

    • @MarioAtheonio
      @MarioAtheonio 5 років тому +2

      What country do you live in? Even in the UK, with its FPTP, there are now two brand-new parties that will probably get into parliament whilst UKIP is likely to completely vanish from the scene.

    • @bandrija1
      @bandrija1 5 років тому +37

      @@MarioAtheonio i live in croatia. I dont see how many parties is a problem. That is a sign of a healthy democrasy. They can form coaltions

    • @jarskil8862
      @jarskil8862 5 років тому

      Here in Finland we have literally 2 (maybe 3) parties despite we have 7-8 or so
      We have "left and right Liberals" and "nationalist party"
      Why only 2 parties? Because despite the nationalists are atm clear number one in polls, and in elections they lost the largest spot with only 4000 votes.
      All other parties were ready to break their promises, just so they got big enough coalition so they were able to block nationalists out of the goverment.
      Atm we have extremely unstable goverment due this.

  • @cameronformes5155
    @cameronformes5155 4 роки тому +38

    we need a petition to get this played in every single school at least once a year

  • @HugoLaStrange
    @HugoLaStrange 5 років тому +22

    living in Czech republic where political parties are always emerging and disappearing, it's weird to see that a country can have only two major parties

    • @geoffphillips5872
      @geoffphillips5872 2 роки тому

      Binary party political structure is traitorous.

    • @mortenrobinson5421
      @mortenrobinson5421 Рік тому

      Look at China then, it only has 1 major party, and they're more than a billion people. You would think that a billion people could come up with more than 1 party 😂🙈

    • @HugoLaStrange
      @HugoLaStrange Рік тому

      @@mortenrobinson5421 Is china a democracy? they didn't establish this regime by fair elections. That's just a good example of a totalitarian regime lol.

    • @theuglykwan
      @theuglykwan Рік тому

      @@mortenrobinson5421 That's false. There's more than one party. There are opposition parties but the CCP controls the banner under which they run. I think it's called the United Front.

  • @thedudegrowsfood284
    @thedudegrowsfood284 5 років тому +30

    The "illusion of choice".

  • @Chrisparkinson3
    @Chrisparkinson3 5 років тому +42

    Not all parliamentary systems have proportional representation. Canada’s federal elections still use a FPTP voting system.

    • @rawvid9065
      @rawvid9065 5 років тому +1

      Yes , we need STV

    • @Seatux
      @Seatux 5 років тому +6

      This is the time to not blame Canada, but the UK.

    • @LouisFoglia
      @LouisFoglia 5 років тому +3

      You're right. Thanks for flagging it. I pinned a correction.

    • @francismendy1398
      @francismendy1398 5 років тому +2

      And the UK

  • @Mamjam22
    @Mamjam22 2 роки тому +6

    Be Independent… once you belong to a Political Party you are the problem

  • @eruno_
    @eruno_ 5 років тому +170

    As European the idea of only two parties existing in parliament seems strange.

    • @elpeopuru3003
      @elpeopuru3003 5 років тому +3

      ユーネポ / Yuunepo There is functionally no difference between our two-party system and your multi-parties, though. In your countries it's literally illegal to compete with the establishment thanks to stuff like hate speech laws. That's even worse. At least here they have to keep up the pretense of freedom. Look at how UKIP candidates were treated during the most recent EU elections, banned from internet platforms and had physical violence committed against them. How desirable is democracy if you're only allowed to pick the choices that the ruling classes want?

    • @alexandrub8786
      @alexandrub8786 5 років тому +5

      @@elpeopuru3003 those are coalitions and the companie that care about hate speech are american because they are one who care the most about that ,and also when out countries have a problem with american censorship they send other people instead to isdn to the subpoena edition.cnn.com/2019/05/27/tech/zuckerberg-contempt-canada/index.html

    • @teslaliveus745
      @teslaliveus745 5 років тому +1

      @@elpeopuru3003 How is private citizens privately throwing privately bought milkshakes at Nazis "the choices that the ruling classes want"? It's individual choice.

    • @elpeopuru3003
      @elpeopuru3003 5 років тому +1

      @Tsunami1 Why do you think that corporations like Burger King tweet out support for your side's violence?

    • @elpeopuru3003
      @elpeopuru3003 5 років тому

      @Romanian Székely Mind you, I don't disagree that a lot of Europe's problems come from US intervention, and that's a damn shame. There's just a difference between being a true leftist who sees through all these things versus being an apologist for it. The latter frustrates me.

  • @utuberoku2475
    @utuberoku2475 4 роки тому +7

    Yes, end 2 party system!!

