Posted on 01/06/2025 12:19:55 PM PST by DBCJR
The USA needs a 4 party federal political system aligned across two spectrums of a Cartesian Coordinate plane:
1) Liberal vs Conservative
2) Establishment vs Populist
The four parties would thus be identified in each of the four quadrants as:
1) liberal establishment
2) liberal populist
3) conservative establishment.
4) conservative populist.
In this way, it were more closely align political interests to party affiliations.
In addition, it would necessarily take caucusing of 2 to 3 parties to establish a majority.
No one party would be able to dominate the political agenda. This system would more likely achieve with the founding fathers had intended with our Democratic Republic, a system that forced compromised solutions.
There’s no basis for your conclusions. You’re going to have to convey your analysis.
I think what we have is the natural and predictable derivative of a two party system. We have not had a two party system for very long in this country.
We’re fine the way we are as long as the cheating is stopped.
Your ideas sound somewhat intriguing, but I need you to develop them more so that I could more seriously consider them. It sounds like you are viewing the current problem somewhat similarly to the way I do and are attempting to address it in a similar fashion.
I’m not sure why you’re being so judgmental and hateful on a forum where we discuss ideas. Perhaps you’re better suited for another venue. If you would like to have an intelligent discussion, I am certainly open to that.
There’s no basis for your conclusion that the weakest party would dominate a four party system. That is categorically absurd. If you can see flaws, please try to intelligently point them out rather than using such conclusory and derogatory language. I am interested in your thoughtful opinions.
Where on earth did you get the idea that I “don’t give a hoot about the Bill of Rights“? Please refrain from such conclusory, judgmental, and derogatory remarks, and attempt to convey your ideas in intelligent, thoughtful, and respectful language. I’m interested in your opinions
Have you not watched France’s system or Germany’s where parties form coalitions?
Wow, you do not even understand some reasonable results of the system you proposed or know to look at systems already similar your criteria to at least gauge the results then proceed to tell me I have no evidence. Please go back and do some research as you are obviously ill informed.
Your proposal kinda looks like the way European countries with their multiple party system.
I see how terrible things are run in Europe and see no need to replicate the Europe model here.
BTW, we told Europe to take their kings and stuff it in 1776.
The purpose of that is to give minority parties (which by nature represent only a few and never the majority) leverage so they can crowbar their poisonous policies into law.
No. Absolutely not.
Your proposal would require a parliamentary system.
How would fix it at four? By gun point?
The only thing wrong with our current system is we have deviated too far from the Founding Fathers vision of a republic.
Not gun point but by legal process the same way our two party system evolved. Actually we have not been a two party system for long and third and fourth parties have popped up in effectively during its lifespan.
at the very least we need to establish at the federal level what we have now and keep them from lowering the voting age and letting illegals vote in elections, including at the state level. at a minimum, we really need to standardize requirements (voter/citizen id, registration address, one person one vote, paper ballots, one-day elections, etc.) all elections at the federal level. imo, it’s all part of guaranteeing a republican form of gov’t for all states, etc.
i think you and i have come to the same conclusion that the two-party system has to be dismantled. it is anathema to republican gov’t. we have very different approaches. mine is much simpler to implement, but the problem is that the existing powers (reps and dems) will in no wise willing vote themselves out of existence. that’s an advantage of your approach.
The implementation must be a buy in of the philosophy and not imposed by federal law. Federal encroachment upon states and individuals rights started as a debate by the Constitution framers (dramatized by the Hamilton/Burr duel ), persisted through the War between States, and remaining in the current political scene (see the map of red vs blue states). Our “ experiment”, as Franklin called it, continues to struggle with the concept that the Northeastern and West Coast states want a strong federal government and the rest of the country wants states’ rights.
I have a similar idea: In order to vote in Federal Elections you must file your individual income tax return as proof that you have paid at least $2,000 in income tax to the Federal Government. In states with an income tax you must show your state tax return showing you paid at least $500 in state income taxes. For local elections, then it would be property tax. Exemptions would be made for retirees who have paid the appropriate taxes for a minimum number of years in the past.
The numbers I put here are just guesstimates -— but the idea is that you only get to vote if you pay into the system. Parasites do NOT get to vote!!!
The middle of the road is for painted lines and dead skunks not politics
see my other comment. the Founders required a guaranteed form of republican gov’t. thus election law can be imposed at the federal level.
Read The Federalist Papers.
While political parties are natural to a free society, they are poisonous to republics and must be opposed by countervailing institutions of government.
Of course, they have and that’s a natural process from human nature that should be allowed to remain!
From the beginning Articles of Confederation to the Constitution our politics has come down to arguing “How much centralized control VS How much state\local even personal control”. That means ultimately two political parties. One that argues for more centralized power and one that argues for more decentralized power. Every issue that has confronted us in our political history is that argument. It doesn’t matter what the political parties are called the argument is still the same. In Rep VS Rat they’ve even switched sides on the issue. Minority parties come and go usually over sone issue that surfaces. It either gets absorbed into major party or it doesn’t. Your proposal would only function under a parliamentary system. A “legal process” is just a nice way of saying there’s a gun back there to enforce the rule. Canada and the UK are currently demonstrating the problems in a parliamentary system. Parliamentary systems as done now don’t have a “vigorous executive” to break political deadlocks. We’re seeing that failure in the UK. The executive i.e., “the Monarch” should stepped in by now and dismissed the government. It hasn’t and it won’t!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.