Do you think the u.s should have a viable 3rd party for people to vote for? Why or why not ?

What we desperately need: * Open primaries * Ranked choice or approoval voting.

Unless there’s a real fire starter, all “third party” attempts would be handled as they are now. Largely inconsequential.

Open primaries and ranked choice voting is better

I think we need ranked choice voting. Then we can start voting 3rd party and not spoiling the election.

Ranked choice = Great No Ranked Choice = third party doesn’t work (it does the opposite of what you want)

I have no idea, even if we had a parliamentary system with a ton of parties it might not lead to any actual change since they'd probably band together to form big tent coalitions that are essentially still the big two parties. I wish a polisci major could chime in with some idea for making large democracies more responsive to the needs of the people on a national level.

Let's start with at least one viable party before thinking of a third.

Of course, ideally we'd have many, but in reality nobody is taking down the GOP or DNC and any attempt to get remotely close will get crushed by them. So we live in a Country where the best thing we can do is try to get a non-crazy person to run on one of those. It sucks

No because you'd inevitably split the vote. 2 parties is necessary or you change the whole system

[removed]

“Rent is too damn high” guy could make a real run at it this time.

Current 'leadership' wants only one party, trump's. That would remove ALL other options from even having a voice.

No. Third parties are vehicles for interest groups to siphon support away from candidates that threaten them (i.e., the Libertarians exploded and died once Trump entered office, while the Greens got significant backing, as a means of strengthening the GOP and weakening the Democratic Party)

We need ranked choice voting

We literally cannot have this while Citizens United is still law.

Three parties is not a great idea in our current system of voting. You at least need ranked choice to avoid spoiler effects (e.g. Ralph Nader 2000 or Ross Perot 1992). Personally I don't think it makes much difference whether you have a ton of parties because they're going to have to form coalitions in Congress anyway. I'm not saying better or worse, but there is no magic improvement in everything just from additional parties.

In the last presidential election, there were more people who didn't vote than voted for either candidate. It's not even close. If non-voters were a group, they'd win by a landslide. People always say "any third party can't win and will simply hurt so-and-so party" but that's utter bullshit. There are 90 million people in this country that are so disillusioned with the DNC and GOP that they can't be bothered. Give them something worth voting for, and a 3rd party could turn the whole system upside down.

Do away with parties altogether. Candidates are only elected on their platform and history.

We always have viable third party candidates (and fourth, and fifth, and sixth, etc). The issue is, the 2 main parties get all the donations, they have all the advertising, so they get \~98% of the votes whether or not they're viable candidates. Unless we move to a different system like ranked choice voting, we're always going to have a 2 party system.

Yes. A viable third, however, requires a viable fourth, fifth, and sixth. Most post-America democracies have improved on the system with multi-party democracies. It seems like 5-7 parties is the sweet spot. A two party system just provides the illusion of choice. A third party typically just splits one of the remaining two. Four would be the minimum. I wish we had split the Democratic and Republican parties in 2016 and added MAGA/Tea-party and Democratic Socialist.

We need fewer parties. Like, none. Every candidate should have to run on their own merits.

A third, fourth, fifth.....hell yeah! This two party shitshow gotta go!

The US cannot have a viable third party by simple math. Our voting system makes it impossible. Watch this short (6min) video for an easy explanation. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)

Until money is removed from politics it will always be terrible 

Only if rank choice voting is in place. If you vote third party you are currently guaranteeing the candidate you hate gets net +1 vote.

The US should have a functional representative democracy. Is a system where the government needs to form a coalition and compromise on their vision perfect? No. But it does prevent roughly half the country from feeling oppressed and persecuted every 4 to 8 years.

Every country should, but the obstacles to making it happen need to be cleared first Ranked choice voting would really help 

whatever a “viable” third party is I’d go with a third choice behind 1). No parties at all, and 2). Two parties other than the ones we have.

Yes, dems and repubs are two sides, same coin kinda ish…

We are set up for a 2 party system so the system would really have to change for a 3rd party to make sense but at that point we would likely have a handful of parties. As we are set up now we should not have a 3rd party because we are set up in a 2 part system.

