• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My proposal to make third parties more viable

Phys251 said:
Actually our two major parties are as polarized as ever. Ideological purity is the new normal.
Click to expand...

I think there is quite a difference between the various wings of the leaders within both parties. That the two parties polarize the differences between their candidate and the enemy is natural. But you are right that it seems that we are in a period, where society as a whole is much more polarized than it is in the memory of the past.
 
There is room for additional parties but it would be tough to get them off the ground with the unethical media we have today.
 
joG said:
I think there is quite a difference between the various wings of the leaders within both parties. That the two parties polarize the differences between their candidate and the enemy is natural. But you are right that it seems that we are in a period, where society as a whole is much more polarized than it is in the memory of the past.
Click to expand...

There are definitely divisions within both major parties, as we saw in the primaries. But I think the Democrats have done a better job of attempting to bridge their intraparty divide.
 
Phys251 said:
There are definitely divisions within both major parties, as we saw in the primaries. But I think the Democrats have done a better job of attempting to bridge their intraparty divide.
Click to expand...

They are much better hypocrites you mean?
 
Anagram said:
Right. And I'd argue it's not a good thing that a radical candidate can get elected when 10/18ths of the people would prefer one of the other two. People get attached to their own individual candidate and neither moderate candidate drops out. Then the radical wins. It happens all the time.
Click to expand...

Preferential voting fixes that. If one of the moderate candidates is knocked out in the first count, the other beats the radical candidate with second-choice votes.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Preferential voting fixes that. If one of the moderate candidates is knocked out in the first count, the other beats the radical candidate with second-choice votes.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Which is why I support it.
 
Phys251 said:
:roll:

Inb4 thread derail.
Click to expand...

Not at all. It was the answer to your argument and its insinuation. You see, your assumption is incorrect. The diversity remains and hiding it is dishonest.
 
Phys251 said:
Much of the dialogue ... (sorry it blasted the 5k word limit)!
Click to expand...

No offense, but what good is changing the game when the players (voters) are stupid? We don't have Trump Vs Clinton because of the two party system, we have Trump Vs Clinton because the voters are idiots.
 
Renae said:
No offense, but what good is changing the game when the players (voters) are stupid? We don't have Trump Vs Clinton because of the two party system, we have Trump Vs Clinton because the voters are idiots.
Click to expand...

Every dictatorship is based on the idea that the masses are too stupid to run things themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom