Why So Many Americans Hate Political Parties
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лис 2022
- Just two political parties have long dominated the American government. The 117th Congress had just two independent members in the Senate, who both caucus with the Democrats. And it’s been more than half a century since a candidate from neither the Democratic or Republican Party won any electoral votes in a presidential election.
Some experts suggest that the two-party system could be blamed for the political polarization we find in America. More Americans are growing discontent with the system. A study in 2022 found that nearly 4 in 10 Americans wished for more political parties to choose from.
"It's a two-party system and you have to pick one side or the other," said Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at New America. "If we are in a situation in which one party believes that the other party winning the election would be so disastrous to the country that maybe we should intervene to prevent the other party from winning, then you don't really have a democracy anymore."
So should the U.S. consider moving on from a two-party system and what kind of changes would it bring? Watch the video to find out.
» Subscribe to CNBC: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBC
» Subscribe to CNBC TV: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCtelevision
About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.
Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news: www.cnbc.com/
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: cnb.cx/LinkedInCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Facebook: cnb.cx/LikeCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Twitter: cnb.cx/FollowCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Instagram: cnb.cx/InstagramCNBC
#CNBC
Why So Many Americans Hate Political Parties
No one is more committed to the two party system than the two parties we have. Neither one of them is interested in fighting on two fronts.
Exactly. We should have 4. 2 we have now + 2 for the left and right extremists.
Let them have their own party instead of ruining the majority image.
@@LeeeroyJenkins we should have 5 total 1 far left 1 moderate left 1 middle 1 moderate right 1 far right
@@truechaosmulala3831 nope need about 15. To account for the major ethnic groups of your country. You’ve got BLM who are racists, the Proudboys who are racist and likely a racist Hispanic underground too. You forgot to account for the fact that America is full of racists :)
Wouldn’t fix anything. Other countries with multiple parties are get fked over aswell
@@truechaosmulala3831 LMAO, imagine the discussions in the Parliament!!!
Because in a country who's allegedly all about freedom, the choice between two awful parties is a f*cking joke.
I could literally not say it any better. I would like this 10 times if I could. These parties are ass. But they know if we had a completely moderate third party, they would lose all their power lol
@@robotman011 y'all are just stupid. we don't need moderates. we just need the GOP. They're what we need. so just vote GOP and forget about everything else
You get the freedom to choose… they just won’t win. They aren’t stopping you from writing in any random person off the street.
Absolutely. Simple. They are all dirty thugs and no brainers. Just how much they have done for the people of united states. using all the tax payers money. Disguisting. Feeding a dog would be so much better
@@jimmymhdalfaqih5397 exactly why we need to vote GOP only. the GOp cuts tax and cut spending.
Because republican believe that YOU know how to spend YOUR money the best
This isn’t a football game. This is a country.
American Election League 2024
Democratic Donkeys vs Republican Elephants
Exactly
I get your point, but in India the Coalition government often plays a vital role in representing different cultures on a national level.
A country like the US and West European countries doesn't need this kind of party and government system.
"The United States is also a one party state, but in typical American extravagance, there are two of them" -Julius Nyerere
We don’t even need parties. we just need to know which politicians support what causes. Having political parties inherently will divide up people anyways
Are you talking about china.
I think political parties are inherently unavoidable in a democracy because generally you want as many votes as possible to get your legislation passed. Your idea is the outcome we strive for but in practicality it would never happen.
@@gannonlenhart yea I guess that's true. And going by your argument I would just say I don't think its good to have political parties
Right, we need to have some kind of ban on factions
As long as you don't have a 50 year entitled dirt bag running the show like now in the US ! I'm game !
So glad that you're bringing attention to this issue. The two main parties hold way too much power. I know one solution some states have offered is ranked voting. Would enjoy seeing a video on that.
Ranked choice voting would make it much easier to have a multiparty system. A multiparty system would force positions away from the fringes and towards common ground.
This is the only change that would really make a difference. That's why both establishment parties are strongly against it
Its the only thing possible to bring a 3rd party as the real solution requires a Constitutional Amendment changing our form of government....that will never happen
its been accomplished in Alaska, I know that much, that should be interesting to see how it works long term
@@inorite4553 not sure a full 'form of government change is necessary, I would say changing the voting systems to: Promote ranked choice or approval voting, and allow more candidates to participate in public debates.
I used to live in Canada and we had 5 major parties but really just 3 parties that have the possibility to win. I liked that a lot more than US system because there needs to be moderation and collaboration across different parties. Not just "you are the other party so I oppose you" and the parties just become more and more extreme.
They really don’t just become more extreme. They’re the oldest democracy and only now it is this stupid. This is just generational stupidity and can’t be helped. Hopefully next generation will grow out of it.
maybe you should go back to Canada where you don't have free speech and the government forces you to get experimental medical procedures. It's literally a communist country lmao
Like the UK and Australia
There aren't 5 major parties in canada this is false and misleading.
There are 5 house represented parties in Canada and like 15 more registered parties in Canada. The Liberals in Canada have drifted further left than what they were, it doesn’t matter how many parties you have, they shift depending on how society change to get the votes. I voted Liberal in one election during the Harper years cause they were more center left and now I have voted Conservatives multiple times cause I dislike Trudeau so much and can’t really get behind the NDP platform.
