Can a third party save us? Explore our latest newsletter insights and debater editorials. Read the full newsletter here: opentodebate.org/newsletter-revisiting-does-america-need-a-third-party/ Sign up for our weekly newsletters here: opentodebate.org/newsletter
Andrew Yang is the first pres candidate I ever financially supported. Parties can exist in rank choice primaries. Having 2 democrats win in California's open primary shows that it can work. We need and can have both, parties and rank choice primaries. That's not abolishment of parties, that just drastically shrinks their influence.
Thank god we finally have a third party taking local politics seriously. Establishing a party at a state by state level may be a long game, but you need a real coalition before you run a presidential ticket, good on Andrew Yang for taking charge on hard and slow work.
According to wikipedia: 'Canada's electoral system, sometimes referred to as a "first-past-the-post" system, is formally referred to as a single-member plurality system.' 'In contrast with the political party systems of many nations, Canadian parties at the federal level are often only loosely connected with parties at the provincial level, despite having similar names.' Currently, there are five parties in the House of Commons. Of the 338 total seats available in the House of Commons, respectively, the parties have the following shares: 154 -- Liberal Party of Canada (center to center-left) 119 -- Conservative Party of Canada (center-right to right-wing) 32 -- Bloc Québécois (Quebec regionalism; center-left) 24 -- New Democratic Party (center-left to left-wing) 2 -- Green Party of Canada (in Ontario and British Columbia) 3 -- (independent) 4 -- (vacant) sources: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_electoral_system en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Canada en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_parties_in_Canada en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_Canada#Current_composition en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_House_members_of_the_44th_Parliament_of_Canada
The Forward Party does seem to stand something but has not articulated it well. “We’re going to give you what you want.” and “non-ideological” are insufficient. Just promise “good management, governance and accountability.” That’s really what we want.
In all fairness, Andrew's been asked to debate the multi-party issue; he's been specifically asked not to deliver a political platform speech for the Forward Party.
A big issue that was not mentioned is the fact that in a two party system, it is very common for families to align themselves with a single political party, and becomes part of their culture, which is very, very difficult to change. Just like religion.
Need ranked choice + the 2 party cut up in to 5 party's, who should have to form coalitions governments. And reconfigure the party's values so that coalitions could be formed across all 5, not just left v right.
No. You still have guess about electability with RCV. It isn't safe to put your favorite first. You have to be sure your favorite has a better chance at winning the final round than your 2nd or 3rd choice. A candidate with high base support, but low broad support will have a high chance of making it to the final round, but have no chance to win.
@@Mutex50 -- All electoral systems have flaws. But some -- say, like, FPTP -- are more flawed than others. Any change from FPTP is an improvement, so why make perfect an obstacle to improvement?
@@declup I completely agree, but why replace the worst voting system with the next worst voting system? It would be better to have a non-partisan top two primary that uses approval voting to get the top two. Approval voting would make it easier to organize voting blocs by issues.
@@Mutex50 -- Because improvement is improvement -- no matter how slight. If it's what's most politically tenable, then it should be done. Also, if proponents about general electoral reform are right, if the resulting government would become any more moderate and reasonable, then even more reform would be that more likely in the future. And, then, people could start advocating for the third worst instead of the second. Then the fourth worst instead of the third, ...
How could you possibly have any logical reason for a third party, or even a third candidate if we did not institute ranked choice voting? It would he madness.
Yang's supposition that multiparty systems can deter authoritarianism is ridiculously ignorant. The NSDAP began as a fringe party in a multiparty system.
There isn't just one kind of multiparty system, though. There are a lot, a lot. And many characteristics can be tweaked to make party fragmentation and non-median drift more or less likely. For example, (1) smaller district magnitudes and (2) higher electoral thresholds tend to decrease party fragmentation. Most nations with multiparty systems nowadays tend to set a high bar for party inclusion in a government -- usually around 5% of nation-wide support. The threshold used by Weimar Germany, your example, was only about 0.1%. Perhaps more importantly than the details of multiparty legislatures, however, is the effect that availability of multiple parties has on single-occupant offices, like the U.S. Presidency. A President is a single person, so a President can't be proportional and can't contain every fringe party that the public at large may support. The effects, then, then a multi-party system has on single-occupant offices are different from the ones it has on large assemblies. The most important difference, in many people's view, is that, since voters' first preferences might not have enough widespread support, voters have no choice but to tack to the center, where more public support resides. What this means is, multi-party systems, in their selection of single-occupant offices, tend to weed out the crazies -- crazies, like, for example, the NSDAP.
@@AlexisTurnette please don't pretend the NSDAP developed in a country with an egalitarian society, functioning economic system, and no effects of WW1.
