“American democracy simply cannot function without two equally healthy and equally strong political parties,” J Michael Luttig told CNN on Wednesday. “So today, in my view, there is no Republican party to counter the Democratic party in the country.
“And for that reason, American democracy is in grave peril.”
I think the real reason is that the people in power keep touting this idea of only two distinct parties. Having only two parties means you have only two directions to go. Which is destined for extremism.
If we had more viable parties it would be much harder to do regulatory capture and corrupt every party, and even if that happened new viable ones could spring up at any time. We might actually get candidates that represent diverse political opinions. With more parties one party would be unlikely to have a majority or supermajority, and our representatives would have to work together and form coalitions to get anything done. Politics wouldn’t be a team sport about defeating the other side, it would be about shared goals and constructive legislation. Candidates would want to appeal to voters who they might be the second or third choice for, meaning scapegoating, vilifying and othering segments of society would be a losing strategy. Ranked choice voting has few downsides for anyone but those who want a corrupt system they can capture and a society they can divide.
doesn’t “duverger’s law” only exist in the US? I think there’s credible evidence that just reforming the electoral college to a proportional vote system would reduce the “two party effect” in the US.
No, Duverger’s law refers to the tendency of places that use first-past-the-post voting to result in a 2-party system. This is not unique to the US. More info is in the above link, it’s worth your time.
I think there’s credible evidence that just reforming the electoral college to a proportional vote system would reduce the “two party effect” in the US.
My understanding is that the electoral college distorts the voting power of individuals by giving empty states more voting power than they should have (electors are based on number of house and senate members), and also because those state elections are usually first-past the post winner-take-all, 51% wins all the electors, (except for Nebraska and Maine, which have multiple districts with multiple electors that can be split, but are still first-past-the-post.)
If you mean that replacing first-past-the-post winner-take-all elections with a different voting system that can yield proportional representation will lead to more viable candidates/parties, then that’s exactly the same thing Duverger’s law is saying. You can’t have proportional representation with first-past-the-post elections.
The electoral college has hardly anything to do with the party system in the US because it’s only used for presidential elections. If a third party was viable in FPTP then we should see a much larger share of them in Congress - especially the House - given the relatively small constituency of each representative and the large number of representatives.
If a third party was viable in FPTP then we should see a much larger share of them in Congress
If a third party becomes viable and starts winning elections what typically happens is it will replace one of the other 2 parties, like when Whigs were replaced by Republicans.
I should have been more clear - I meant that since the electoral college is only used for presidential elections, its existence does not (meaningfully) affect the viability of a third party since the vast majority of elections are not decided by it. 100% agree with what you’re saying.
Thanks for elaborating. I agree, for a third party to successfully emerge in the US under our current system it would probably have the best odds if they started with local government.
In theory and over-simplified this would be true, in practice I think the way the electoral college has failed when 4+ candidates get into a tight election has lead to a lot of safeguards being created: The US political parties as institutions became more hostile to third parties and both the states and feds adopted laws more favorable to a two party system.
Canada, & UK for instance don’t quite adhere to duverger’s law as strongly and in fact most non-US countries that still have fptp elections seem to have more diverse party systems.
Except the two party system pits two opposing sides against each other, inevitably leading to them pointing fingers at each other to rile their base and get votes. The extremism comes from frustration, yes, but it is stoked by the “us vs them” mentality that politicians abuse to trick their constituents into voting for them instead of “the other guy”.
Right wing extremism is a global problem and is manifesting even in parliamentary multi-party systems, though. All they need is a scapegoat to rally around and they’re good to go. Look at anti-immigrant movements in Europe as an example.
Fighting about things is going to happen in any political system.
Just because something exists doesn’t mean it exists in the same way. Yes, there is finger pointing and extremism, but not in the same way as the US. And in many situations they’ve devolved into two parties bickering, while any other parties are just coalition bait. The UK is a prime example of that.
Thankfully we got the greatest president the country has ever seen instead.
I hope not. FDR did a lot of great things, but he was also a racist who didn’t give the same benefits to non-white people as white people and, of course, was responsible for the shameful Japanese-American concentration camps.
If that’s the greatest president, we have never had any hope.
Objectively, almost every president is a piece of shit and you need to judge them by the merits of their time. Almost every white dude alive in America was a racist shit bag by today’s standards. FDR accomplished a ton, and it was all for the common man. Please, tell me who you think was a better president?
I don’t know, any number of the ones who didn’t commit genocide? Or do I need to ignore that because of the antiquated time period of… *checks notes* 80 years ago?