Our 2 parties are extreme already. Extremely corporate dominated. The few things that pass are tax cuts, war funding, or anything else that benefits wealthy people or corporations. This absolutely needs to change asap.
So, what you described is actually to be expected of any government. See CGP Grey's "Rules for Rulers" video; it explains how rulers (dictators, oligarchs, monarchs) must curry favor to obtain keys to power, and that a ruler (or ruling faction) must appease a variety of people or factions to obtain/maintain the power required for them to rule.
Tax cuts and incentives for big businesses will never go away so long as those businesses comprise a key to power for rulers to rule and govern. The big thing to note, however, is something you've already recognized and called out via your initial comment: the 2 parties have favored those businesses/corporations at the expense of the people. In our nation, the U.S. clearly espouses that we are a government "of the people, for the people," and thus establishes that the people hold keys to power just as much as any corporation.
The two major political parties dominating U.S. government today don't want the people to remember this, and actively keep people poorly/inadequately educated. They foster the polarization we are seeing today to keep us at each other's throats and distracted from the fact that we are not as important or valuable to them until we have the means to hold them accountable during election season. This is part of a political strategy surrounding the two party system, where the thought process follows that a dumb/ignorant person is easier to manipulate and deceive - thus making them easier to control.
Why does no one see that money in politics is not new? The Fathers of the US were all wealthy land and business owners, not everyday people.
The US is probably the only democracy in the world without at least a social democratic center left party. In the US one can only choose between a conservative very anti-state party and a center to center right liberal party. This problem is clear even in this particular report where no mention of left wing politics is done as it as understood around the rest of the world as being related to ideologies which are totally unrepresented in the US political system: social democracy, socialism and communism. In the countries closest to the US there exist such left wing parties. For example Mexico is right now governed by a social democratic party (Morena) while there are social democratic parties which are mainstream both in Canada (New Democratic Party) and the UK (Labour Party). Other countries like Germany (Social Democratic Party), Spain and Portugal and all of scandinavia are governed right now by social democratic parties as well as most of Latin America right now after they had a more right wing period in the previous decade and the most populated country in the world is governed by the Communist party (China). Meanwhile only the US gets to choose between only center right liberals and right wing conservatives. From that point of view the US is a very weird and disfunctional democracy and it shows in realities such as it being the only industrialized country without universal healthcare, also it having very low minimum wages and vacation benefits for workers or it having such high costs of university tuition while in much of Europe state university is often tuition free, as well as its very high and amazing levels of domination of politics and of corruption of the political system by corporations and the rich.
@@EclecticoIconoclasta Yes, but is also the largest economy and pays very low taxes compared to socialized medicine Europe and Japan. They do pay, just in high taxes. The only way to have more parties is have parliamentary government. The United States is the most successful, richest, most powerful nation in the history of the planet. yet, there are trade offs. Its why everyone wants to come here. I have seen first hand, the shock of tourists seeing the size and choices in a simple supermarket here.
@@EclecticoIconoclasta You're absolutely correct. Unfortunately the American population is entirely to ignorant about civics, national and international politics to understand the bizarre reality of our political options. Also, we're subject to so much propaganda against socialism and communist political alternatives, or even hybrids options within our system, that these words are super toxic to many, especially older generations. When in reality all political systems are hybrids with the difference mainly being on the emphasis of whom governments help, rich & corporations, or their populations. So the choice is corporate socialism/crony capitalism or social democractic policy/democracy in the workplace with strong unions, worker co-ops, strong worker protections which result in higher wages and increased quality of life for workers, families, and society in general. The high cost of education, and emphasis on privatizing elementary education is an effort by both parties to keep people ignorant which keeps them empowered. There are a lot of big issues with our political system that many are way to polarized to objectively address these concerns. National rank choice voting, national ballot initiatives, strong democracy reforms like an end to gerrymandering through population proportional representative districts, matching funds for non-corporate backed candidates would go a long way to helping the current plutocratic government controlled political system.
The first thing we need is an age limit on members of congress. Second, we got to have term limits for senators. However, the biggest issue is that we need three parties in congress to get things done.
Thomas Jefferson was worried how dysfunctional the two party system could be.
We are living in that reality right now.
Term limits for *all* elected (and appointed) positions. The age limit concept is something that concerns me, because it is a pretty broad brush... though I (obviously) see the intended effect. For my money, members of the house should get a lifetime maximum of 6 terms, senators 2 terms, and judges 25 years.
He was concerned about it, though ironically He was essentially the founding father of the Whig party which was the precursor to Lincolns republican party, which was itself a precursor to today democratic party.
We don't need parties we need their proposals first and foremost. What are they going to do? How are they going to do it? When will they have it done by? That's all that matters. Parties are just like teams, we don't need teams we need IDEAS. Logical ones.
And nothing you want would create or Foster along a viable 3rd party
People have been trying to make third parties work since the founding of the Republic. The structure of our political system is set up against it. We need a real structural change like ranked choice voting or approval voting to make this stuff happen.