  • @yeetleslaw8529
    @yeetleslaw8529 5 років тому +5

    Capitalist ideals only leads to monopoly. Like you said, capitalism is baked in our blood. Our government reflects that.

    • @Soleilune1995
      @Soleilune1995 5 років тому +2

      Not to mention, a CEO is an authoritarian position. CEOs have all of the power in a company. They make all of the decisions for all of the workers, except what they care about is their own personal profit. Their workers are replaceable. They can just hire someone else.
      No wonder they look at "good leadership" in the government as ignoring what the people want/need and just serving the interests of the wealthy class. The wealthy donate only to candidates who will benefit them, and they have all of the money and power. This is why we have tyranny in America.
      Corporations are the government.

  • @76063co2
    @76063co2 5 років тому +8

    great video. We do desperately need to break the duopoly.

  • @JohnFromLINY
    @JohnFromLINY 5 років тому +3

    We are so trapped in this system. We need real change and nobody is here to help us!

  • @lochnessamonster1912
    @lochnessamonster1912 5 років тому +3

    Maybe more than two parties would work in a country where more than just 30% vote. We already have minority rule because of a two party system. I don’t want 5% of the population making policies for everyone, it’s already bad enough.

  • @TomKellyXY
    @TomKellyXY 5 років тому +3

    Australia has literally all of those things. As a New Zealander I’m reluctant to admit their system is fairer but you can’t argue with CPGrey.

    • @DiThi
      @DiThi 5 років тому

      People are kept ignorant and vote as if it was FPTP though.

  • @citizenx3729
    @citizenx3729 2 роки тому +1

    Brilliant work young man. The lemming pool needs to dry up in our country. People like you help advance this end.

  • @potatoheadpokemario1931
    @potatoheadpokemario1931 3 роки тому +4

    Two party system are so unbased that the only thing worse is a one party system

  • @Oncopoda
    @Oncopoda 5 років тому +37

    Lou, for someone who discusses politics as frequently as you do, you manage to steer away from controversial statements altogether. It's impressive almost.

    • @MilesHacker
      @MilesHacker 5 років тому +8

      KillerB86 why almost? It’s just impressive.

    • @Oncopoda
      @Oncopoda 5 років тому +3

      @@MilesHacker that's fair.

    • @uhohhotdog
      @uhohhotdog 5 років тому

      Not really. He’s made a shit ton of mistakes

    • @CubeTendo
      @CubeTendo 2 роки тому

      @@uhohhotdog and you haven’t?

  • @Florida46
    @Florida46 2 роки тому +1

    I recently read an article by the Atlantic that's correct about the fact that a 2 party system isn't working in favor of democracy. It stated that the far right has been manifesting in the Republican party for the past 20 years and Trump made it even worse. The article said that the far right of the GOP must be marginalized and the only way to successfully do that is by forming at least a 3rd political party. It stated that the purpose of a 3rd political party would be primarily for moderate centrist right traditional conservatives in order to give them a place they would feel comfortable calling home. Otherwise the far right faction of the current Republican party will continue to gain more influence and power and eventually will lead to the destruction of American democracy. As another Atlantic article pointed out the left and the right are radicalizing each other. By adding a 3rd and possibly a 4th party both the far right and far left would soon disappear. That's cause America would no longer have 2 extremist political parties constantly butting heads. We would end up having another party for moderate centrist Democrats and also another party for moderate centrist right traditional conservatives. Congressional districts across the country would be much more evenly represented. We would no longer have Ilhan Omar's and Alexandria Cortez's nor would we have Margerie Taylor Green's and Paul Gozar's.

  • @c0pyimitati0n
    @c0pyimitati0n 5 років тому +10

    Can't stand people that yell at the people who vote 3rd party and say that they are "throwing their vote away" ... We can't fix the system if we keep doing the same things.

    • @Seatux
      @Seatux 5 років тому

      Or treat throwing the vote away if you know who is going to win anyway. A small moral win for you, the rest who vote the winner gets to mock the minority.

    • @hologramghost5331
      @hologramghost5331 5 років тому +1

      Because you are and that has consecuences the Bush and the Trump adminstration are proof of this, save your idealism for things that don't carry such high stakes

    • @c0pyimitati0n
      @c0pyimitati0n 5 років тому +4

      @@hologramghost5331 with this thought process things will never change... 😒

    • @hologramghost5331
      @hologramghost5331 5 років тому +1

      @@c0pyimitati0n I'm all for change but one has to act in relation with the present environment and the potential consequences related to that environment, kids in cages, a worsening environmental emergency, a reality TV star with his hands on the nuclear codes those are the things that we are left to dealt with when people opt for a defective strategy

    • @c0pyimitati0n
      @c0pyimitati0n 5 років тому +4

      @@hologramghost5331 Trump wasn't a 3rd party candidate... So your argument just backs up mine. We need change and it ain't gonna come from the same two piles of shit we've been fed for the last couple hundred years.

