A Problem of Shrinkage

[Che Roriniho]

Then it simply promotes other parties. A two Party state is just half as worse as a one party state. A multi-party state is almost perfect, and could finally make America something to be proud of, and indeed the envy of nations. Something that's been severely lacking for the past 60 years

[Hooahguy]

but you are forgetting that multi parites is a mess. just look at israels system. to get a government going, you need the majority of the seats, and since that is so hard to do, coalitions are formed and its a mess.
if there were more than 2 parties, getting the 270 electoral votes to win would be really hard.

[Che Roriniho]

Then don't follow Israels example. Just a simple Majority. Whoever has the most votes, wins. Simple.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Then don't follow Israels example. Just a simple Majority. Whoever has the most votes, wins. Simple.

That would be ideal, but those sort of conditions tend to create 2-party systems, because the only way to get into power is to form large parties with a broad range of ideologies.

[Hooahguy]

Then don't follow Israels example. Just a simple Majority. Whoever has the most votes, wins. Simple.

you know, that kind of stuff led to the Civil War. just sayin'

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Really, I suppose this is a two-part question: How can/should the Republicans turn around their shrinkage problem? And what will the consequences be if America becomes a de facto one-party state?

Aren't we? The politicians in the executive branch favor expanding executive power, while the politicians in the legislative branch favor re-election at any cost. The letter next to their name and their pet causes don't matter very much.

[Sarmatian]

Political vacuum is always filled, usually instantly. I think Republicans are just having a temporary drop.

On the other hand, I think it would be beneficial for US if this would allow some other party or parties to fill the gap. I don't like two-party system much, but considering the political system in the US, that isn't likely to happen. Setting up a new party to rival Reps and Dems would be extremely difficult and extremely expensive.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Political vacuum is always filled, usually instantly. I think Republicans are just having a temporary drop.

Setting up a new party to rival Reps and Dems would be extremely difficult and extremely expensive.

Same here. Politics is full of ups and downs, just like economics. Republicans are many things, but not stupid, or at least as stupid as some of us may perceive them to be. They will change or die, and more likely, they will change. It would be immensely difficult for another, new party to establish themselves in the US Gov't, so it is easier to simply give the old corpse a new dress than to raise a new child to adulthood. Unless of course the other party makes a grave misted, and the mistake would have to be grave indeed, since even the contrasting performances of the Republican Harding and Democrat FDR were not enough to give the Democrats an edge.

Not to mention, after a 2-3 Democrats in the power, the people will once again beg for change, and so the cycle is renewed. Then a line of Republicans again, then Democrats, and so on ad perpetuum. Pathetic, but each day this cycle continues, the more firmly entrenched it becomes. Parties change views and constituents to unrecognisability, but the name and the symbols carry on. Kinda difficult to imagine what the Republicans were before Reagan, without working class men, or the Democrats before FDR, without the blacks, but it was so some time ago.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Kinda difficult to imagine what the Republicans were before Reagan

Deliciously smug?

[CountArach]

if there were more than 2 parties, getting the 270 electoral votes to win would be really hard.

There are a number of ways to fix this:
Elect the President by popular vote
Preferential voting
OR
A permanent solution

[LittleGrizzly]

I have always been a big fan of preferential voting... I think bigger partys tend to be against the idea as it means small partys can actually make gains without people feeling thier vote is wasted. You can make your idealogical choice (the one that is actually closest to your paticular views) and vote for the guys who are better than those other guys, the hold your nose vote...

[Hooahguy]

There are a number of ways to fix this:
Elect the President by popular vote
Preferential voting
OR
A permanent solution

you know, a while back before the 2008 election i posted that question, and i believe you were one of the people who bashed on the idea of going to popular vote.

[CountArach]

you know, a while back before the 2008 election i posted that question, and i believe you were one of the people who bashed on the idea of going to popular vote.

That doesn't sound at all like me.

[LittleGrizzly]

Im fairly sure a few left wing people were being 'bashed' about just liking the popular vote because Bush would have lost under it in 2000

[Crazed Rabbit]

I've read some articles that say the old conservative scions need to actually adopt conservatism to our modern times, and stop living like it's the 1980s. Also, the GOP in power didn't even try to reflect those old principles.

A new, more libertarian route, may be the way to go. Consider former New Mex gov Gary Johnson, who's said he may run in 2012.

An interview with the man back in '00:

This practical approach drives his notorious attitude toward drug prohibition, which Johnson has attacked more forcefully and visibly than any other elected official in America today. He rails against the drug war mostly, though not exclusively, on the grounds that it is inefficient. In general, he is more interested in pragmatic concerns than in defending anything as abstract as inalienable rights. When I bring up prostitution, another consensual crime, he endorses decriminalization, but not on the grounds that people own their bodies or that it’s not the state’s business. Instead he frames his response this way: "Given that prostitution takes place, the question is, ‘Are you safer engaging a prostitute in Nevada or New Mexico?’ I think you are clearly safer engaging one in Nevada in a licensed prostitution establishment."
...
Reason: What do you consider your major accomplishments as governor of New Mexico?

Johnson: Building 500 miles of four-lane highway in the state. We have reduced taxes by about $123 million annually. More significantly, before my taking office there was never a set of six years in the state of New Mexico where not a single tax had gone up. We reformed Medicaid and got Medicaid costs under control. We built a couple of new, private prisons in New Mexico. We had prisoners housed out of state, and the federal court system had been running prisons in New Mexico under a consent decree since 1980. We are now out from under that consent decree. We have approximately 1,200 fewer employees in state government today than we did when I took office.

CR

[HoreTore]

but you are forgetting that multi parites is a mess. just look at israels system. to get a government going, you need the majority of the seats, and since that is so hard to do, coalitions are formed and its a mess.
if there were more than 2 parties, getting the 270 electoral votes to win would be really hard.

The simple solution to that problem:

Make it so that you don't have to get a majority in parliament to rule. You only need a majority to throw the government out. As for the practical ruling stuff, they still need a majority on each case, which they will find by seeking support from the other parties. If the other parties decide they no longer wants them in charge, they'll refuse to pass the budget, and the government must take their hat and leave, and another government is formed(minority or majority).

We've had dozens of minority governments, all of them have functioned well. The current government is actually the first majority government we've had in quite some years.