George Washington: *writes an article warning people of the dangers of factions*
America for the next 200+ years: Pipe down, old man!
Yeah, in his farewell address, he warned about the destruction that political parties can cause.
@@MeikaiX Good for him he didn't live long enough to see such a hellhole.
Yes indeed.
Imagine both parties could work together to get things done instead of always fighting
Ikr. But they never do. 😔😔😔
Bro they do that, just not the way you would want. They are the elite
@@forschooluseonly7697 yes it's impossible because their main agenda is divide and conquer in the mind of the populace.
I'm not so sure they fight off camera as much as they do in front of the cameras to make it look good. I'm sure they're laughing at our expense behind closed doors because they're all getting rich being in public office and it's not from their salaries.
@@randlemarsh yes your correct they just an actor on that show.
Just look they both go the same path.
They criticizing other party but they just do the same thing to make American more poorer than before while the rich become more richer.
I'm surprised there wasn't a single mention of ranked-choice voting as a potential first step toward a third party!
Because that would lead to actual change.
My understanding from my math whiz son is ranked-choice is inferior to approval voting. Ranked choice sounds good but get mired in unmanageable complexities.
Because RCV is an actual solution and these people, CNBC included, are not interest in solutions they're interested in perpetuating the problem because it's financially beneficial to them.
@@ivantraylor3761 Star voting is better than RCV but ANYTHING is better than America's antiquated FPTP voting.
I think the best alternative of all would be *combined approval voting* where candidates can be upvoted or downvoted, and whoever has the highest net votes (upvotes minus downvotes) wins. Between two controversial rivals, each candidate's supporters could downvote the other candidate and negate the upvotes from that candidate's supporters, mutually destroying both candidates' chances, rendering the rivalry fruitless for both sides and giving all other candidates a good chance to leave both of them in the dust.
Under our current system, incumbents only have to worry about one other candidate, so it's easy for them to get reelected even if they've performed poorly while in office. However, if an incumbent is running for reelection in a region that uses CAV, they'd have many more candidates to worry about, thus it'd be much more difficult to get reelected. No need for term or age limits if a 90-year-old can do a good enough job to get the highest net approval 3 times in a row. If that lucky 90-year-old finally begins to falter during their third term, all it'd take is just one candidate getting more net votes than the incumbent in the next election to break their winning streak and end their tenure in the process.
We call ourselves a democracy but we have two corrupt parties that share miscue differences. To make matters worse, these parties are bought by wealthy donors.
Of course. Money is power, and so is popularity. It doesn't matter what education, experience, societal ethics, intentions, work ethics, or logic a person has. As long as they have coin, connections, clout, computer code, communities, and opportunities... they can do ANYTHING they want. And I do mean anything.
No poor person will EVER influence the world. Never. Their voice could never be heard, and their desires for whatever actions they believe are important will always remain invisible and obscured. There are no exceptions. It is what it is.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
@@Novastar.SaberCombat Well, money talks. Money is power and its what what this world turn.
If you’re white you vote for the GOP and if you’re black you vote for the Democrats.
A two party system is not a democracy
The original idea behind having only 2 parties was that it was an effective way of rooting out extremist points of view. My goodness, extremists are in power now so this clearly isn’t working.
Yeah that argument is now out of the window.
Ironically the exact opposite happened
@@yuriydee yes and no. A crazy party didn’t sweep to power with 26% of the vote as they did in the Weimar Republic. 51% of our country chose this mess 🥲
Extremists have taken over Both Sides. The inmates run the asylum.
That’s a not true if you know what the founding fathers said about two parties
Feels so good know I'm not the only feeling this way and it's getting recognized. It's hard voting for anyone now
It's simply choosing the lesser of 2 evils, for now.
The worst part is that everyone's growing polarization has actually strengthened the two-party system. Everyone is too emotional and filled with hatred of the "other side" to see that neither side has us in mind. They weaponize this exact sentiment to distract you from their own wrongdoings, and to convince you that they are the greatest alternative there is. And I'm not trying to put myself above anyone, I am a victim of this same game. I've always identified as independent (at least, not a big fan of Republicans or Democrats), but I feel like I've been forced to pick sides, and noticed my votes becoming less center, casting more and more votes for candidates that I don't like.
Calm down people. There will NEVER be a 3rd Party without getting rid of Winner Take All.
Ranked Choice Voting is the closest we can get without a re-write of the Constitution or transitioning to a Parlimentaryian system of government.
Guess which one of the two parties is most supportive of Ranked choice voting, as well as other voting reform?
Support Democrats, and you will get the America you want. Support Republicans, and they will get the America they want.
ranked choice voting sounds good but when it was used in the country for a recent election democrats were elected, not third party. i think we should do ranked choice voting and keep the electoral college but get rid of the winner take all part
Abraham Lincoln.
winner take all? have you heard of senate and congress ?
@@hamzabajwa1960 let me guess, the party that never win popular vote? ;-p
From a European country that has moved from two major parties to five, I say it's the way to go forward. More people get the feel of being represented and stops the sensation of just turning a card upside-down on each election. Just take in mind that the change is not immediately and takes time to adjust as new political scenarios will arise (like who makes a better deal with the pivoting party) and new parties that you dislike rise too. Sure, there're challenges, but it means no more "I have absolute power" party and more like "Will have to work this out together" parties.
