Multiparty America

>>138708705
Single party would be best. Fuck having a bunch of cucks in the government.

>>138708705
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

>>138708705
No party or single party.

>>138708782
wouldn't even need so big a change

Just change the 12th ammendment so it doesn't go to the house in case no one gets a majority, give automatic ballot access more easily to smaller parties, and implement a 2nd round of voting, or preferential voting or something

This would allow third-parties to grow without the fear of splitting votes

Just repealing the 12th would make 2nd place candidates VP and would guarantee at least 2 or 3 more parties would have had VPs and Ps in the last century

No parties. Only independents.

>>138708773
Unless the single party is controlled by (((them))).

>>138708798
>>138708773

which single party, and who decides, and how is that better?

alternatively, how do you enforce no parties? Do you violate people's free assembly rights and puts a soldier guarding them 24/7 so they don't coordinate positions and votes with other politicians in an informal party?

>>138708705
No it just turns into two blocks anyway

>>138709076
You get rid of the jews and the parties wont matter because it will always favor america.

Literally just kill all jews and we'll be fine.

>>138709034
american rules already allow this

But parties give a competitive advantage to politicians and would form naturally, be it formally or informally, wheter we like it or not. That's what happened in the US and basically every other country.

Unless they find a legal way of making people assemble and vote together illegal

>>138709093
but the blocks are far more malleable, and some countries have 3 or 4 competitive blocks.

A berniecrat supported by dems and greens would act differently than a moderate democrat supported by berniecrats and libertarians, for ex.

In the scenario above the greatest winners are libertarians, that would be king-makers. They'd probably fuck up and get punished next round tho

>>138709034

the white nationalists get confused when there are too many races imagine how confused they'd be if everyone was independent lmao

>>138709346
Why do you still support the left? Either you're braindead or so low self esteem you have no personal identity....so which one is it?

File: 7b22dd3a2a315517aeaad7cb57ff028070110833.jpg (50KB, 620x551px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 620x551px

>>138708705
>Massive public debt and negative current account balance
>Bloated military spending.
>Politically polarized society that redresses. grievances in the Parliament of the Streets.
Sounds like we are a step (or stumble) away from becoming Greece.jpg

>>138709564
Greece doesn't have a large military

>>138710412
For their size they actually do.
One of few NATO countries that hits the 2% mark

>>138710820
2% is hardly bloated tho

>>138709564
What is a non-communist far-left?

This is a meme. We more or less have a multi-party system. The primaries for the two major parties are often filled with vastly different candidates who represent the nuances of their sides of the political spectrum. Its kinda like the playoffs. One by one they each get eliminated and knocked off. Then a candidate on each side is crowned via the primary, and then the general is kinda like the Super Bowl from the two remaining contenders, who consolidate the vote to get as close to a majority as possible.

Also democracy is overrated.

>>138711011
non-(((Marxist))) far left includes Green Anarchists, Left-Libertarians, Revolutionary Socialists, etc. etc. etc. This is what I'm saying. These parties are all bullshit, fake and gay. If we purposely atomize ourselves, I shit you not, there will be a "Trans-Fur-Kin-Molly-Christ Party" in this overwrought bullshit country within the first year. Will likely have a good showing in CA/MA/etc. elections

>>138711070
There are also factions inside parties on a multiparty system, it still works very differently than a two-party one, and coalitions of parties are less homogeneous than even a big-tent party, besides being more transparent

>>138710948
"bloated" suggests a girth/width that is disproportionately or unnaturally large for the body or organ. I think my word choice is modest and accurate. Just so you don't think I am trashing on the valiant Greeks, I will say that this spending is justified, given their security dilemma w Turkey and lack of NATO guarantees. Nonetheless, the fact remains.

>>138711244
SYRYZA is Marxist tho
>The Syriza coalition was founded by a broad array of thirteen groups and independent politicians, including social democrats, democratic socialists, left-wing patriots, feminists, anti-capitalists, centrists, and environmentalist groups; as well as Marxist–Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Eurocommunists, Luxemburgists, and Eurosceptics.
Dunno why they call them just "far-left".
And no country has a party like this. Not even India wirh their 100 parties

I don't see the US having more than 8 or 9 parties, with maybe tiny ethnic ones

>>138711508
Brother, I agree, it is senseless. BUT NOTE that not all listed in the shit-stew are MARXIST. Really we should be having a conversation about how a society becomes so fractured as to seriously host such parties. And we're back at USA 2017. Enjoy watching disintegration in real time, sir.

>>138711626
Europe's political spectrums are more fucked up. Especially for non-anglos.

Anglos are less commie and radical than usual

Greece is especially bad

Their parties are not usually so strong in people's minds and identities tho, since there's competition for voters by parties close to each other, like socialists and communists or christian-democrats and conservatives.