  • @RobReinhart
    @RobReinhart Рік тому +1

    The problem is that people don’t stand up against this 2 party system. Therefore, this 2 party duopoly system keeps thriving.

  • @Lumencraft-
    @Lumencraft- 5 років тому +5

    6:45 that ranked choice voting seems like something worth exploring on a larger scale.

    • @CatholicWeeb
      @CatholicWeeb 4 роки тому

      This is used in the Republic of Ireland, It's working reasonablely good.

  • @jamesdouglas8726
    @jamesdouglas8726 5 років тому +4

    Thank You Louis! I'm seeing my country being controlled by a failed political system. I'm not gonna vote for a D or R. I'm so tired of elected folks working for their party instead of their voters. God help us, we need real change. Please keep doing what you do.

    • @sguinn91
      @sguinn91 Рік тому +1

      Pray and hope for change,my friend. Cause were only human and their is only so much we can do. I became an independent libertarian after the last election cause I'm tired of the junk and would rather have intelligent discussion instead of discrimination and bias like were dealing with now.

  • @Seatux
    @Seatux 5 років тому +6

    The First Pass the Post Voting for a Westminister style parliamentary system isn't free from a duopoly either.
    If the 3rd choice is a weak one, or country practices political patronage, ie: you vote me and my party elected as government would deliver things you need would mean people rarely vote independants.
    I am genuinely stuck disagreeing with my country's duopoly parties and vote independants anyway because I disagree with the system in its entirety.

  • @mortentoensager
    @mortentoensager 5 років тому +2

    Everything Lou said in this video, is how most democratic countries do it. Most democratic countries look at the US system as a not working democratic system. Because of what mentioned in this video and the influence of businesses in politics. Americans need to look outside there borders to see how things can be done better like the metric system and 24 hours time system, booth used by the military because it's easier and more accurate.

  • @mickcv4554
    @mickcv4554 4 роки тому +1

    Why can’t we have men like Washington nowadays? Earned his place and was demanded to be leader, foresaw this disaster of a 2 party system, and could’ve stayed in office like a king but rejected it

  • @tylerkammerer4932
    @tylerkammerer4932 5 років тому +3

    Im sorry but you a totally wrong about how parliamentary voting, if someone got X- percentage of popular vote it doesn't equal X percentage of the seats in Parliament. It's a first past the post system, where it can happen when a party that receives a minority of popular vote but still could win a majority of the seats in the house(parliament) .

    • @LouisFoglia
      @LouisFoglia 5 років тому

      You're right. I should have said "some" parliamentary systems . I rewrote that paragraph a bunch of times (at one point I had examples of the different countries with proportional representation). I pinned a correction. Thanks for pointing it out.

  • @stridon223
    @stridon223 2 роки тому +2

    this has to spread

  • @uhohhotdog
    @uhohhotdog 5 років тому +3

    Assuming someone who voted third party would have otherwise voted for the duopoly candidate is nonsense

  • @MechanicWolf85
    @MechanicWolf85 5 років тому +7

    There shouldn't even be parties in a democracy
    There should be people with ideas and we should judge them based on the ideas they bring

    • @fromthebackseat4865
      @fromthebackseat4865 5 років тому +1

      That's just not possible. Parties are more or less essential for government. Nothing would get done if there were no coalitions, and people will band together based on ideology regardless.

  • @j0nrages851
    @j0nrages851 5 років тому +4

    YES- Ranked Choice and Parliamentary Congress are dreams that should be reality

  • @moustafamohsen
    @moustafamohsen 5 років тому +2

    First reaction when I saw the title: YEAH NO SHIT!!

  • @FalconsEye58094
    @FalconsEye58094 11 місяців тому

    trapped in a vicious cycle, only 2 parties with over a century worth of influence each, first past the post, the electoral college which can only be changed by a notoriously difficult constitutional amendment

  • @ryanmccready8978
    @ryanmccready8978 5 років тому +1

    I don't know if this creates extreme frustration with any other viewers, but relating most to the libertarian party I think we are long overdue for a revolution. Third parties ought to join together and mount one.

  • @thedudegrowsfood284
    @thedudegrowsfood284 5 років тому +3

    Nice statue of His Holiness, The Dude. Far out, man!