What country?
@@The_Midnight_Bear Spain
@@gpcexplorer 💀
Which counrey are you from? I'm from one-party country I would like many party, but not one or two party. But two parties are much better than one party.
The big problem for the US is the separation of powers where a single Executive is Elected separate from our legislative branch. When (as with most European governments) the executive head is selected by the Legislature it’s easier to make more parties that are capable of working together forming coalition governments. But with only one Executive position the natural flow is towards a two party system. What everyone forgets is there is no official mandate in US government towards a two party system it’s just the two parties are formed in such a way as to appeal to the largest supporter base possible making it difficult for other parties to fully form and function. That being said when the parties start to polarize is also when a new party will appear and replace the polarized party. I predict by the end of my lifetime two new parties will replace the Democrats and the Republicans as the major parties. Especially as Civil War is incredibly unlikely for the US based on our current ideals and distribution of the most radical elements of our society.
It's not the dislike of the parties, it is the dislike of the corrupt politicians who run them...
After the last presidential election, I basically gave up on either party, although I was starting to shift away even before the pandemic was a thing. Washington has to been rolling in his grave right now. Both parties are absolutely insane! They are children that are trapped in adult bodies that are trying to get things their way instead of us.
The thing is that any candidate that isn’t a democrat or republican on a national stage doesn’t have a blessed chance.
Due to the electoral map .
Voting for one is the equivalent of throwing your vote away, as everyone should know there’s 0 chance they’ll win
@@RB01.10I get it. I actually chose to associate with the libertarians cause I honestly think they line up where I stand as an American, but I know it's going to be extremely difficult just because of the two party system.
Both the Democratic, and Republican Parts acting like they're back in elementary school kids!
I wish people would stop with this nonsense that childre nare inferior or whatever. So-called childish behaviour is engaged in by so many adults that it shouldn't be called childish behaviour at all.
yeah, like THAT's gonna happen. when you have major corporations and conglomerates backing one of the two parties, the third one will not get any funding needed to run for anything, to do anything.
When the corporations back BOTH sides they can’t lose. We need to ban corporate donors and lobbyists entirely.
As if the system will ever let the status quo to change...
It’s easy to say we can’t change anything but nothing would change if we don’t start talking about it
That is what a lot of people want. People are afraid of change, especially if they are well off/in a privileged position now.
@@gannonlenhart I don't fear the change to an more then two party system. What I fear is the damage Republicans will inflict before such an chance can occur that is if Republicans don't all together use the the attempt to change to make it so only the can win.
As if "The System" is not made of individual humans we can talk to...
Living in Minneapolis, I'm experiencing the nightmare of a one-party system. Here we have ranked-choice voting - which I'm normally in favor of - but the system we have here is missing one safeguard that turns it from a dream into a nightmare: Instead of limiting each party to one candidate per office on the ballot, there is no limit. This gives the illusion of more choice when in practice it narrows voters' choices. For example, our latest mayoral election had something like 20 candidates, all but 3 of which were from the same party. The ruling party therefore has zero motivation to progress and in the case of Minneapolis is actively fighting against progress. Therefore, for anyone reading this who might be in a community moving toward ranked-choice voting, *make sure that each party can have no more than one candidate for each office on the ballot or else the community will effectively become a one-party area!*
It seems like Alaska has a great system!
Search . ' America Is a Mafia State Run by Democrats & Republicans . '
Worse than the two party system is the insane idea that one is always right and the other is always wrong.
I'm just sick of the endless commercial ads that blast the other candidate. Between those commercials and the Medicare commercials, they are both on ALL THE TIME!
I hate them, and they discourage me from voting!
I agree and advocating for a change in how we vote such as including ranked choice voting would force parties to stop slandering the other since it’s no longer a fight for the “lesser of two evils”
Some campain ad regulations would go a long way.
American democracy is so weird many new parties absorbed to those old big 2 obsolete party
A dictatorship or reformation into an empire is the only way forward.
@@jibril2473 lol
I've always considered voting to be a "lesser of two evils" situation. I believe each party is becoming more extreme therefore driving hatred towards the opposing party. As the divide grows, our whole country grows more extreme.
All according to plan. Certain individuals whether that be CEOs, politicians etc, want to cause chaos and make their own people suffer for a little bit.
Why? Because a Hitler can't come into power during good prosperous Times in a country.
A Hitler can easily come into power on desperate dark times though.
the issue with both parties is not that, they’re both becoming too extreme in opposite directions the republicans to the right, and the democrats to the left. the republicans are far right economically and culturally, the democrats are also right wing economically, and left leaning culturally. the issue is that the republican party actively fights to increase wealth inequality and strip away rights from marginalized communities, and the Democratic Party does absolutely nothing to fix it or push back against it while simultaneously screaming to the top of their lungs about how horrible and fascist the Republican Party is. they are not opposites, they’re two halves of a political system that preserves the status quo of unregulated capitalism and corruption.
Would love to have a 5 major party system... Would solve a lot of gridlock in congress.