>>138711508
>>138711626
SYRIZA (Synaspismos Rizospastikis Aristeras--Coalition of the Radical Left) is a perfect case study of coalition building in what /our_guy/ Samuel Hunting argued in his 1968 work, Political Order in Changing Societies, occurs in "Praetorian societies" where democracy is either under-developed or in significant regression (US 2017). If the many interests in the US no longer feel they are represented by the est.'d parties, they will fracture into their nearest in-groups (think Bosnian security dilemma after Commie Party collapsed, where no one could guarantee the security of the competing groups, who in turn formed paramilitaries). Hence, this goulash of Black Nationalists, Anarchists, Anarcho-Commies, Anarcho-Syndicalists, White Nat., NatSoc, Liberal, etc. etc. etc. /pol/ alone reflects how many ideologies we are flirting w as we desperately seek an identity to ascribe to ourselves and thus find the best in-group. Should we wreck out the system entirely and revert to clan-based politics as in Greece, ANY of these Mickey Mouse parties will require massive coalitions of 15+ other bullshit parties, and will never accomplish anything. See Greece, Jan. 2015-Present. Also worth noting, outside of SYRIZA--itself a coalition--this coalition had to form ANOTHER w the """"far right"""" Independent Greeks party. So u have commies and hardcore nationalists representing a "common platform," while the usual chaos abounds in Syntagma...

>>138711985
This

>>138712057
Most of these would be small, especially in a country like the US were people are used to having 2 options

And in the change I propposed people would still need at least 30% to win seats. I believe you'd end up with a few partiis with varying strength in regional or state party systems, like in the UK.

Even full-PR or MMP wouldn't require or even allow for 15-party coalitions, and if it happened you could just have a treshold. Turkey for ex is the extreme case with a 15% threshold, and in europe 3 or 5% are common, as are district-based systems.

Look at Mexico's system for ex, or regional UK ones, or Irelands (a form of preferential voting), Australia's, NZ's. All multiparty, none have 15-party coalitions.

Usually there are 2 dominant parties and a couple medium or smaller ones, or 3 main parties or at most 4 (with two being larger than the other 2), and coalitions change little in composition (but can change a lot in the relative size of each member party due to competition).

I doubt an antifa party would evee grow to be significant enough in the US. You'd likely have typical conservatives, paleos or nationalists, 1 or 2 moderate parties, progressives and as smaller parties greens and libertarians.

Whichever party wins the presidency would tend to be larger and more powerful too. Better to compare to France or Mexico in this case, instead of euros. A president changes everything because he has more bargaining power

SYRYZA will lose the next election btw. People hate them for being incompetent now. And they're greek, not american. Thete aren't a bunch of leftist currents in it because of the system, but because they're greek.

IIRC theyre changing their system to a bonus one like Italy's, which I think is shitty.

But there are plenty of options to find what's suitable for a country.

The US could easily live with the Irish or Strayan or Kiwi systems

>>138713057
>Most of these would be small, especially in a country like the US were people are used to having 2 options
Brother, I agree and will do you one better. I feel like, do to the vast universe of interests in the US, that we will have even greater fracturing and atomization than that.
>Look at Mexico's system for ex, or regional UK ones, or Irelands (a form of preferential voting), Australia's, NZ's. All multiparty, none have 15-party coalitions.
Good pt. and I hope you are right..
>Usually there are 2 dominant parties and a couple medium or smaller ones, or 3 main parties or at most 4
True. Greece is STILL dominated by Nea Demokratia and PASOK.
>I doubt an antifa party would evee grow to be significant enough in the US
They will be gassed ;)
>SYRYZA will lose the next election btw.
Given. Unlikely they will survive to the next official election without snaps being called (again)
>IIRC theyre changing their system to a bonus one like Italy's, which I think is shitty..
Quick rundown plz?
>But there are plenty of options to find what's suitable for a country.
I appreciate the optimism,and hope ur right

>>138714489
due* to the vast

>>138709449

yes

>>138714594
kek

no parties
Select parliament by lot

>>138714489
The italian system gives an automatic majority to any party that gets 40% and a few more than other parties

They changed several times ao i dunno if it's still like this

File: pepedab.jpg (7KB, 294x212px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 294x212px

democratic fascism is only solution
elections for MPs and local government but only the ruling party and approved controlled opposition are allowed to run

>>138715037
stalin pls

File: stalin.jpg (25KB, 458x418px)

25KB, 458x418px

>>138715119

>>138708705
I can't wait for MAGA to become its own party
Trump's campaign was seriously too amazing to be only his

>>138708705
A 2 party already functions much like a multiparty system, except you are more aware that some RINO in Maine will betray you. There is no functional difference between multiple party systems and 2 party systems.

File: 74698076.png (177KB, 267x328px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 267x328px

>>138715037
>democratic fascism

>>138715019
Trash. Does majority party then appoint the executive, or just pres., while PM is elected? And does this not lead to EXTREME gridlock? At least in the current US system, the exec can always cuck an insurgent House w EOs and vetoes. Plus, Italy's politics seem similarly extreme to those in Greece. Recal Brigatta Rossie and the 1960s-70s.

>>138715811
PM is the chief and appoints government. This bonus is in the house btw, not Senate