I think we should have a parliamentary system where the members of Congress are allocated proportionally to the votes received.

Yes

First Past the Post voting means that there's no possible way for a stable 3rd party to form and sustain itself unless it displaces one of the main parties. Even if you're not happy with your choices, voting for the major party that's least dissimilar to your views is always the mathematically sound choice in FPTP. If we had ranked choice voting across the board or even a parliamentary system that would be a different discussion.

Ross perot came close, these 2 parties have ruined the middle class, and destroyed the us dollar.. The dems only have a plan, Tds policies, and the Republicans don't actually do any of the good ideas they talk about

Yes, it would possibly even out the radical difference between the two..

A third party doesn't work in first past the post voting. To get a viable third party you have to functionally overhaul the government and elections. But lets say you did that. The outcomes likely wouldne be different. In systems with multiple partys they have to compromise and join together into a functional alliance to form a government, in essence they end up supporting one person, despite the factions having their own differences. Our parties do the same thing with competing factions within the parties.

Not until we have ranked choice and proportional representation. Until that happens, it'll always be a two party system.

The problem is the dominance of two major parties, whereas we should exist in a system where there should be numerous groups capable of representing constituents holding a common set of goals. Further, there is no reason that parties should not fade away or cease to exist when their agenda or ideology is no longer relevant. As is, we have accepted a two party system that is used and manipulated by disingenuous leaders who shift the values and direction of the party; e.g. the reversal of Republican & Democrat parties since the Civil War. These two parties are then used to drive agendas with the influence of wealthy individuals who believe they are entitled to greater influence since they have greater fiscal wealth. To this end, (financially backed) politicians are placed in office who will then put obstacles in place to further stymie and suppress and disenfranchise people not in their party to further cement power. If there were no controlling parties, gerrymandering would quickly become illegal.

It would be good for voting rules to change so that third, fourth, and fifth parties are viable.  Something like ranked choice or instant runoff could help. The current voting rule is first past the post, fptp. Under those rules, when someone votes for a party outside of the top two, the main result is to take a vote away from her preferred major party and help her hated party to win. 

Yes, but the way the system is set up, it's not possible to have a viable third party.

You cannot have a viable third party in a strict first past the post system. At best, they play spoilers. At worst, they're irrelevant. For there to be a viable 3rd party, the entire system must change.

No because it’s not likely that party will be an equal middle ground and will dilute the party to which it leans and we will end up with a majority party and a split party. The split party will never win again. The Green Party and Libertarian parties already do this regularly in election cycles where a 3rd party candidate gains any traction, they never win, but will draw voters away from the party member who likely would have won if the votes weren’t split, and then just like that our elected official is the one most people didn’t vote for. Not because they were popular but because their smaller voter base wasn’t split and happened to outnumber the two halves of the other larger voter base. This is actually a part of the reason Republican candidates win so much despite there being less republican voters in the US. Independents are generally more likely, though it’s pretty close, to lean democratically, leading to a stronger voter coordination among republican candidates than democratic. That and a bunch of other reasons like gerrymandering and junk.

Yes, I think it's important. I think the founding fathers realized that 3 branches of govt works as a rock-paper-scissors effect. But power has moved from govt branches to party. A viable 3rd party could/should serve to move the balance back. How that would be practically accomplished? No idea.

If the third party is a third version of the same, no I don’t think that helps at all. We need rank choice voting. We need the House to be expanded so it represents the people like it was designed to, that should help open the field instead of having Dems and Republicans be the gatekeepers of political engagement. We don’t have a viable 3rd party by design, propping one up without real reform will just revert back to the same situation eventually

Yes however the way the system in the US is set up wouldn't really allow it. The Whigs started as a "third party" but ultimately broke up and the major parties of the time absorbed them. So it's kind of like what exists now. Within the Democratic Party and the Republican Party there is a wide range of perspectives. US history shows that when "third" parties gain more traction they ultimately end up getting absorbed into one of the major parties. Even if that weren't the case though, the Green Party especially has a pathetic ground game. They run Jill Stein every presidential election cycle and never gain any ground. They don't focus on lower offices. Gary Johnson ran for president as a Libertarian in 2012. Had he run as a Republican he'd have a compelling record as a two term Republican governor of a blue/purple state. But since he ran as a Libertarian, his candidacy was widely discredited pretty much immediately.