As long as we have first past the post voting system, we will only have two parties. That system encourages the formation of only two parties and discourages multiple parties since if your party doesn't win the election, your vote doesn't matter, and it can actually go to help the person you least want in office.
I think single transferable voting or ranked choice voting would help with this
I think proportional representation where it is possible is best. It gets rid of the need for gerrymandering alongside the spoiler affect.
No, we've done the literal math here, and it only has one ending: a two/three party system is unavoidable. Read up on Arrow's Impossibility Theorem and its cullinaries, it paints a rather stark picture on democracy as a whole.
@@TheTrueAdept I'd rather have a 2 party system where a party is more likely to be replaced by a new party than taking turns between two inflexible parties. At the very least.
@@gmarefan not really possible, especially since there is no real replacements in terms of parties. If you actually took a gander at US political history, you would note that there has only been _ONE_ party replacement (Whigs were replaced by the Republicans). Every other time its constituents shifting parties.
@@jimjim01938 PR would be the most effective way to change this, but, unlike ranked choice voting, PR cannot be implemented without a change in federal law.
I would say having 4 to 6 parties in the parliament is best. I'm from Slovenia and in the last few mandates we had 9 parties and it was messy. Now we have 5 and it feels a lot more managable. Parties on the center-left spectrum realized we don't need 5 of them and three of them merged onto one.
A two-party system really doesn't give voters much of a choice.
The only thing I can't seem to get with in a Parliamentary system is that you guys have way too many elections.
9? we have 18 or so in the Netherlands, it' got completely out of hand.
But you run the risk of extreme left or right to take part in government
I also don't like so many parties in the legislature. 5/6 parties is okay as it provides more government stability. Some countries have electoral thresholds like in Israel which has 3.25%.
The United States DOES NOT have a parliamentary system...and won't.
It’s the system in general. People are understanding that all politicians only care about the next election and their donors.
Meanwhile in India as of 2021,
The total number of parties registered was 2858, with 8 national parties, 54 state parties and 2796 unrecognised parties.
PS- State meaning the smaller federal units.
That fact that a 15 min CNBC piece did not even mention India or any other multi-party democracy as a reference shows just how ignorant and siloed American media is 😅
Well India is a country of 1.4 billion huge compared to America at 330 million
I’m an independent. I would like Libertarians more if they were a bit less extreme. Like watch some of their presidential primary debates. They argue about whether or not people should need a driver’s license to drive a car. That’s crazy to even debate imo 😂
In other politically based narratives, Canada's internal investigations have recently disclosed that the Trucker Protest was peaceful. This after their PM, Trudeau, publicly proclaimed them "Nazis", jailed their leaders, and froze their bank accounts.
less extreme libertarian
so basically republican or democrat (they're the same)
No, what they're really trying to say is that we privatise all roads, and road owning corporations will make their own driving rules without the government needing to help and issue licenses.
@@Someone-dt1ns Sounds like a dream
@@Someone-dt1ns sounds horrible
The fact of the matter is that it’s not as black and white as it seems. Most Americans still agree and disagree with the two parties on different issues. Its just that the extremists have been allowed to hijack the two parties and turn it into an us vs. them game where there’s no room for compromise. We have failed to allow any other parties to rightfully compete like most other nations do and we have what we have now. If it isn’t stopped we are going to end up under a dictatorship either far left or right.
🎯
The rivalry between these two parties has become toxic and not healthy for America, a third party with a moderate view is needed.
the two party system has to go!
What if we did away with parties altogether?
then people would have to think and research candidates that represent them. people in this country are too lazy and have just outsourced the thinking to parties run by rich people
Because both political parties do the bidding of their wealthy and well-connected donors at the expense of the American people.
Here in Europe we have 7 parties in the European parliament and each member state has 3 - 30 parties in their own state. Some states still have winner takes all and still have multiparty governments. I really don't understand how America can't do this.
$$$$$$$$$
The quick answer is American exceptionalism. They think the US is unique and doesn't follow trends
Blame FPTP, gerrymeandering, and our nation's political polarization.
Good for europe, the could they have a thousand parties still not going to save them from Russia shutting off their natural gas
And America always has to subsidize and pay for Europes defense because they cant get anything done
I feel like ranked choice voting helps.
It helps the smaller parties/independents actually have an impact outside of playing "spoiler". And it doesn't restrict people into voting for one guy just to stop the worse one but actually the independent was more their choice.
Far left
Center left
moderate
center right
far right
Absent an actual parlimentarian system of government, all ranked-choice voting will do is dilute the vote and produce more random wins, potentially from crackpots without real expertise.
0:40 I’ve been saying this for decades. Unfortunately, the two party system facilitates laziness. Laziness always wins.
I think people would be better if there is no two parties because it doesn't work anymore like it did in the past
The problem is money. If we capped how much parties were allowed to spend (Maybe like 1 Million) on their Campaigns, then more parties would have a better chance to show themselves and be relevant.
Ranked Choice would help quite a bit. The problem is that neither party really benefits from it, so good luck getting support for it. The two parties are the ones who benefit the most from the current system, leveraging fear of the "other side" winning and it must be stopped at all costs.