  • @zimtwiers9726
    @zimtwiers9726 5 років тому +1

    Totally agree with the video.
    A easy measure for the electoral college would be introducing ranked choice voting and making each states HoR votes representitve.
    Small states with 3 electoral would stay the same and be decisive(the 1 HoR vote would only go to the wimner ofcourse). Larger states would get more purple.
    This would increase the importance for politiciand in adressing all states instead of just a few swing states and still let smaller states keep a stronger voice. Hopefully the Dual party system would also fall as a result.

  • @jacobmarley2417
    @jacobmarley2417 Рік тому

    Fantastic video, I could not agree more on every single point.

  • @horseshoed5221
    @horseshoed5221 4 роки тому +1

    A political party is in business for one reason. And that’s NOT a public service for voters. It’s to return an investment for those who dump money into the party. We need to fire the party system.

  • @ateisme3752
    @ateisme3752 5 років тому

    And they think they live in a democracy.

    • @mbdg6810
      @mbdg6810 3 роки тому

      Its a REPUBLIC

  • @ganapatikamesh
    @ganapatikamesh 5 років тому +1

    There’s always a lot of focus on the president and electoral college. However there were times in the 19th century when Congress had members from more than just the two parties. India has a first-past-the-post system and 50+ parties that organize into political coalitions. Two things that those who benefit from the duopoly (party leaders, donors, media, and pundits) often say is 1) people don’t vote for parties, they vote for candidates 2) it would be expensive to change things to either multi-seat districts or some sort of proportional representation system such as RCV, MMPR, or STV.
    Looking at those two arguments. The first one isn’t true. SOME people do vote for candidates. However I have volunteered as a poll worker in my state and in each partisan election I worked, most people didn’t even know all the candidates they voted by party, many opting to use the part of the ballot that lets them vote “Party Line”, that is an area a top each column where selecting a party automatically means you select all party candidates for that column. In nonpartisan elections such as school board and city council elections here, many people again didn’t know all the candidates and would inquire with the poll workers about the affiliation of the candidates. We aren’t given that information. So saying people vote for candidates not parties isn’t true. Most people are voting for parties not candidates because they want to vote for their “team.” Those without a “team” either aren’t voting or are the people who are voting for candidates. As for it being to expensive, that also is false. Numerous studies have shown that the costs of elections would actually be reduced by switching and the costs to implement the changes would also not be very much. In fact, it would be comparable to the costs Congress made after the 2000 election and no one in Congress or state legislatures was complaining then about the small sum. Prior to the 1960s, single-member districts weren’t mandatory for federal elections. Congress changed this then. There were states that had local, state, and even federal offices elected multi-members or even at-large members. In the 1960s this was changed. The thought was to intentionally create districts for certain minority groups so as to ensure representation...especially in places where they had been discriminated and even denied representation. While the intentions are honorable, it opened up gerrymandering in ways that once the Voting Rights Act was gutted has led to situations that actually do the opposite of the intentions of those who passed into law the single-member districts to begin with. Thus, with the intentions broken, the law should be reformed. A multi-member district could run parties that represent minority groups to ensure representation. This is what is done in other nations that are multi-party democratic-republics. Saying that the richest nation on the planet cannot afford these things and saying that somehow our citizens aren’t as politically savvy as other nations by not voting for parties should lead people to then point out the irrelevance of the parties and pressure for the complete ending/banning of parties altogether so that all elections are nonpartisan or if it costs too much then instead of taxpayers paying for elections then the parties pay taxes that then pay for elections since we’ve all seen the huge sums of money the local, state, and national parties have and the grand conventions they put on every four years.....surely they could spare some of that money to help foot the bill of either great reforms that would make the process more representative and democratic or the elections themselves since they want to exclude others. As Congress and legislative bodies are the ones with the most real political influence on people’s day to day lives (they write and pass the laws that the executive branches enforce and judiciary branches interpret), that’s where the focus of reform should be. Those who wish to maintain the status quo (because they benefit from it) like to distract and confuse the issue by talking about the electoral college and executive branch like the Presidency and make it seem like that’s where people and other parties outside the duopoly should focus their attention. Yet historically the diversity of political parties has been in local, state, and even the national legislative branches while whatever two big parties get the executive. In fact, the few times those smaller parties have either gained a majority in a legislative branch or gained an executive branch is when the two big parties either got the smaller party to merge with it (see parties in some places like Democratic-Farmers Party, etc where this happened), or they used fear to get people to run it out of existence in an area (early 20th century Oklahoma Socialist Party is a good example). Even in multi-party systems two or three rise to be the biggest parties and either coalitions are formed or parties work together or oppose each other depending on specific issues....it just depends on what kind of government system it is (presidential, parliamentary, semi-presidential, etc). You’re absolutely right that the two existing major parties would actually benefit from the reforms. Unfortunately they just don’t realize it yet. And sadly they may not realize it at all and people will reach a point where they no longer trust or have confidence in the system and so will not participate. What happens when people stop participating in peaceful democratic-republic systems? Well, if history is any indicator, then probably not anyone’s desired outcomes. So ready they could prevent any of those outcomes and just spend the small amount of money and reform the system. The real question is do we have any real leaders with the necessary courage to do it.