There’s a LOT of reforms that need to be done before we have any hope of a viable 3rd party in US politics. And Much of it needs to start at a State level because The establishments at the federal level are not going to give up what they have going for them without a fight. They will throw money from their corporate donors to smear the needed reforms. If things like ranked choice and approval voting, and open primaries are to catch on, we need as many individual states as possible to adopt them, which will hopefully pressure the federal level to follow suit. In order for this to happen, we need to get corporate interests out of politics!

3rd party? No. Multiple parties? Yes.

FPTP kills any 3rd party opportunities, and also kills the chances of the more closely aligned party. A Left party will just kill the votes for the Democrats, so the GOP wins.

Simply adding more parties wouldn't change anything. There is no party that can make someone into a good person. Individuals matter. Ideas matter. Parties and ideologies don't matter.

There are so many different parties in American politics. Nobody will vote for any of them in large enough numbers. H Ross Perot had the best 3rd party run in modern history. Clinton won with under 50% popular vote both times. Perot didn't get a single electoral vote.

There should be no parties.

The constitution would have to be amended for a 3rd party to be mathematically viable. The way our system is set up now effectively requires a 2 party system unless you want congress to start picking the president.

Absolutely. I long have said that the mmo industry figured out ages ago you need at least 3 options to make things balanced :) Even when the game becomes saturated with a bunch of choices most of those can fit into one of the three 'holy trinities' of classes. I think us politics needs this desperately. If there was a decent organized socially liberal but truly economically conservative party it would draw in up to half of each parties supporters who are tired of all the bullshit.

More like 4 or 6 for full representation. We need a parliamentary style of government.

No bc that would make it so people could vote on economic issues instead of social ones, and as long as the fed keeps us divided over social issues they get to do whatever tf they want with the economy

Third parties are spoiler parties in the US. Republicans figured this out quickly after Ross Perot. Democrats insist on wasting their votes on completely unviable candidates and Republicans take advantage of it

I think 3rd parties are okay for lower offices. But for President, it is very important for national unity that the person elected got the majority of the given vote. If Candidate A won with only 40% of the vote - beating Candidate B’s 30% and Candidate C’s 30% - then people would be disgusted having a President they not only dislike but one they know most voters did not choose. It’s a recipe for disaster.

In 2004 the Illinois legislature held a special session to have G.W. Bush appear on the ballot. The Republican party had failed to meet the requirements to have a candidate appear on the Presidential Ballot for that year. The measure was passed 108 to 0 in favor. Do you think any third party would get that consideration. That said, third parties going after the big offices is where they have their downfall. They should start with local elections, city offices, county boards, and local officials. This would give them a starting pool of viable candidates. Then move to state election legislatures and state offices. Often times these positions are run unopposed and you could pick up some votes from the major party voters who would never vote for "that party". Once you get over 2% of a state legislature you can start influencing state laws, especially election laws. Then you can start getting your party a bigger share of the legislature by removing barriers to election like Gerrymandering, high petition requirements, polling place in availability. After you get your people in offices in about a third of the states you can make a push for congress. Again you only need 2% of the House and Senate to begin to have an outsized influence on the country. This was how Prohibition got passed in 1919 even though most people were opposed to it and in was immensely unpopular once enacted.

I think the solution is a ranked voting system, which would promote third party candidates running. So instead of just voting for person A or B, you rank them A-Z and the higher the rank the more points. The most points overall wins. I think that would help prevent people using devusive strategies to make people more radical. That way people would still actually have to consider and care about what everyone wants and is best for everyone.