FDR didn’t commit genocide. The Japanese internments were a national shame but were not genocidal in nature.
He is only guilty of it you count segregation itself, which he didn’t start and couldn’t stop, though the New Deal coalition he assembled would evolve and become key to the growing Civil Rights movement even if the New Deal itself wasn’t as fair to black people as it should have been, like everything else in America.
I personally would choose Lincoln as number one but FDR is definitely a contender for best. Certainly better than you should have expected from a segregation-era liberal.
Not that either. A grave injustice that could very easily have become such, one that corrupt local officials certainly abused, but there were no death marches, no mass executions, and no cultural extermination.
Misuse of the term genocide dilutes the impact of the accusation, and you should just be generally careful of trying to tear down one of the few presidents who tried to make things better for… Well, anyone. We haven’t really had one since before Reagan that did more than talk a good game and then stab labor in the back.
I didn’t really want to get into an argument about another president when we were talking about this one, but if you agree not to argue with me about that president, I’ll name one. Otherwise, forget it. I don’t want to get into two arguments in the same thread.
So, you think be cause 80 years doesn’t sound like long enough people weren’t that bad? That’s a really silly argument. 80 years ago they strung black people up from trees for looking at a white woman too long in half the country. This kind of mentality is why we gloss over the huge portion of the country that is still seriously racist. There’s plenty of people alive TODAY that protested integration.
That. And when he caught fascists scheming in the Republican party. Instead of investigating and rooting them out. He merely threatened to do it if they blocked his legislation. So in the short term he got his legislation through. And in the long term got it gutted and neutered, saddling us with a now fully fascist Republican party. Thanks FDR.
He did some short sighted good. But that posturing and playing fast and loose screwed us all over.
You need a multi party system like a lot of countries round the world. No clear winner = who can quickly form the larges coalition. It usually boils down to two main parties with a lot of also-ran’s.
Over here we even have The Monster Raving Loony pary!
Both the democratic and republican party are several smaller parties tied together into two disgusting rat king. If one of them disappear today there will be an instant split of the surviving party into two new rat kings. The collapse isn’t what they fear. They fear that the Overton window would move left.
I think it’s very clear that the republicans in government are moving far right, but the electorate in general is steadily moving left.
Every year, about 4 million Americans turn 18 and gain the right to vote. In the eight years between the 2016 and 2024 elections, that’s 32 million new eligible voters.
Also every year, 2½ million older Americans die. So in the same eight years, that’s as many as 20 million fewer older voters.
Which means that between Trump’s election in 2016 and the 2024 election, the number of Gen Z (born in the late 1990s and early 2010s) voters will have advanced by a net 52 million against older people. That’s about 20 percent of the total 2020 eligible electorate of 258 million Americans.
And unlike previous generations, Gen Z votes. Comparing the four federal elections since 2015 (when the first members of Gen Z turned 18) with the preceding nine (1998 to 2014), average turnout by young voters (defined here as voters under 30) in the Trump and post-Trump years has been 25 percent higher than that of older generations at the same age before Trump — 8 percent higher in presidential years and a whopping 46 percent higher in midterms.
In 15-20 years nearly half of all boomers will be dead. The current gop can’t win a single national popular vote. Without half these boomers, they will collapse or move left. And the Overton window will shift considerably left. And with Europe moving right in a lot of counties, I’d say it wouldn’t be surprising to see the US as left as Europe in a shot time.
Also: Europe is not as left leaning as people tend to think. Aside from trains and healthcare they’re not all the left wing. And it is moving right. I’m an Italian citizen and I see it happening in Italy, and many other counties.
Both our parties are pretty far right talking about economics. Republicans are going full authoritarian/fascist. While Democrats grip on social democracy are becoming tenuous.
Italy didn’t really grapple with the fascist movement and cultural ties to religious dogma very well. It’s a pretty conservative, traditionalist society. Like the American South, except Catholic.
As an outsider, when we think of “Europe” as left-wing it’s because of the Nordic countries and major cities like Paris and London and Berlin, not Southern or Eastern Europe.
This analysis comforts me, but I heard a conflicting anecdote that suggested gen z was starting to lean more right (culturally right). I have no data to back that up, but thinking about that risk makes me not want to be complacent. 2016 still looms large in my head
Need to write a new constitution without the electoral college BS, and this time include Ranked Choice Voting / Single Transferable Vote + Proportional Representation in Legislature (and no stupid Senate this time, ffs)
I think the electoral college is a good thing . The problem is you should be voting for the electors, who then get together in a room for a week go decide on a president. Well they can take up to a month, but we pay only for a week and they have to cover all expenses out of that so if they need more than two weeks they sleep outside and only get water, no food. (That is they are not allowed any money other than their one week pay no matter how rich they are)
Voting for someone because they win a popularity contest is wrong .