@@LlamaBearMan Authoritarianism is ever a reaction to insecurity and uncertainty -no state is immune. There is no number of parties which can adequately protect people from their own self-destructive impulses. Force and fear are instincts which reside at the core of our species and that will never change.
I don't know who in their right mind would say our two party system is better. There needs to be at least a tie breaker. I would join the Forward party if they had a candidate. I camvassed so much for this when Andrew was running because I want rank choice voting and stay at home mamas to be welcomed into the fold of essential workers.
The UK, despite being largely a two party government has far more influence from smaller parties and we're nowhere near anything approaching a ranked voting system, so the two party supporter was a little off there.
I believe black people need a 3rd party to make Democrats work for their votes with real policy intended to benefit a significant constituent rather than simply being the default vote. I think the same applies for lots of other interest groups…and in an odd way, I think it might have the effect of reducing identity politics, or at the very least, make it less charged and more politically productive. But we also have to level the playing field for big $ and corporate interests.
Timestamps: (02:08) Daniel DiSalvo about the reasons behind his interest in the debate. (02:59) Andrew Yang about the reasons behind his willingness to become a politician. (04:00) Andrew Yang argues that America needs a third party. (07:08) Daniel DiSalvo argues that America does not need a third party. (15:16) Should the electoral system be changed? (18:20) Andrew Yang about the lack of diversity within political parties. (20:40) Daniel DiSalvo argues third parties are ‘spoilers’. (26:39) What makes a political party a third party? (34:50) Is there space for a viable third party? (39:55) Gideon Lichfield asks how third parties can persuade voters to support them and what key issues these parties might encounter. (48:35) Sue Halpern asks how third parties might function within a two-party system and what changes to the electoral structure could make this possible. (53:07) Eric Felten asks about the purpose of political parties. (57:36) Andrew Yang and Daniel DiSalvo present their closing statements.
That's an interesting opinion. My take is that most people like having more choices. Consider all the brands of cereal at grocery stores and all the movie options on Netflix for example. Why do you think America's culture and politics wouldn't support taking more of citizens' party preferences, and not just their absolute, tippy-top first choice, into account?
From what I understand each State determines which alternative (other than D and R) parties who appear on their ballot. This is wrong. These small parties spend many thousands in legal fees fighting to get on the ballot in states like CA and NY where the solid blue legislature and Governor are fighting to remain in power. A Party's ability to be on all state ballots shoukd be determined once at the federal level. Also, I understand that until an alternative party receives at least 5% of the nationwide popular vote in a given election (say 2024) they will not be considered an official party and their future campaign will not be funded by the US government in the next election (say 2028). The voting public needs to be aware of this fact, so they realize the value of their vote for an alternative party. The current republican and democrat parties (of our macroeconomic capitalist democratic republic) are two sides of the same coin and are either pandering to votes from the haves or have-nots. We need to be made aware of multi-party socially conscious party choices early in Presidential elections. These party's (after reaching 5% in prior campaign) need to campaign's need to be partially funded by the fed government, have equal unbiased media coverage and are ultimately on everyone's ballot.
Of course we need a third party.... Do the math, it seems the vast majority of people are utterly exhausted voting for the lesser of two awful candidates. I get hate is a stronger motivator than support, especially in social media baked world. But we really got to try something to return trust to our elected officials. Merely my opinion, there's absolutely no way to statistically prove this. If someone comes in you with data saying they know the answer they're lying or full of hubris.
@@007kingifrit Sub to Tucker Carlson, yeah that fits. Na, I’m good but would appreciate it if you’d follow your own advice. BTW, “the exaggerating media” didn’t bring the turn of phrase to bear here, you did. And “maybe” you did so so that you didn’t have to address what the OP actually said. “Just asking questions”.
The beautiful thing about having 3 or 4 parties with equal support is that every presidential election would be decided by the House of Representatives with each State having 1 vote, it doesn't get much better than that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election
![How to Get a Developer Job - Even in This Economy [Full Course]](/img/1.gif)
Can a third party save us? Explore our latest newsletter insights and debater editorials. Read the full newsletter here: opentodebate.org/newsletter-revisiting-does-america-need-a-third-party/
Sign up for our weekly newsletters here: opentodebate.org/newsletter
Andrew Yang is the first pres candidate I ever financially supported. Parties can exist in rank choice primaries. Having 2 democrats win in California's open primary shows that it can work. We need and can have both, parties and rank choice primaries. That's not abolishment of parties, that just drastically shrinks their influence.
Thank god we finally have a third party taking local politics seriously. Establishing a party at a state by state level may be a long game, but you need a real coalition before you run a presidential ticket, good on Andrew Yang for taking charge on hard and slow work.
Can we please have a full debate on ranked choice voting?
Yes, we should have a debate between people who support "rank choice voting" and people who support approval or STAR voting.