  • @kylewollman2239
    @kylewollman2239 5 років тому +11

    And then when you go to work, the thing that governs most of your time and activity, there is a no party system run by either an oligarchy (board of directors) or a dictatorship (CEO/owner).

  • @onsight1318
    @onsight1318 5 років тому +4

    Believe me .. having more parties isn't that great either..... I'm from India and we have a multiple-party system... if a mainstream party doesn't get the majority it can form collisions with other small parties which often take it as an opportunity for their own benefit leading to a weak and corrupt government... Also these small regional parties, often creates divide among peoples by exploiting their cultural and regional identity..

    • @Seatux
      @Seatux 5 років тому

      No one says to have choices as many as rice brands... Just one or a few extra would do.

    • @onsight1318
      @onsight1318 5 років тому

      @@Seatux well that's the point

  • @dwc1964
    @dwc1964 5 років тому +1

    One of the solutions you proposed, we've got in California. Party primaries have been eliminated (for everything but POTUS) in favor of a "Top Two" primary. What this means is that, in the spring, instead of each party choosing its candidates to represent it in the general election, it's a battle royale amongst *all* the candidates regardless of party affiliation, with the two top vote-getters moving on to November.
    The result is that the spring election is in practical effect the *general* election, and the November election is the *runoff.* Except that everyone still thinks of the spring election as the primary, which they figure they can skip (spring elections have *far* lower turnout than November), and they still have it in their heads that they'll be able to vote for their preferred party in November.
    The result has been not just to *completely* shut out "third parties", but to reinforce the *single-party* nature of most districts, as they now feature a November runoff between two candidates *of the same party.* Thus, even less choice.
    So, maybe don't do that.

    • @theuglykwan
      @theuglykwan Рік тому

      They should amend it so top 4 advance and use ranked choice or similar system for the general.

  • @joonasfi
    @joonasfi 5 років тому +1

    *laughs in european* My country, Finland, used electoral college also. In 1991 we it was stupid and switched to direct popular vote. The U.S. is so cute with its antiquated systems like electoral college (even the name is stupid - sounds like a school where you go to learn to vote) and freedom units. "But it has always been like this!! MURICA!! Freedom! Shotguns and bald eagles yeee-haw!!"

  • @soggyslu1
    @soggyslu1 4 роки тому +5

    Considering technology today, our voting system needs an update... But I suppose secure online voting profile will require some validation, so demoncraps will have an excuse for protest.

  • @robertagallant3819
    @robertagallant3819 Рік тому

    In the United States of America, Democracy does not work! Democracy
    includes too many problems. Democracy needs much more work to help
    improve it.

  •  4 роки тому

    I like that ranking system. we HAVE TO DO SOMETHING cause I and others CAN' T TAKE THIS CRAP anymore!! Things have to change, man! I DON'T want to go through this again...having to choose between Trump and Hillary!!!! NOT AGAIN!!

  • @josephagar1005
    @josephagar1005 3 роки тому

    I honestly didn't realize until recently.

  • @klaw547
    @klaw547 4 роки тому +2

    I believe it is absolutely insane to vote for one candidate just because you don't want to see another candidate win. After the smoke clears the BEST case scenario is you are left with a candidate you care NOTHING about. I don't care how I feel about Donald Trump I will NOT vote for Joe Biden....
    I will continue to vote for those 3rd "spoiler" parties.

  • @Spike.SpiegeI
    @Spike.SpiegeI 5 років тому +2

    great video!! We need to enact some of these changes but it seems like such a long shot when the 2 parties control the rules :(

    • @theuglykwan
      @theuglykwan Рік тому

      It's not absolute. In the progressive era, voters in 21 states or so forced them to change the rules for ballot initiatives so in those states the voters can initiate ballot measures which bypass the legislature. They can pass standard laws or even amend the state constitution this way.
      In MI they used this method to get citizen led redistricting commission. In CA they used it to get independent redistricting commission and jungle primaries.

  • @KoriconNala
    @KoriconNala 5 років тому +1

    Great video. Loved it!

  • @kellyramon8506
    @kellyramon8506 4 роки тому +1

    I love what you said in the end. Thank you for this.