Voting for someone because they win a popularity contest is wrong
That is exactly what democracy currently is… a popularity contest. If you want people to vote on actual policy, you first need to convince the people to do that. Some people just vote for who they like without considering policy.
I think the electoral college is a good thing . The problem is you should be voting for the electors, who then get together in a room for a week go decide on a president
That sounds like a parliamentary system where the head of government is elected by legislature. I mean I personally have nothing against that system, but isn’t America build on the idea of separation of powers between 3 branches? A parliamentary systems makes the executive and legislature pratically one body. Are you sure you want such a system? I don’t think most Americans would be willing to accept a parliamentary system.
In a lot of parliamentary systems still have very effective splitting into three branches. Thats because when you have an effective multi-party system, the government often consists of the “largest minority” coalition in the parliament. For example: After an election, the parliament consists of
10 % A
25 % B
25 % C
15 % D
20 % E
5 % F
They get together and discuss who will form a government. A, B, and F agree on enough topics to form a government together, but only have 40 % of the votes. Unless some other coalition, with a larger number of votes, forms, the government will consist of A, B, and F.
Now comes the fun part: A, B and F are at the mercy of the parliament. If they pull some stuff that makes parliament mad enough, C, D and E might put aside their differences, vote out the government and form a new government, so the government has to compromise with e.g. D, to get enough votes to stay in power. This can give small parties a large amount of swing power.
Also: Once A, B and F are in government together, they agree on a platform. That means that even though B is the largest party in government, they have to give in to some requirements from F. This effectively means that the government functions as its own body, enacting the agreed upon political platform of A, B and F.
Because they have pre-agreed-upon compromises, A, B, and F effectively enhance their power in parliament. Even if a representative from A disagrees with some policy the government is trying to pass, they will likely vote for it, because they know that at a later stage, B and F will vote for some policy that they propose. However, if the government goes too far, a party in parliament might decide to pull support, and leave the government they are a part of, effecting a change of government.
This system also incentivises wide compromises and stability. If, after some later election, the government consists of A, D and E, they are unlikely to undo a lot of the work by the previous government, because A will oppose that.
Yes, but the framing of it reads like the Democratic party being too powerful is the worst possible outcome, rather than the Republican party destroying society.
It’s honestly impressive how accurate and succinct that part of his analysis is. I actually do agree that the long-term viability of the establishment GOP could be in serious trouble, and that the outcome a few years hence, of the Democrats as the only viable political party in Washington, would be a big problem for several different reasons. And, I think this is literally the first time I’ve heard that fairly serious topic being raised anywhere in the media.
But, our democracy is facing another slightly more pressing and short-term problem at the moment…
Nonsense. It’s very unlikely that a party with members as diverse politically as Joe Manchin and AOC would form a monolithic power block in the absence of the GOP. It’s far more likely that the Democratic party would fragment.
They could. Actually having the party fragment would be among the best options; the AOC wing is pretty tiny right now, and either switching to a non-ridiculous non-FPTP voting system, or fragmenting the party, would position it to actually be able to gain some traction.
One worse way it could shake out is the Democratic primaries become the main event (loosely divided between a progressive wing and an establishment wing). A lot of the establishment people who run the system would actually like that better, because the primaries don’t have to operate as democratically as the general elections, and a lot of people would still “have to” vote for the Democrats, so in practice it would be a small minority progressive wing within a largely-establishment party. Pretty similar to now except with more corruption. Like I say, I think there are a lot of problems with that outcome.
Either the Republican party will change its ways or a new party will take their place. Or they won’t change their ways and enough will (stupidly) give them the benefit of a doubt because they are tired of the Democrats.
Any one party becoming too powerful is the worst possible outcome, especially in what is effectively a two party system.
Sure it might start off good, but as soon as they’re comfortable with the fact that people will vote them in regardless, they will eventually stop following the will of the people.
I don’t remember hearing this grief when it was the Democratic party in disarray (mainly during Dubya’s time in office). As always with republicans, something isn’t a problem until it directly affects them.
For that reason?
That’s the reason?
I think the real reason is that the people in power keep touting this idea of only two distinct parties. Having only two parties means you have only two directions to go. Which is destined for extremism.