There shouldn't be any political parties! The ability to not see how government can work without them shows the failure of education and the lack of any imagination at all. All a party does is take away people's representation because if you represent a party you can't represent the people!
Ranked choice voting at least would give 3rd parties a chance at the local level
If you want more than two parties, support the Fair Representation Act
Alexander Hamilton once called political parties “the most fatal disease” of popular governments
Regardless of the number of political parties they have one job which is to protect and improve people's lives. Most political parties around the world have completely forgotten about that.
The ultimate solution is proportional representation in legislatures, and ranked-choice elections for singular positions (governor, president, etc.)
There are multiple types of Proportional Reppresentation, but we could could get STV in the House through a federal bill called the fair representation act without a constitutional amendment. (It also adds RCV to senate races.)
It think Multi member districts would help stop gerrymandering for the House. And for the Senate Stv would keep it simple.
For the presidency I would prefer a Proportional EC with RCV (So you can win a state twice if nobody reaches 270(
There’s also one major challenge facing a third party. It may stack the deck in favor of one of the existing two. For example if party C has values that somewhat overlap with party B then (hypothetically) 50% of all votes will be split amongst those two while party A has the other 50%. But that means party A will always win unless we can miraculously get a 33/33/33 vote spread and leave the decision to the final 1%. But that’s… probably impossible 😕
Like others have said I think the best case scenario is an equity based approach to voting. Not 51% taking 100% of the final result. Just like in a relationship it shouldn’t be one versus the other it should be both vs the problem.
I agree, but that will NEVER happen. Never. The rich would *never* allow the poor to have a say in how things are done! 😂🤣😂
Instead right now we have something closer to values that are around 30% party 1 / 30% party 2 / 40% disenfranchised
@@gmarefan then have ranked choice voting
- Ranked choice voting
- Strictly limit campaign finance
- Eliminate gerrymandering
- Etc.
In other words, be more like Australia.
"we need third party"
*libertarian enter*
"nah we alright"
The libertarian party has a issue with the age of consent
We need a libertarian party, socialist party and communist party
If voting mattered, they would not let us do it
-Samuel Twain
We don’t necessarily need another party but term limits could go a long way to bring politics back to the people. It would also help if we could get money out of the political system to some degree. People are tired of seeing candidates elected and then become millionaires with better benefits than they could ever afford.
They’d have to agree on limiting themselves and that’s not happening
3rd parties will always be spoilers so long as we have plurality voting. We need RANKED CHOICE voting. With that a vote for a 3rd party will not be a throwaway vote, and the major parties will be incentivized to appeal to moderates.
Agreed
That’s why people hate third parties, they siphon votes and are throwaways because they have no chance at winning.
Many think Nader costed Gore in 2000, and that Johnson and Stein costed Hillary in 2016
IMO this is why the Utah Senate race is the most important one in next week's midterms. Instead of a Democrat, Independent Evan McMullin is running against Republican incumbent Mike Lee. If McMullin somehow defeats Lee, it could set an interesting precedent for the future of American political parties
Lee will win.
I mean, not really. It’s still only two candidates.
Except McMullin is way behind in the polls.
@@gbb82 exactly, Americans claim they want a third party but when the opportunity comes they always vote in the same politicians.
Political parties are the problem. We should get rid of the two party system.
You can’t. It’s entirely an inevitable outcome of the framework we employ. It’s called Duverger’s law. The result will always converge to a two party dominated system. If a strong third party makes a showing, either vote splitting will occur which will favor the opposing major party platform, or the third party will displace the existing major party to become the new major party in the two party system. You can’t get mad about two parties when political science stipulates that this is the eventual setup due to human behavior.
So then you're advocating for a Parliamentary system with multiple parties but that also means you'll have to go vote each and everytime a new coalition is formed or dissolved
Founding Fathers: ay yo we said no parties.
We need ranked-choice voting. That would give us more than two parties and lead to more cooperation on important issues.
I agree that we need 3rd parties. However, ranked-choice alone won’t be enough while third parties are underfunded and the big 2 are able to put measures in place to block third parties from having ballot access. Ohio, for example changed the requirements for ballot access back in 2012. And since 2016 only the big two are recognized as valid political parties in the state of Ohio.
As an Independent voter, I feel as if multiple parties could be both a good and bad thing.
It is a good thing for the reason it opens up more choices on a ballot and for those who distrust the far-right ideologies of the Republican party and distrust the far-left ideologies of the Democratic party.
There needs to be middle ground when both sides are too far left or too far right for us younger voters who feel that these ideologies will not benefit us, our future children and our future grandchildren. This isn't about whatever you the left or the right has pushed on you. This is about ensuring a safer future for future generations to come.
The ideals pushed upon us are slowly fading away and we're seeing that this just is not right for anyone young or old. A multiple party system could be a good thing as it opens up more dialogue between American citizens.
However this can also be a bad thing as far-right and far-left parties could form and disrupt our dialogues between one another with their disruptive ideas -- even more so than it is right now with Republicans and Democrats harboring these people and their ideals.