Obviously we should. But it might sound crazy that some countries only have 1 party and actually would love the representation of a 2nd party. Japans LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) which is pro-business, heavily conservative, & nationalist has dominated the political climate since 1955. Japan does have mutliple parties and some of them are similar to the USA democrat part. Like the Centrist Reform Alliance (CRA). They actual hold little to none power in the governement though, So even though the USA would benefit from a 3 party system. We are at least benefitting somewhat from a 2 party system compared to some other rich & free countries.

We should have dozens of parties. But who cares? It’s not happening.

yeah that checks out fair enough honestly youre not wrong sounds about right big if true makes sense to me thats the vibe i get a classic move cant argue with that it do be like that sometimes what a legend thats a solid point mood you love to see it i mean yeah that tracks this is the way a tale as old as time they never learn do they you hate to see it fair point well made just how it goes

We need a couple dozen partys. Everybody gets to vote for their favorite.

Until voting is fixed, no. Meaning ranked choice or approval.

We need much more than 3.

Every democracy benefits from more options. Even though one party wins with votes more evenly spread you get coallition governments or stronger opposition. This ensures no single party ever has too much power and that the wiggle room for each party is smaller since if they lose public favor they'll be quickly replaced by another. A two party system is what happens when you treat politics like football and you just want your team to win.

There is nothing blocking this initiative.

We should have at least 4 major parties right now. It's all by design that we have a duopoly! Watching "An Unreasonable Man" documentary about Ralph Nader really cleared things up .. unfortunately things have only gotten more restrictive since destroying any opportunity for a viable 3rd party.

Look, I’d love a third party. A fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, etc. but it’s simply impossible under our current constitution. So until we get rid of a first past the post system, a system that actively prevents more than 2 parties by virtue of how majorities and pluralities work, we cannot have serious third party contenders. A lot of people just assume we don’t have a third party because no one has really provided good options or because we’re too oppositional in nature but the cold hard reality is that it’s a systemic fault. The founding fathers wanted a system that wasn’t too partisan and then created a system in which aggressive two-party partisan politics was literally guaranteed. And now it’s a nightmare to actually change.

There is third parties. None of them are viable because nobody votes for them. 

Yep. The only way to get there is probably the Dirty Break.

Obviously yes, but unless our political system is completely overhauled it’ll never happen. We have two massive political parties because it’s a zero sum game. Every vote for your third party of choice is one less vote for your “big tent” party, and practically a vote for your opponents. Your only hope is to form a big coalition party and try and win that way. The problem is when one of the parties is more a coalition of smaller ideals fighting against one giant block of shit. It’s hard to motivate people to constantly vote for “we don’t really care what you want, but we aren’t the other guy”

Yes. Because two parties will never represent the people. It's also much easier to steamroll your policies when it's a two party system. Multiparty system often with no majorities and therefore parties have to compromise more often leading to more voices being heard and represented

We have ranked choice voting here in NYC for primaries. I also occasionally vote for the Working Families Party and have voted for third parties in the past, notably the Serve America Movement candidate for governor in 2018. New York requires a threshold of over 100,000 voters for ballot access, up from 50,000 because Andrew Cuomo was passed at the WFP in 2018.

A 3rd party with sufficient representation in Congress would provide much needed long term policy stability and could ensure that checks and balances in our government are properly enforced and that tyranny of the majority is not abused.

September...voting of 4 or more candidates, 2 best from those get to run for the November vote.

I think we should just get rid of parties altogether. Politicians can have loose associations that are in agreement on specific issues but we should get rid of parties as a formalized power structure.

Absolutely. The 2 we have now aren't working.

We need a workers party for the working class

ONLY if we get rid of the Electoral College and go by popular vote.

There should be at least 2 additional parties. There are people who are socially conservative but not fiscally conservative, there are people who are people who are socially liberal but not fiscally liberal

Judging your last few presidents I would guess the answer would be yes...?

I think we need at least 5 viable parties. 1970’s version republican, MAGA republican, Democrats, Progressive democrats, and democratic socialist. You could throw in Libertarian but since they don’t believe in government I don’t see why they should run for office in one.

We do honestly, it is called the Libertarian Party and I think it should replace the Republican Party yesterday.

