LINK Andrew Yang says the two-party system fuels extremism: "The people are losing"
Former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang is harshly criticizing America's two-party political system and closed-party primaries, arguing that they help fuel extremist views on both sides. Yang, who announced in October he was leaving the Democratic Party after 20 years to become an independent, said the process has created incentives for catering to the most partisan constituents.
(I agree that the field shoule be open to more than two parties, but disagree that it has caused the political extremism we are experiencing in the U.S. today. We have had points in our history where extremism had reared its ugly head before. For instance, just prior to the U.S. entering WWII, about a third of the U.S. were sympathetic to the Nazis. In the 1950's McCarthyism ran rampant until Edward R. Marrow exposed him for the power hungry thug that he was. Trumpism is just the latest right wing extremist movement with a foundation built on racism and/or xenophobia.)
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
Until someone who comes up with a way to split up BOTH Parties into at least two or three Parties at the same time with a way to assure that they remain that way, this would be a dangerous move. The Democrats would love to have Trumplicans pull off Republican voters, making it easier to win elections. Same with a split between the moderate and Progressive Democrats, making it easier for a single Republican Party to win with little effort. Though it sounds good, making it happen is logistically very complicated without compromising elections.
It’s also why Party extremists carry so much weight, they are the most likely to vote consistently on a straight ticket. Neither Party can afford to turn them off without risking what many places are razor thin majorities.
Barnie2years
Level 8
Nov 9, 2021
1
Ranked choice voting would solve the whole thing, as then people could vote for third party candidates without having to risk being a spoiler vote, and the same thing with candidates outside the two party system. This would keep both major parties more honest, as they could no longer triangulate and tell their more liberal or conservative voters to just shut up and fall in line, on the assumption they have nowhere else to go or no one else to vote for. I would esp. enjoy watching RCV taking away the argument of that smug prick Rahm Emanuel, who told progressive Dems they were "retarded" and had nowhere else to go but the Dem Party.
I disagree. A parliamentary system would be far superior to this one, allow in parties--like the Greens--which more accurately reflect a given individual's point of view.
Short of that, I like what Maine does: vote for three preferred parties in order, with one point for top pick, two for second, three for third, then add them all up. (Or however it actually works.)
That way, a vote for Nader, for instance, isn't "wasted."
Might not change much, but it'd open it up to a degree.
Storm1752
Level 8
Nov 9, 2021
1
I agree that a parliamentary system usually forces compromise which is necessary for action.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.