The more you or I fight with one another the less change we can do TOGETHER. America will not survive much longer if we do not introduce the removal or radical leftists or radical right-wingers in both parties, we need more centered people in both parties that way it's balanced and both sides don't end up electing a radical left or right person into an office where they can ruin lives of those who were against them. It is disheartening to see that our country is falling apart because we cannot simply agree that anyone who isn't the majority are humans or are forcing x, y, z on someone or their children.
The insults and distrust of other humans different from you or I NEEDS to end so we can march forward to a better future for all otherwise our country will keep falling down and being seen as less of a threat due to internal discourse among the citizens and the government.
That’s the thing, third party candidates etc cannot win presidential elections mainly because of how dominated the two parties have been and because of the electoral college
I think sadly we’re stuck with this. Hopefully though as ranked choice voting becomes a bit more popular, we can expect some level of change within maybe 20 years?
I sure hope so. Because I’m only voting blue (not because they are someone I like) but because I think they are less dangerous than red. Which sucks. It sucks that we are so afraid of each other. But the truth is, both parties are extremes.
The parties' platforms are overly broad and functionally schizophrenic. You actually have many more parties due to intraparty factionalism, but they all rely on just one of two engines for government because it's their only chance of success.
This 2 party system is gonna break.
The bittersweet truth is that it’s time for a massive change in the foundation of American society, and more importantly, how it’s brought about, but I’m not going to speak more on this either.
And that would require a re-write of the Constitution, a new Constitutional Congress.
Stupid question.....The way they act. It's not politics anymore. It's Jerry Springer show and Real Housewives combined.
Thanks, #45.
great work Lindsey and Nate!🎉
The first president,Washington, literally warned to not create political parties but Adams & Jefferson didn’t listen! Washington deadass told then why it will be a danger to the country, and now look where we are now 😭🗿
That's true
We don't need parties we need the candidates proposals first and foremost. What are they going to do? How are they going to do it? When will they have it done by? Thats all that matters. Parties are just like teams, we don't need teams we need IDEAS. Logical ones.
Well Said!
Age limit for politicians, and a voting test for the general public that tests their understanding of policies.
You can’t employ a voting test like that. Among many reasons, there simply are going to be policies the government needs to act that you *can’t* understand as a basic citizen. While the law might seek broadly intuitive and straightforward, the reality is that there will be issues that you have to address whose complexity will be beyond your expertise or understanding. That’s part of the reason we elect representatives and senators: they’re supposed to better understand these issues and act accordingly. And even then, they have to do hearings and get subject matter experts to come in and testify and explain what specific things mean and what consequences certain laws can have.
@@klins061 Politics have become about the "crowd". What I'm calling for is not some deep test on a Scantron that goes deep on policy. What I want is a simple test that asks if a policy is Republican or Democratic. A basic understanding of the difference. That's all.
@@AtillatheFun politics is very much about the crowd. The government is for the people and must be by the people.
@@thastayapongsak4422 that's not what the founding fathers believed. They stressed their hatred of mob rule. I think it's time to limit some people
I don't believe in taking the right to vote away from people that's not what America is about they will try but it will fail
The two-party system sounds not that bad when you show the Libertarians and Greens as options
It makes every issue seem black-and-white, and discourages nuanced debate.
I’m one of them, proudly apolitical watching both sides tear each other apart
We need: ranked choice or approval voting, I don't care which, for single winner elections, and we need multiple representative districts with a Single Transferable Vote system to elect those representatives before we can even think about getting a third party more recognition.
As a Korean-Canadian, I think we should question whether democracy works in this age of the internet or not.
Authoritarianism seems to be the mainstream kind of politics these days with the rise of the SNS.
No authoritarianism
As a British individual I think 2 policy systems vary undemocratic I would go as far as saying the fact that it is so difficult to put a third party on the map in itself is undemocratic because individuals cannot represent what they. In Britain if I decided to run for parliament I could set up my own party and get it registered with the agency that oversees, I believe that if there is ever a third party in America the way you open your doors to politics especially different points of view such as parties and running is an individual needs to change.
The fact that you need a level of signatures to become able to run on the ballet as a separate party is ridiculous if people are not interested in you as a party they were not vote for you and consequently the party die within the area the elections in cells should be used to see whether people want another party.
I think it's time that America sees that they haven't got it perfect and start looking at other democratic Nations to see what they have better.
pretty sure america has more marties but they get close to no votes
One will corrupt, two will divide, three will balance.
Having the same reoccurring people only makes sense for the Supreme Court (although I think people assigned those roles shouldn’t be assigned by a political party in power but by a independent committee that stay anonymous to the public)
There should be term limits for congressional politicians. There should only be one term for presidents but extend that one term to 6 years instead of 4. Whenever there is elections around the corner politicians always seems to do things that favor their base even if it is something they are not ready to do or does not follow their original agenda. (For example, Biden releasing more strategic reserve oil into the country to lower gas prices when he is more pro renewable energy. It is believed this action was taken to try lower gas prices to have voters be happier with their party.)
3:38 that could not be more incorrect lol we're unhappy with the Democratic Party because of how conservative it is and how unwillingly it is to actually adopt progressive policies.
Thanks for sharing
While I want more parties in US politics. I respect that this video put forth pros and cons of 2 party systems that I didn’t think about
I feel it really doesn’t matter much. We have similar “problems” in multi party systems. And US parry members can be pretty divergent in their thinking. Trump completely changed the republican party to something else, because his own party hated him too.
