Two party system

How can we end the two-party system in the United States?

Attached: 59c049a0c7a28.image.jpg (1200x808, 155K)

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2012/02/16/opinion/why-chinas-political-model-is-superior.html
youtube.com/watch?v=STwSMAeuze8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by_country
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Gas jews

communist revolution

>Two-party state to one-party state
>Flag
Go away, kike.

Attached: 1525913427912.png (784x2224, 45K)

Massive popular participation in a 3rd party to overcome structural advantages the 2 main parties have at election time.

Civil War II but this wont be the United States afterwards.

who are you people making this horrible, soulless polandballs

It's a good Polandball you memeflaggot

Attached: d5acf670ac8849ec564e62f43b6497ce--history-memes-hetalia.jpg (439x960, 37K)

Those in the picture are white.

I see better economy and increase in white population and more generations of hard working white people.

no

As opposed to what? A one party system like in Europe where there are dozens of parties you can vote for, but they are actually all the same?

i'd much more good if i killed subhuman walking fertilizer like you

It's called tactical retreat you mongrel (at least when whites do it.) there's no running away.

no, you cry me some more kikeshit

>heeb hiding behind a memeflag calls others kike
classic

Good question.

Attached: 1561044170642.jpg (743x735, 131K)

>kikeshit calls someone yid
typical

Cmon kikeroach you're the memeflaggot here. You came in crying about an antiyid polanball. You aren't fooling anyone.

>How can we end the two-party system in the United States?
End one of the two parties. The Republican party is the easiest to remove. Democrats will fight 24/7 for their insane and cancerous agenda while the Republicans role over and die. Thanks to the mass flood of 3rd world trash who will overwhelmingly vote Democrat, a corporate media that are overwhelming in favor of Democrats, a government bureaucracy that are overwhelming in favor of big government Democrats, and goddamn worthless Republicans who will never fight back until right before an election to give the impression that they care the Republican party will have no supporters

The two party system is a clear and obviously scam on the voters who think they are getting a choice. The Democrats will fight to the very last and the Republicans refuse to fight from the very start

Attached: 89776238764234.jpg (3160x2500, 1.61M)

You first fag

Trump Party

lol, yeah me first, dumb jew
i'd use you as fertilizer first

Adopt a single transferable votes or some other kind of ranked vote system, of course this would never happen since you would need the two parties to act in the interest of the people instead of themselves.

Maybe if a charismatic candidate who took the few good views that the Dems and GOP have and blended them with his own nationalist policy, it could happen. I think this candidate would probably have to start out in the primary for one of the two parties, because you'd never get attention otherwise. He'd gain attention through the debates, then drop out of the party, ideally announcing this AT an actual debate, saying he's fed up with the system and is going to appeal directly to the average American.

From then on, he'd run as an independent on the back of the attention he built during the primary. He'd be wise to also found a new party at this time and begin recruiting candidates with similar views to run for as many positions throughout the country as possible. It would be an uphill battle, to say the least, but with enough charisma and messaging, he might be able to pull it off and get some members of his new party into the government where they could start to build reputations and make campaigning for the new party easier and more successful in subsequent elections.

>you first

>t. jewish genius

See
>everyone but me is a Jew
>pipul

Bring back the Bull Moose Party!

Attached: bull_moose_party_1912.jpg (700x600, 40K)

>t. albert einstein

decentralizing the government and giving the states more autonomy, so if Ohio wants to become a christian theocracy, California a socialist anarchy and Texas a military dictatorship, they can do it and be happy instead of being stuck in that endless loop of moderate-right and moderate-left where half the country is completely enraged while the other half is barely satisfied

That's the dumbest idea yet.

Very good question! I would suggest having a proportional representative single transferale vote [PR-STV]. It encourages voters to vote for who they really want and not jus vote for the biggest party they think suits them best. They use it in Ireland and Malta

this

I propose Chinese republic :)

nytimes.com/2012/02/16/opinion/why-chinas-political-model-is-superior.html

Its would take a lot of deaths

>believes in (((Stein)))

You need to establish an effective third party to break the balance, bring in a new dynamic of political alliances, then other parties will slowly establish themselves.

It's how we avoided it.
In the beginning Germany had only a ChristDem, a SocDem and a small, classical liberal party.
Later on a leftist-environmentalist party, a materialist-socialist party and a conservative-nationalist party joined the fray.

The FDP in Germany broke the centre-left centre-right dynamic of conservatives vs social democrats, by catering to both camps through a balance of social liberalism and national liberalism, with an overall policy of social market economy and individual freedom of people, with preservation of culture in society.

You Americans need to establish some kind of less autistic and more social Libertarian Party.