The FPTP voting system reinforces that. Any third party is just going to be a spoiler for one of the majors without voting system reform.
This is the correct answer. Third parties are rarely viable in first-past-the-post systems. More info on Duverger’s Law here.
If we had more viable parties it would be much harder to do regulatory capture and corrupt every party, and even if that happened new viable ones could spring up at any time. We might actually get candidates that represent diverse political opinions. With more parties one party would be unlikely to have a majority or supermajority, and our representatives would have to work together and form coalitions to get anything done. Politics wouldn’t be a team sport about defeating the other side, it would be about shared goals and constructive legislation. Candidates would want to appeal to voters who they might be the second or third choice for, meaning scapegoating, vilifying and othering segments of society would be a losing strategy. Ranked choice voting has few downsides for anyone but those who want a corrupt system they can capture and a society they can divide.
doesn’t “duverger’s law” only exist in the US? I think there’s credible evidence that just reforming the electoral college to a proportional vote system would reduce the “two party effect” in the US.
No, Duverger’s law refers to the tendency of places that use first-past-the-post voting to result in a 2-party system. This is not unique to the US. More info is in the above link, it’s worth your time.
My understanding is that the electoral college distorts the voting power of individuals by giving empty states more voting power than they should have (electors are based on number of house and senate members), and also because those state elections are usually first-past the post winner-take-all, 51% wins all the electors, (except for Nebraska and Maine, which have multiple districts with multiple electors that can be split, but are still first-past-the-post.)
If you mean that replacing first-past-the-post winner-take-all elections with a different voting system that can yield proportional representation will lead to more viable candidates/parties, then that’s exactly the same thing Duverger’s law is saying. You can’t have proportional representation with first-past-the-post elections.
The electoral college has hardly anything to do with the party system in the US because it’s only used for presidential elections. If a third party was viable in FPTP then we should see a much larger share of them in Congress - especially the House - given the relatively small constituency of each representative and the large number of representatives.
Said parties literally choose the electors in the electoral college.
If a third party becomes viable and starts winning elections what typically happens is it will replace one of the other 2 parties, like when Whigs were replaced by Republicans.
I should have been more clear - I meant that since the electoral college is only used for presidential elections, its existence does not (meaningfully) affect the viability of a third party since the vast majority of elections are not decided by it. 100% agree with what you’re saying.
Thanks for elaborating. I agree, for a third party to successfully emerge in the US under our current system it would probably have the best odds if they started with local government.
In theory and over-simplified this would be true, in practice I think the way the electoral college has failed when 4+ candidates get into a tight election has lead to a lot of safeguards being created: The US political parties as institutions became more hostile to third parties and both the states and feds adopted laws more favorable to a two party system.
Canada, & UK for instance don’t quite adhere to duverger’s law as strongly and in fact most non-US countries that still have fptp elections seem to have more diverse party systems.
Lots of things reinforce it, the parties having a stranglehold on primaries and the media buyouts are also a major factor.
Removed by mod
Except the two party system pits two opposing sides against each other, inevitably leading to them pointing fingers at each other to rile their base and get votes. The extremism comes from frustration, yes, but it is stoked by the “us vs them” mentality that politicians abuse to trick their constituents into voting for them instead of “the other guy”.
Right wing extremism is a global problem and is manifesting even in parliamentary multi-party systems, though. All they need is a scapegoat to rally around and they’re good to go. Look at anti-immigrant movements in Europe as an example.
Fighting about things is going to happen in any political system.
Just because something exists doesn’t mean it exists in the same way. Yes, there is finger pointing and extremism, but not in the same way as the US. And in many situations they’ve devolved into two parties bickering, while any other parties are just coalition bait. The UK is a prime example of that.
That reads a little funny, doesn’t it…
I hope not. FDR did a lot of great things, but he was also a racist who didn’t give the same benefits to non-white people as white people and, of course, was responsible for the shameful Japanese-American concentration camps.
If that’s the greatest president, we have never had any hope.
Objectively, almost every president is a piece of shit and you need to judge them by the merits of their time. Almost every white dude alive in America was a racist shit bag by today’s standards. FDR accomplished a ton, and it was all for the common man. Please, tell me who you think was a better president?
I don’t know, any number of the ones who didn’t commit genocide? Or do I need to ignore that because of the antiquated time period of… *checks notes* 80 years ago?
FDR didn’t commit genocide. The Japanese internments were a national shame but were not genocidal in nature.
He is only guilty of it you count segregation itself, which he didn’t start and couldn’t stop, though the New Deal coalition he assembled would evolve and become key to the growing Civil Rights movement even if the New Deal itself wasn’t as fair to black people as it should have been, like everything else in America.