@@TheBooban thanks to the "something else" I don't know when/if I'll vote for a Republican again.
There is no pros in two party system.
0 pros were given
We need to overhaul the US political parties because there’s too much division. We also need to focus more on education because it seems like the population is taking steps backwards.
Why does many Americans hate political parties?
Because it truly dividing us as a country.
At 10:28, the supposed "advantage" of the two-party system assumes that a vote in favor of the winning party = representation. It doesn't. People are voting for the lesser of two evils, that is not representation.
A rank choice voting system would help with this problem. Pick the candidate you like the most and if they don’t win you choose a second choice that your vote would go to.
Both major parties are awful. I don't really see Left vs Right as the core of the problem though. To me, you also have a Top vs Bottom dynamic playing out, where both parties have been pushed to the Top-End of the spectrum, representing authoritarianism and corporations. While they've been bickering between Left vs Right on publicly heated social issues, the majority of Americans are uncontrollably being crushed as both parties move towards the Top. The corporate elites have the money to lobby politicians and incentivize them, and have captured both parties. Over the course of my life, this has only gotten worse, and will only continue to get worse, until we break free from this duopoly. Would encourage everyone to please consider Independent and Third Party candidates when voting! I also liked that Forward Party was mentioned, I'm hoping they'll yield results.
In Europe and some other countries, there is the proportional system, the seats of the legislature is alloted by the portions of votes parties received. So if there are 50 seats alloted for this arrangement, the big parties like one have 40% vote will get like 20 seats, the other got 55% votes will have 28 seats, and if a party has 20%, 10 seats. Only a part that won over 60% of the seat and form the government by itself, otherwise the government has to include the other two parties.
I'm a conceptual artist and creator of the Triptych Dialogue. Most of the people I interview for the Triptych Dialogue on political questions have surprised me with their calls for healing America from the current political divide. There have been very few extremes. It is refreshing to hear the often thought provoking answers to my questions. It gives me solace and the will to continue with the project.
It’s a dichotomy; doesn’t matter what side you’re on: One is good and one is bad. The system perpetuates itself.
We are what we made of ourselves.
I think for a better system we should have a four party system. So that way in every state, you four different options to choose from. This allows people to choose which party would strongly or just rightly fits them. With a much more divided party system, it would force all sides to work together instead of just their way. You want to pass a bill that you believe in, well you’ll have to go through the other three first to try and convince them. A diverse amount in the Senate and House makes it so not one party ultimately holds to much power. The same goes for the presidential race, this makes it so Americans have the choose between four options. With each candidate represented equally when approaching election. An four-way choose between candidates will have to force Americans to look up policies a candidate is supporting, an ultimately make the decision if the one candidate is right for them. Plus allowing four different options makes it so you don’t have to choose entirely one party. You could like someone from the Democratic side for Senate, but want someone for the fourth party to be in the House because the Democrat for that seat is unlikable. Its just a better choice system that makes it so no one holds to much power and makes it so that we have to work together if something is wanting done.
That doesn’t even make sense though. With 50 states, all of them are so different. I think we should have a 6 party system like Canada, and allow for other parties to naturally form.
@@meekos699I agree
Btw, separation of church and state is a hall mark of our democracy. It’s pretty sad really… the mad hunt for things to be upset about creates a fertile ground for lies as merit.
In a two party system the candidates are decided in primaries, and the primaries sometimes decide extreme candidates.
Indeed, primaries are *the* problem. But if you had had RCV *within the primaries* , it's possible Trump would not have prevailed in 2016. (Note: I am *NOT* endorsing Alaska's new primary system. That thing is a monstrous fustercluck.)
I hate them both too, so I guess I’m in the majority.
same
Standing here
I realize
You are just like me
Trying to make history
But who's to judge
The right from wrong
When our guard is down
I think we'll both agree
That
Violence breeds violence
But in the end it has to be this way
I've carved my own path
You followed your wrath
But maybe we're both the same
The world has turned
And so many have burned
But nobody is to blame
Yet staring across this barren wasted land
I feel new life will be born
Beneath the blood stained sand
Beneath the blood stained sand
Nanomachines, son!
To anyone living outside the US (but not in a dictatorship.) it is extremely clear that such a system is wrong and destructive on every scale.
They need another party to keep both parties in line and honest.
Honestly, that's what Canada does, and it works out pretty well for us. While we have more than three parties there's really only ever three major parties in parliament at any one time so we maintain at least a half decent set of checks and balances.
How about a no party system. Just an idea, that I dunno was considered by the founders
Take that up with liberals and conservative of the political spectrum. They'll staight up call you Commie or Fascist.
@@ASK-ko9qx “cool it with the anti semitism”
@@samueljohnson1659 yup.
@Zaydan Naufal is a any good over there
Term Limits Now
Unexpectedly balanced and complete video.
Introduce preferential voting or mixed-member proportional voting and you’ll see a flourishing of new political parties and independents representatives. It will force parties to compromise, and come to the middle (or in America’s case, move your politics to the left since your entire political system is right-far right).