  • @jarskil8862
    @jarskil8862 5 років тому +1

    Here in Finland we have literally 2 (maybe 3) parties despite we have 7-8 or so
    We have "left and right Liberals" and "nationalist party"
    Why only 2 parties? Because despite the nationalists are atm clear number one in polls, and in elections they lost the largest spot with only 4000 votes.
    All other parties were ready to break their promises, just so they got big enough coalition so they were able to block nationalists out of the goverment.
    Atm we have extremely unstable goverment due this.

  • @-gemberkoekje-5547
    @-gemberkoekje-5547 5 років тому +1

    People should develop their own opinions and ideas, instead of picking a side with wich you seem to align with in some ways, or what your peers are.

  • @aagreminger8823
    @aagreminger8823 5 років тому +2

    this is a really good video

  • @nopenadda
    @nopenadda 3 роки тому +1

    you failed to mention the 2 parties came together to create rules making it harder to gain debate access

  • @historygeek2411
    @historygeek2411 5 років тому +1

    What do you all think is better?
    Option 1:no parties
    Option 2: one party
    Option 3: multiple parties

  • @jeremywright9511
    @jeremywright9511 4 роки тому +1

    Wish they would reform the system sooner rather than later. The process of doing so would likely take years to properly establish, so better to look for a solution now than to maintain this childish and false division.

  • @pentekimi
    @pentekimi 5 років тому +2

    at least 90% of your points are valid in Hungary as well

  • @Nickxis
    @Nickxis 5 років тому +4

    How many other countries have similar political systems?

    • @k-mdn4905
      @k-mdn4905 5 років тому +1

      アニメAnimeIsArt
      Even in multiparty systems, there’re almost always two dominant ones that tend to win most of the time.

    • @rawvid9065
      @rawvid9065 5 років тому +4

      Wayyyyy too many countries , we need stv in every countries

    • @xXWorldgamefunXx
      @xXWorldgamefunXx 5 років тому +1

      @@k-mdn4905 However there is always an option for smaller parties to arise. If both the democratic and republican party turn to shit nobody can vote them out of office.

  • @anthonymartin3642
    @anthonymartin3642 4 роки тому

    i couldn't hear anything after focusing on the Big Lebowski statue in the bottom left...

  • @mcountiss
    @mcountiss 5 років тому +1

    At some point, both parties will split into moderate and extreme versions of themselves, and hopefully give us 4 parties that will open the door to others. We already are seeing a divide in the moderates and progressives in the Democrats. Hopefully it doesn't end in a bull moose scenario.

  • @asaadhusein5063
    @asaadhusein5063 5 років тому +2

    What happens if he messes up

  • @AndyGaskin
    @AndyGaskin 5 років тому +1

    Good analysis.

  • @gauravkashyap3189
    @gauravkashyap3189 5 років тому +2

    No ads? :(

  • @nhawk4708
    @nhawk4708 2 роки тому

    Just put all candidates in a house and make them live together in a reality tv show. They compete in presidential challenges and everyone can see each life story and watch how they act and respond to different situations and then vote and slowly eliminate until a winner.
    Even reality shows potintially have better system to choose a winner. The political innovation discussion is wonderful to explore. :)

  • @chiuansheng
    @chiuansheng 5 років тому +1

    2 or 100. It's the same. more difficulty more easy to Manipulation. 2 parties probably 50% against 50%. 100 parities. good luck with that. ,most people even can't remember what the policy they voted for. 100..........good luck.

  • @davidramirez9891
    @davidramirez9891 5 років тому +3

    We been knew

  • @1848revolt
    @1848revolt 2 роки тому

    In the old days whoever was first was president whoever was second was vice president. That didnt last long.

  • @jamess6853
    @jamess6853 3 роки тому

    Like being forced to choose between Pepsi or Coca Cola but you prefer Pibb. Gotta love majority rule.

  • @ihl0700677525
    @ihl0700677525 5 років тому

    I think the duopoly is good. It create more stable and decisive government. The problem with dozen or so political parties is the fact that too much compromise need to be made, to the point of making decisive decision is almost impossible. Ofc it has arguably good "moderation" effect on any policy (since the ruling party usually need vote from the opposition to pass any legislation), but I prefer *stabilty* and *decisiveness* over merely having "more option" (for the sake of having more option).