We should have lots of parties. The more the merrier. Vote with your heart, then let the various parties find a way to enter into a coalition to create a majority. If it doesn’t work, have another election and do it all again. But we can’t unless we amend the Constitution. Our first-past-the-post majoritarian electoral system only allows for two salient parties at a time. Because the goal is to get to 50% + 1, interest groups naturally coalesce into two sides, each trying to get just enough support to cross that threshold. So, yes, we should have a system that allows for proportional representation. But it’s not possible under our current Constitution.

Any "viable" alternative gets infiltrated by Democrats or Republicans and becomes an alternative party in name only.

Obviously they should. The problem is that the current system will never allow it.

This is like asking if people in the desert need water. It's asking the wrong question from the wrong end of the problem. Not enough people think about it though, so thanks for bringing it up.

Yea, but it is impossible under the current system. We would need ranked choice voting at minimum. Without that, you're just splitting votes on either side.

Every possible rational political choice is already absorbed by the big two. There's no easy way to calve off from those I don't believe and be successful.

No, our divided government means it makes more sense for there to be only two major parties. We would benefit more from ranked choice voting and getting money out of politics, overturn citizens united

Should? Sure. But it's tough because of electoral system we have. Any time a legit 3rd party pops up one of the two main parties are quick to make changes to adapt to get most of those voters because the simple math issue. The second, say, the Green Party starts pulling in 5% of the vote and costing Democrats elections then Democrats will quickly adopt policies that bring those people into the party. That won't happen with Republicans because they've consolidated all their factions into the party over the decades. The factions, evangelicals for example, understood they needed to work within the party from day 1. So there was never an attempt to be a party of their own. Whereas a lot of liberal/left factions are content to not be Democrats.

For a 3rd party to really be viable we'd need to change our government structure. Because there's nothing technically stopping it for the entire history of the US but our system encourages large parties so we end up with permanent coalitions disguised as parties. You'd either need to adopt a Parliamentary system as well as splitting the Presidency into two separate positions (Head of State and Head of Government). Or we'd need a system of runoff elections or ranked choice voting and no electoral college.

No. You lot routinely fail open book, open note, one question, true-false tests. I do not expect you’ll do better by making that one question multiple choice. America *currently* routinely fails its civics tests when they have only two choices. We perform worse than chance! And you want to give people more wrong answers? Because that’s all that will wind up happening.

Yes, but it isn’t going to happen because it would get 72% of the vote (the other 28% would be MAGA that would vote Trump again).

Absolutely. We need either zero political parties or more than 2. The problem with 2 is that you end up with people campaigning not on what they will do or how good they are but rather how bad the other guy is. Also with two it's easier for monied interests to buy the whole system.

Adding more teams to the existing voteball league will change nothing.

3rd party won’t be viable unless we have ranked choice voting 

Third parties don't work in our current system. We'd have to change the constitution. Unfortunately.

The electoral system doesn’t allow for third parties. But that doesn’t really matter because parties here aren’t really parties, they’re coalitions. The democratic party, for example, is like 3 parties in a trench coat. That up until very recently included both AOC and Joe Manchin. Under most other systems they would be explicitly representing different parties. Neither AOC nor Joe Manchin represent a faction that would be able to get a legislative majority. It’s functionally the same as AOC running as a Green party member and Joe manchin running as a Blue Dog party member and forming a democratic coalition to keep the further right wing parties out of power. We could avoid a lot of ridiculous discourse by people understanding that.

Yes, need a third party.

No. it sounds good at first but it immediately becomes the single most corrupt party due to it's position as the swing party. IMO: \- The most efficient form of government is a sole dictatorship \- The second most efficient form of government is a single party dictatorship with a sole figurehead \- The third most efficient is a 2 party representative democracy with a sole figurehead (once you add a second party, you can no longer really have a true dictatorship) Adding any more parties results in diminishing returns of efficiency. Note: I did not say "best form"

It's really not a question "should" (that's obvious), but a question of "can". Without term limits and campaign finance reform, the 2 parties have all of the power and money, and won't willingly give it up. A third party can't get enough traction to be viable.