Attached: mage_560.jpg (410x410, 21K)

Bringing back the Whigs or the Moose would be ideal in that case.

Fascism.

Attached: finlandistheshit.png (528x1525, 55K)

Split the Dems then the GOP.

We know its already possible to split the GOP vote since Ross Perot did it already. When has the DNC been split??

Attached: 1555096305129.jpg (446x544, 51K)

Lots of blood shed and lead expended.

We have to change how we elect representatives; something like MMP for the House. I wouldn't mind seeing Senators elected by state governments rather than the people, too.

Does it really matter how many parties you have if only 1 or 2 maintains any sort of majority power and the multitudes of others serve to break up solidarity or act as supporting powers for the majority parties when they agree, so nothing gets done outside of what the fringe elements agree with the main parties on? Same basic shit in America except instead of having 40% of the congress republicans with 10% libertarians that agree with the republicans sometimes we just end up with 50% of republicans who agree with eachother sometimes.

Do whatever europe did

This. Euros have fucking 15 parties but sit there and form governments which effectively act as a two party system: the formed government and the opposition

>read through thread
>so many people saying something along the lines of "lol we just need to make a third party relevant/crush one of the existing parties"
>immediately disappointed by Jow Forums's understanding of this issue

In the States we elect our government using First Past the Post; meaning, ultimately, we will always have a two party system (until and unless we stop using FPTP). The exact make-up of who those parties are, or what they call themselves, is irrelevant; before the Republican Party existed it was between the Democrats and the Whigs. If we succeed in toppling either of the existing parties, the new party will merely take the place of the toppled one (outside of, maybe, small local elections and the occasional House seat), which could give us a new political philosophy in Washington but doesn't fix the problem.

I suggested MMP--despite the countries using it having two large parties and a small smattering of smaller parties; that seems to be a problem with education rather than with the political system--because it allows proportional representation (allowing you to vote for both a party and a local representative) which means a larger chance of divergent opinions taking root. It isn't a be all/end all solution until we fix our education system and take out the corporate media, but it's a start.

Senate being elected/appointed by the States would be a start in making the States and their rights relevant again; as they are they're basically representatives with a longer term.

The point of those systems are diversity of political thought/philosophy. Europe has many of the problems we do with education (at least when it comes to civic duty and what parties are about and how their systems work) and a corporate media (arguably theirs is worse).

Attached: clearing to gloom out of the room.gif (540x543, 355K)

But that's not how it works at all. Yes, you have center left and center right coalitions working against one another, but the smaller parties have actual power that shapes the future, the biggest which is a voice that isn't controlled by anyone else. Everyone works together to find the compromises, but it's not a two-party system. In america, what option do you have if you want green, left, agrarian, libertarian politics? Your only option is to run for one of two parties and try to fight the entire party from within.

Donald trump was that kind of candidate, and he's not the first. He's the one that got through, and it was on policies far away from the GOP mandate. In the end, he fell in line with the GOP, but the opposition he faced from the GOP was even more than the DNC. Before the election, almost all the big name republicans were publicly against him. This year jeb bush called him the perfect candidate if he didn't tweet.

Similarly, bernie sanders had more opposition from the DNC than the GOP, and the DNC broke the law to stop him.

Both of them could have started their own parties and cut the establishment swamp in half. Both of them ran on anti-war, anti-corruption. Neither party represent that. There's so much room for political movement in the US if it wasn't literally controlled from the top.

>The Democrats will fight to the very last and the Republicans refuse to fight from the very start
Bill Maher thinks the opposite.
youtube.com/watch?v=STwSMAeuze8

Electing a third party is out of the question. Not because that's a dumb idea, it isn't, but because third parties are spoiler parties/candidates in our current First-Past-The-Post voting system. We had many political parties throughout our history and they disappeared because they looked at the large party and the small party and realized they didn't want either to win so they merged with the larger political ideologue party until the Republicans and Democrats were all that was left

You come to realize that their policy is honestly not that fucking diverse, else these governments formed wouldn’t happen

The 2 parties count the votes though. if a 3rd party was going to win the 2 parties would cheat because they control all of the voting infrastructure.
It hasn't been the united states in a long time. We went from no foreign entanglements to it's illegal for our army to be in our country. It has to be burnt down.

Proportional Representation.
I personally prefer STV (Specifically Hare quota) but you have many options.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by_country

It should be gone but it is still in place to assure than any real threat to the powers that be can never get through

There's a simple test.

Attached: Real Jews Don’t Burn.png (419x545, 570K)

Switch to a Parliamentarian system that doesn't rely on a winner take all election format.

And no, a third party won't do it. We've had lots of third parties and they all failed due to the winner take all system.

>Switch to a Parliamentarian system
Gay