👍Andrew Yang.
I find it interesting that no one mentioned how the multi-party system in Canada works and how it doesn't.
According to wikipedia:
'Canada's electoral system, sometimes referred to as a "first-past-the-post" system, is formally referred to as a single-member plurality system.'
'In contrast with the political party systems of many nations, Canadian parties at the federal level are often only loosely connected with parties at the provincial level, despite having similar names.'
Currently, there are five parties in the House of Commons.
Of the 338 total seats available in the House of Commons, respectively, the parties have the following shares:
154 -- Liberal Party of Canada (center to center-left)
119 -- Conservative Party of Canada (center-right to right-wing)
32 -- Bloc Québécois (Quebec regionalism; center-left)
24 -- New Democratic Party (center-left to left-wing)
2 -- Green Party of Canada (in Ontario and British Columbia)
3 -- (independent)
4 -- (vacant)
sources:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_electoral_system
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Canada
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_parties_in_Canada
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_Canada#Current_composition
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_House_members_of_the_44th_Parliament_of_Canada
The Forward Party does seem to stand something but has not articulated it well. “We’re going to give you what you want.” and “non-ideological” are insufficient.
Just promise “good management, governance and accountability.” That’s really what we want.
In all fairness, Andrew's been asked to debate the multi-party issue; he's been specifically asked not to deliver a political platform speech for the Forward Party.
you guys are getting some really interesting guests on the show
A big issue that was not mentioned is the fact that in a two party system, it is very common for families to align themselves with a single political party, and becomes part of their culture, which is very, very difficult to change. Just like religion.
We need ranked choice.
Need ranked choice + the 2 party cut up in to 5 party's, who should have to form coalitions governments. And reconfigure the party's values so that coalitions could be formed across all 5, not just left v right.
No. You still have guess about electability with RCV. It isn't safe to put your favorite first. You have to be sure your favorite has a better chance at winning the final round than your 2nd or 3rd choice. A candidate with high base support, but low broad support will have a high chance of making it to the final round, but have no chance to win.
@@Mutex50 -- All electoral systems have flaws. But some -- say, like, FPTP -- are more flawed than others.
Any change from FPTP is an improvement, so why make perfect an obstacle to improvement?
@@declup I completely agree, but why replace the worst voting system with the next worst voting system? It would be better to have a non-partisan top two primary that uses approval voting to get the top two. Approval voting would make it easier to organize voting blocs by issues.
@@Mutex50 -- Because improvement is improvement -- no matter how slight. If it's what's most politically tenable, then it should be done.
Also, if proponents about general electoral reform are right, if the resulting government would become any more moderate and reasonable, then even more reform would be that more likely in the future. And, then, people could start advocating for the third worst instead of the second. Then the fourth worst instead of the third, ...
Need to imprison the criminals in the parties before discussing third parties
How could you possibly have any logical reason for a third party, or even a third candidate if we did not institute ranked choice voting? It would he madness.
Need some sort of rank choice system, then we can have all the parties we want.
So early on it was a third party that helped America grow and succeed, but let’s not continue with the idea of a third party?
Yang's supposition that multiparty systems can deter authoritarianism is ridiculously ignorant. The NSDAP began as a fringe party in a multiparty system.
LMAO are you really acting as if the NAZIs developed under a good functioning Government and economy?
There isn't just one kind of multiparty system, though. There are a lot, a lot.
And many characteristics can be tweaked to make party fragmentation and non-median drift more or less likely.
For example, (1) smaller district magnitudes and (2) higher electoral thresholds tend to decrease party fragmentation.
Most nations with multiparty systems nowadays tend to set a high bar for party inclusion in a government -- usually around 5% of nation-wide support. The threshold used by Weimar Germany, your example, was only about 0.1%.
Perhaps more importantly than the details of multiparty legislatures, however, is the effect that availability of multiple parties has on single-occupant offices, like the U.S. Presidency. A President is a single person, so a President can't be proportional and can't contain every fringe party that the public at large may support.
The effects, then, then a multi-party system has on single-occupant offices are different from the ones it has on large assemblies.
The most important difference, in many people's view, is that, since voters' first preferences might not have enough widespread support, voters have no choice but to tack to the center, where more public support resides.
What this means is, multi-party systems, in their selection of single-occupant offices, tend to weed out the crazies -- crazies, like, for example, the NSDAP.
Please don't pretend the Nazis developed in an egalitarian society that had a healthy economic system and one that was absent of the effects of WW1.
@@AlexisTurnette please don't pretend the NSDAP developed in a country with an egalitarian society, functioning economic system, and no effects of WW1.
@@LlamaBearMan Authoritarianism is ever a reaction to insecurity and uncertainty -no state is immune. There is no number of parties which can adequately protect people from their own self-destructive impulses. Force and fear are instincts which reside at the core of our species and that will never change.