If the electoral system goes overboard yes of course, you need like at least five viable parties for a functioning democracy, dangit!

We need to eliminate the Executive branch. The Constitution has regulations to prevent a president from doing exactly what is happening now but it doesn't have anyway to inforce those regulations especially since the Supreme Court can be compromised

I have been a registered Independant since I turned 18 in the 29th century. We need a 3rd party but the problem is the mass are f****** sheep. I have ideological agreeance with some things on the left and some things on the right.

How about a left wing party and then democrats and republicans can just combine theirs since they have all the same ideals anyways.

What's "viable"? I'll tell you what's not: A "third party" with zero meaningful representation at county, state, and federal levels that pops up every four years to field a spoiler candidate in national elections, absent universal ranked-choice voting.

They should have 4 parties. Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, and American Taliban. Current Democrat party would be Liberal. Sanders would be Progressive. Conservative would be Romney. American Taliban - MAGA.

Viable left option, sure. Ensure the right always wins.

The way our voting system works will naturally lead to a two party system. Unless we get ranked choice voting it will never change.

Should it? Yes. Will it? No

The two party system is too entrenched currently to allow for any progress on electoral reforms. The best chance of getting any of the changes we want ie additional political parties on the national level, ranked choice voting, campaign finance reform, etc. is to do what the far right did to the Republican party. Co-opt the Democratic party with more leftwing and progressive candidates and elect people that will act instead of pretend to care and then blame the filibuster for their own failures.

We had that, remember Ralph Nader, Ross Perot. They simply aided the republican wins

Go ahead and start one. There is literally nothing stopping you. Until then I will continue to vote for the only party that is currently able to thwart MAGA.

Should? Yes. But to get that it would require a fundamental redesign of US elections and democratic processes. "W***** takes all" is too widespread in the US system and would need to be fixed, among other things.

The lack of a viable 3rd party is due to structural reasons, not because no other parties exist. First Past The Post voting plus single-member districts naturally trend toward two-party systems. It's called Duverger's Law. Any attempt to run a legitimate third-party risks taking votes away from their most ideologically-similar candidate from one of the major 2 parties, resulting in the other major-party candidate winning. This creates a major incentive to not run as or vote for a third party. Yes, we should have more legitimate parties, but we won't until we fundamentally change our political system.

it’d be great if had a parliamentary system.

Ot has nothing to do with "should". It has everything to do with finding a party structure and platform that will attract a sizable fraction of the populous. So far that has not happened.

Yes. A viable 3rd party would be hugely beneficial at this point. A viable 3rd party candidate would have won the last election.

There's always third parties, the problem is, they split the votes and makes sure pretty much everyone gets nothing they want. Might as well ask kindly for poverty to be over.

Unless there is a fundamental change in how our system works 3rd party will always be non-viable due to math

The main issue with viable third or more parties is that it leads to the inherent instability of coalition governments. What has historically happened in the United States is that the two major parties begin to lose their support and new parties rise up in their stead. Both the Tory and Whig parties shrank and collapsed. The Democratic Republican Party rose up and just prior to the Civil War split into the Democratic and Republican parties that we have today. But now both of these parties are losing ground and this begs the question of what new parties will rise to replace them.

Ranked choice voting. I don't want voting for a third party to feel like I threw my ballot in the garbage. Like, it's game theory. You go for the option you don't like as much because to split the votes would increase the likelihood of the person you strongly oppose winning. So being able to say I want to vote for this person but if they don't get enough votes to win I want my vote to go to the second person I prefer. It ensures you can pick who you want and eliminates the scenario where you split votes between two candidates. Or course I doubt this will ever happen because it would mean the two party system would be in danger of possibly losing it's stranglehold on politics. Probably the only thing those clowns could agree on.

No we need 5 or 6 more parties currently we have a two party dictatorship

To be honest the government is a giant trust. Having 2 interests in charge of the massive trust that is the US government is the definition of antitrust and the 2 parties need to be busted up into multiple parties.

Yes! And 4th and 5th preferrebly! !