    • @juicedbeetlejuice4572
      @juicedbeetlejuice4572 Рік тому

      My personal issue with the Two Party system is that it makes everything very absolute, posing a unique Social Issue.
      Instead of having individual parties representing different beliefs, suddenly you have one representing half the political spectrum, and the other representing the other half: This creates “Crossfire” between peoples and allows the opposing side to generalize the other easily- For example, someone can’t be a Socialist without being called a Communist. This doesn’t sound like an issue I know but I think it drastically encourages Social conflict and turns Elections into Us vs Them politics.
      I guess what I’m trying to say is that a two party system creates Social Polarization, and having absolute parties representing what is a Multi-Idealogical voter base isn’t effective or efficient.

    • @ihl0700677525
      @ihl0700677525 Рік тому

      @@juicedbeetlejuice4572 Polarization happened in countries with multiple political parties too, like in Italy and Germany (e.g. rise of fascism).
      IMO this has nothing to do with the number of political parties. Even in one-party state (e.g. Yugoslavia), social tension and unrest (e.g. due to multi-ethnic society) exist.

    • @rcquakes30
      @rcquakes30 7 місяців тому

      Afraid of competition right

  • @FilinMXr
    @FilinMXr 5 років тому

    This channel is still underrated

  • @spiritualanarchist8162
    @spiritualanarchist8162 5 років тому +1

    One can choose between 'Rep.Capitalism plus or Dem. Capitalism light..

    • @elpeopuru3003
      @elpeopuru3003 5 років тому

      If leftists hate capitalism so much then why do you "punch nazis".

    • @teslaliveus745
      @teslaliveus745 5 років тому

      @@elpeopuru3003 If Americans hate censorship so much why do you "drink milk"?

  • @christiansmakingmusic777
    @christiansmakingmusic777 3 роки тому

    All the possible structural reforms might cause us to focus on the wrong thing. The problem is that good public policy has to involve what is wise, what is practical, and what is possible. It has to involve starting with a wide swath of proposals and narrowing them down to things that might be effective, and almost always relies on compromise to actually get a decent policy implemented. Once implemented, the policy must be revisited in time via the same process in order to assess its effectiveness and changed if necessary. Another angle here is how prosperity causes most political issues and even policy questions to have little large scale impact on quality of life. I don't like higher taxes, but unless it is a crushing burden I can simply ignore it and pursue my personal ambitions. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness remember? Applying these ideas to the needed structural changes leads me to think that the House should most definitely become more like a parliament with parties receiving a proportional representation within their delegation. The difficulty there is adding a layer between the district level voting. Geography and local interest will have to be taken into account.

  • @MaggieHessUnedited
    @MaggieHessUnedited 5 років тому

    you keep such a tidy room of beloved things!

  • @LeonardiniLuca
    @LeonardiniLuca 5 років тому

    Lou is great. Period!

  • @friton8i752
    @friton8i752 5 років тому +1

    We in Germany have 5 big parties and its also very hard the find a solution

  • @GregoryWonderwheel
    @GregoryWonderwheel 4 роки тому

    This is pretty good except for endorsing the lie that Nader was a spoiler and the falsehood that a vote for an alternative party is a "wasted" vote.

  • @willdwyer6782
    @willdwyer6782 Рік тому

    I blame both parties equally for January 6. The two party system turns neighbors into mortal enemies over stupid issues that don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

  • @jacobbarrett8068
    @jacobbarrett8068 5 років тому

    We never had a democracy

    • @SeanAlegator
      @SeanAlegator 5 років тому

      Man if we could go back to those days that we never had democracy nor republic it would be way better

  • @lxtalibanxl1921
    @lxtalibanxl1921 2 роки тому

    Thats why I became a moderate, I don't want a two party system tbh

  • @julenliantrehe6780
    @julenliantrehe6780 5 років тому

    Two party systems are awful. Multi-party system can also be bad but not even close to sucking as bad as two party systems.

  • @nubzz
    @nubzz 3 роки тому

    Yea we need another party to go establishment.
    Why not take Washington's words on political parties to heart, parties are legalized collusion within our government.

  • @AJC_Tiger_2000
    @AJC_Tiger_2000 5 років тому

    I know somebody who wants the two-party system to stay as the status quo, but this time, he wants all the third parties, the Independents, and even write-in votes to go away and simply leave the two major parties still standing. So in his mind, it’s either vote Republican/Democrat or don’t vote at all; and either register Republican/Democrat or don’t register to vote at all. That’s how he is.
    Also, political parties started in America, so why not try to end political parties, starting with America. That way part of political corruption could end once and for all if we can completely wipe out political parties. I have a friend who wants ALL political parties to go away. In fact, I think America’s better off with NO political parties than having just 2. That’s just me.