Very interesting
I don't know who in their right mind would say our two party system is better. There needs to be at least a tie breaker. I would join the Forward party if they had a candidate. I camvassed so much for this when Andrew was running because I want rank choice voting and stay at home mamas to be welcomed into the fold of essential workers.
The UK, despite being largely a two party government has far more influence from smaller parties and we're nowhere near anything approaching a ranked voting system, so the two party supporter was a little off there.
it needs 3rd, 4th and 5th: two left, two right and green
I like Andrew but he spent most of his time here promoting Forward which was not the assignment
Yes please!! So sick of the noisy radicals!
what? our system is mathematically proven to reduce radialism more than any other.
@@007kingifrit -- Oh, that sounds very interesting. How is that the case, though? What's the math that makes our system less radical than any other?
I believe black people need a 3rd party to make Democrats work for their votes with real policy intended to benefit a significant constituent rather than simply being the default vote. I think the same applies for lots of other interest groups…and in an odd way, I think it might have the effect of reducing identity politics, or at the very least, make it less charged and more politically productive. But we also have to level the playing field for big $ and corporate interests.
Far too much interrupting and talking over each other!
Timestamps:
(02:08) Daniel DiSalvo about the reasons behind his interest in the debate.
(02:59) Andrew Yang about the reasons behind his willingness to become a politician.
(04:00) Andrew Yang argues that America needs a third party.
(07:08) Daniel DiSalvo argues that America does not need a third party.
(15:16) Should the electoral system be changed?
(18:20) Andrew Yang about the lack of diversity within political parties.
(20:40) Daniel DiSalvo argues third parties are ‘spoilers’.
(26:39) What makes a political party a third party?
(34:50) Is there space for a viable third party?
(39:55) Gideon Lichfield asks how third parties can persuade voters to support them and what key issues these parties might encounter.
(48:35) Sue Halpern asks how third parties might function within a two-party system and what changes to the electoral structure could make this possible.
(53:07) Eric Felten asks about the purpose of political parties.
(57:36) Andrew Yang and Daniel DiSalvo present their closing statements.
RANK CHOICE VOTING RANK CHOICE VOTING RANK CHOICE VOTING.. We already have 2 conservative parties
In America no. The culture and politics don't support it.
That's an interesting opinion.
My take is that most people like having more choices. Consider all the brands of cereal at grocery stores and all the movie options on Netflix for example.
Why do you think America's culture and politics wouldn't support taking more of citizens' party preferences, and not just their absolute, tippy-top first choice, into account?
From what I understand each State determines which alternative (other than D and R) parties who appear on their ballot. This is wrong. These small parties spend many thousands in legal fees fighting to get on the ballot in states like CA and NY where the solid blue legislature and Governor are fighting to remain in power. A Party's ability to be on all state ballots shoukd be determined once at the federal level. Also, I understand that until an alternative party receives at least 5% of the nationwide popular vote in a given election (say 2024) they will not be considered an official party and their future campaign will not be funded by the US government in the next election (say 2028). The voting public needs to be aware of this fact, so they realize the value of their vote for an alternative party. The current republican and democrat parties (of our macroeconomic capitalist democratic republic) are two sides of the same coin and are either pandering to votes from the haves or have-nots. We need to be made aware of multi-party socially conscious party choices early in Presidential elections. These party's (after reaching 5% in prior campaign) need to campaign's need to be partially funded by the fed government, have equal unbiased media coverage and are ultimately on everyone's ballot.
Of course we need a third party....
Do the math, it seems the vast majority of people are utterly exhausted voting for the lesser of two awful candidates.
I get hate is a stronger motivator than support, especially in social media baked world. But we really got to try something to return trust to our elected officials.
Merely my opinion, there's absolutely no way to statistically prove this. If someone comes in you with data saying they know the answer they're lying or full of hubris.
well maybe the problem is you don't need to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, you could choose to just not vote
@@007kingifritand thereby acquiescing to the greater of two evils & thus the dumbest approach of all.
@@dkarras maybe there is no greater evil and you need to learn that the media always exaggerates
@@007kingifrit Sub to Tucker Carlson, yeah that fits. Na, I’m good but would appreciate it if you’d follow your own advice.
BTW, “the exaggerating media” didn’t bring the turn of phrase to bear here, you did. And “maybe” you did so so that you didn’t have to address what the OP actually said. “Just asking questions”.
@@dkarras what turn of phrase? you're the one who thinks you need to vote agaaaaaainst something. you're a puppet of the media
Perez Matthew Taylor Shirley Jackson Laura
The beautiful thing about having 3 or 4 parties with equal support is that every presidential election would be decided by the House of Representatives with each State having 1 vote, it doesn't get much better than that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election