We need a non-partisan party. Basically this party would genuinely take orders from the general public and act in service to the general public. If they go against that, they would be executed for treason by law enforcement and the general public.

All part affiliations should be removed and you should be able to vote on someone’s platform, morals and accomplishments!

There aren't any laws preventing a viable 3rd party in the USA. It isn't a matter of if the US should have one or not, it is if there is enough public support for one. Clearly, there isn't.

Yes. Both Republican and Democrat parties have lost their way. They both suck. They are both for the ultra rich. Neither party is for the working stiff no matter what they tell you. My taxes continually go up and the cost of living has gone up under both administrations. Senators and congressional leaders have become fat cat millionaires (if they were not already). A third party may help with this.

The Purple Party. Yes!!!

Without rank choice voting system in place we are relegated to a two party system.

If we had a third party that was healthy enough to get some electoral votes, we'd have some elections where no presidential candidate got a majority. In that case, the election goes to the House where California gets one vote and Wyoming gets one vote. I do not want that result.

Not in the sense traditionally conceived. One large middle of the road party. Fiscally conservative and socially progressive methinks. The far right and left, will exist on the ends of the political spectrum.

To have a viable 3rd party you need a voting system that doesn't collapse into a 2-party system: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post\_voting#Two-party\_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Two-party_rule) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s\_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)

We need a full cleansing, ideally a removal of parties entirely. Instead of "I am a [insert political party here]" candidates would just say, "this is how I believe things should be done, and what I am going to do to make this country better". With parties, what tends to happen is people align themselves with one side or the other and then just go along with their "team" blindly rather than vote based on the issues that matter to them.

Eliminate all parties and start working for the people.

The US system has a vast number of redundant protections to disable a potential dictator. Only large organizations with enormous voter support and money can possibly ever pass any law. This will force us back to two parties even if a well organized third appeared imho. Inefficient, but it has frustrated control freaks a few times. Voters must try to make the existing parties better by having the guts to fire crooks, criminals, and dictators and to not tolerate legalized bribery or hyperpartisan major news media. Without most voters in lockstep on those issues, and they aren’t even close, as a lobbyist I say the US can never again have a positive political future. We are almost certainly irrevocably cooked.

As long as the Electoral College is in play, it's probably a bad thing. A real viable 3rd party would mean that no one would get the needed 272 electoral votes and elections would then be decided by the House voting by state. Much more opportunity for corruption to win out.

We also need the equivalent of Prime Minister question time.

Let's try the Parliament System. Seems to work better?

A third option should be the least of it. We should also have more direct control of *which* candidates we get to chose from.

Yes

Would sure help. Would make the politicians have to actually work for your vote, rather than simply going "My opponent is bad! Don't focus on me at all! Focus on how bad my opponent is!"

I still think think we need a viable *2nd* party to contend with the Business Party.

I would argue that we probably need even more than just 3. There are 330+ million people in America and yet we only have two official schools of thoughts when it comes to government?! If neither group represents your beliefs and values (which is how I’ve been feeling a lot more of these past few years) then you are essentially voiceless. And that’s obviously not what a democracy is suppose to be about. We need to stop treating our politics like a team sport. We should all be voting for who is the best of us to represent us and not solely voting for someone because they are on your team. Every individual lawmakers should have to work and earn our votes for every single election and not just get the job because they have an R or D next to their name.

We need to study how Mexico broke the two party system that they had.

I think we need to have election reform to make 3rd parties and more viable.

The problem with third parties in America is that they only care about the national elections. How often do you actually hear about the libertarian or green parties outside of presidential election years? I'd personally love for a minimum of 5 viable parties, but third parties will never be relevant on the national scale unless and until they make themselves relevant to local elections first.

Imagine they were slightly left leaning and stole half the left wing vote and the right won all the elections for the next 20 years. You would need 4 parties for balance.

Forgot a third party, we need 20! A more parliamentary style will stem some of this " You're on that side so this one thing I dont like about this one group that kinda aligns with you means all of you are that one terrible thing" bs that both sides do.

Yes please.