    • @itstriplem2069
      @itstriplem2069 5 років тому +1

      exactly, we don't need idiotic self serving politicians to represent us. We can just vote on what is right to further better our country and hopefully better Humanity

  • @madmadderson7318
    @madmadderson7318 3 роки тому

    I'm certainly running out of patience for both sides

  • @jokubas3391
    @jokubas3391 5 років тому

    Ye, American democracy really sucks

  • @quiversender7177
    @quiversender7177 2 роки тому

    It's never been acceptable

  • @nickcollins2484
    @nickcollins2484 3 роки тому

    this video is key

  • @ilyaelric9539
    @ilyaelric9539 5 років тому +1

    Hey it's Lou and here is the thing. I finally recognized that everything nonlefty also exists

    • @uhohhotdog
      @uhohhotdog 5 років тому

      Bruno Buccellati he’s not lefty

  • @JohnHWelch63
    @JohnHWelch63 3 роки тому +1

    We really need a viable 3rd party in the US that can actually win a substantial amount of seats in congress and have a real chance of winning the presidency. The dems and reps need some real competition to keep them in check! They have freely run amok all over the constitution for way too long. Sometimes it happens at the Governor level. For instance, my home state of Maine once elected independent Angus King for governor, but it needs to happen in DC too. Just before I moved to Florida I remember Maine instituting the ranked choice voting system he's talking about. I voted that way once but then moved out of state so I don't really know how that's working for them.

  • @geoffphillips5872
    @geoffphillips5872 2 роки тому

    The fantasy of democracy thrives. A vote for a binary party is a vote for no change. We regress.

  •  4 роки тому

    I subscribed. I want to see your other views on topics and see your other videos.

  • @juancarlosorantes
    @juancarlosorantes 5 років тому

    It’s worst, I live Guatemala and are lost election why hav 25 party and worst because you don’t how you elect.

  • @andrewmarasek620
    @andrewmarasek620 5 років тому +1

    Well we aren't a democracy, we are a republic... Or a representative democracy. Now going beyond that, this is were we have voting for pre election. Wish people understand that better instead of grasping onto a overly general idea just because they heard a few people say something

    • @DiThi
      @DiThi 5 років тому

      "Democracy" is short for "representative democracy" or "any type of democracy". Insisting on using the original definitions instead of the mainstream ones is an attempt on derailing conversations.

    • @andrewmarasek620
      @andrewmarasek620 5 років тому

      @@DiThi no, there are branches of democracy. A basic democracy is far from a representative democracy

    • @andrewmarasek620
      @andrewmarasek620 5 років тому

      @@DiThi for example, we have Democrats pushing for popular vote, but that's not how America works is it? Why is it we don't follow a democracy over a republic? Honestly I don't care for you to answer, I was more so making a point of how your comment doesn't make sense and you're the one derailing

    • @DiThi
      @DiThi 5 років тому

      @@andrewmarasek620 What's a "basic democracy"? Do you mean "direct democracy"? Anyway, let's not discuss semantics and let's focus instead on something important: In the USA, what groups of people have influence on what laws are passed on the government? (other than politicians of course) What's the ideal? And what is it now?

    • @andrewmarasek620
      @andrewmarasek620 5 років тому

      @@DiThi guess what, that's the beauty of representative democracy... Don't like those doing the laws that you elected, vote them out. Laws are not permanent. If no one is doing what you want, you do it. That's the best part of America, the greatest country in the world!

  • @elessal
    @elessal 5 років тому

    in my book, America is not a democracy. he or she who wins the popular vote is the one who is supposed to win. that is the most basic description of what democracy is.

    • @dienamychd7611
      @dienamychd7611 5 років тому

      vasalem well America really ISNT a democracy. It’s a republic before everything else.

  • @artski09
    @artski09 5 років тому +1

    Democracy is talking itself to death. The people do not know what they want; they do not know what is the best for them. There is too much foolishness, too much lost motion. I have stopped the talk and the nonsense. I am a man of action. Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that some day.

  • @ieaatclams
    @ieaatclams 5 років тому +1

    Don't worry in California it's one party elections

  • @NyalBurns
    @NyalBurns 5 років тому

    You want a 2 party system for the presidency to keep radicals out. But retain more than a 2 party system for parliament (senate)
    You want Presidential elections to be proportional and you want the senate (parliament) to be elected representatively.

  • @giancarlod8837
    @giancarlod8837 5 років тому

    hey @LouisFoglia, what watch are you wearing?

  • @gljames24
    @gljames24 5 років тому

    I've been saying this for years, but how do we ranked voting passed by the people empowered by the current system?

    • @MitchellThomas92
      @MitchellThomas92 5 років тому

      Uhhh you don't :P the change would have to go through Congress I'm pretty sure. when almost everyone in power is backed by a party, supporting change in this direction would be political suicide unfortunately.