I personally would choose Lincoln as number one but FDR is definitely a contender for best. Certainly better than you should have expected from a segregation-era liberal.
Oh beg pardon. “Ethnic cleansing.”
Not that either. A grave injustice that could very easily have become such, one that corrupt local officials certainly abused, but there were no death marches, no mass executions, and no cultural extermination.
Misuse of the term genocide dilutes the impact of the accusation, and you should just be generally careful of trying to tear down one of the few presidents who tried to make things better for… Well, anyone. We haven’t really had one since before Reagan that did more than talk a good game and then stab labor in the back.
They asked for a specific example and you failed to provide one. You had 45 choices and couldn’t even pick one?
I didn’t really want to get into an argument about another president when we were talking about this one, but if you agree not to argue with me about that president, I’ll name one. Otherwise, forget it. I don’t want to get into two arguments in the same thread.
Doubling down I see. It’s an opinion and while I may not agree with whoever you think is the best president you can’t really be wrong.
I’m just annoyed at people who rant about other peoples opinions but refuse to offer their own when asked. You aren’t arguing in good faith here.
For the record I don’t think FDR was the best president but I also disagree with some of your characterizations.
So, you think be cause 80 years doesn’t sound like long enough people weren’t that bad? That’s a really silly argument. 80 years ago they strung black people up from trees for looking at a white woman too long in half the country. This kind of mentality is why we gloss over the huge portion of the country that is still seriously racist. There’s plenty of people alive TODAY that protested integration.
I’m saying maybe we shouldn’t judge ethnic cleansing by the “merits of the time.”
That. And when he caught fascists scheming in the Republican party. Instead of investigating and rooting them out. He merely threatened to do it if they blocked his legislation. So in the short term he got his legislation through. And in the long term got it gutted and neutered, saddling us with a now fully fascist Republican party. Thanks FDR.
He did some short sighted good. But that posturing and playing fast and loose screwed us all over.
Go back a few years. Circa 1960, the two parties had both Liberal and Conservative wings. There was no shame in a pol voting with the other party.
You need a multi party system like a lot of countries round the world. No clear winner = who can quickly form the larges coalition. It usually boils down to two main parties with a lot of also-ran’s.
Over here we even have The Monster Raving Loony pary!
deleted by creator
Both the democratic and republican party are several smaller parties tied together into two disgusting rat king. If one of them disappear today there will be an instant split of the surviving party into two new rat kings. The collapse isn’t what they fear. They fear that the Overton window would move left.
And even a big move to the left would still leave us leaning right.
I think it’s very clear that the republicans in government are moving far right, but the electorate in general is steadily moving left.
https://archive.ph/3Ydkn
And according to voter data. Gen z is very progressive especially on policy:
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/The-Exit-Polls.pdf?x91208
In 15-20 years nearly half of all boomers will be dead. The current gop can’t win a single national popular vote. Without half these boomers, they will collapse or move left. And the Overton window will shift considerably left. And with Europe moving right in a lot of counties, I’d say it wouldn’t be surprising to see the US as left as Europe in a shot time.
Also: Europe is not as left leaning as people tend to think. Aside from trains and healthcare they’re not all the left wing. And it is moving right. I’m an Italian citizen and I see it happening in Italy, and many other counties.
Both our parties are pretty far right talking about economics. Republicans are going full authoritarian/fascist. While Democrats grip on social democracy are becoming tenuous.
Italy didn’t really grapple with the fascist movement and cultural ties to religious dogma very well. It’s a pretty conservative, traditionalist society. Like the American South, except Catholic.
As an outsider, when we think of “Europe” as left-wing it’s because of the Nordic countries and major cities like Paris and London and Berlin, not Southern or Eastern Europe.
This analysis comforts me, but I heard a conflicting anecdote that suggested gen z was starting to lean more right (culturally right). I have no data to back that up, but thinking about that risk makes me not want to be complacent. 2016 still looms large in my head
Or worse, leaning up or down. We might all become textbook examples of anger prisoners.
Need to write a new constitution without the electoral college BS, and this time include Ranked Choice Voting / Single Transferable Vote + Proportional Representation in Legislature (and no stupid Senate this time, ffs)
I think the electoral college is a good thing . The problem is you should be voting for the electors, who then get together in a room for a week go decide on a president. Well they can take up to a month, but we pay only for a week and they have to cover all expenses out of that so if they need more than two weeks they sleep outside and only get water, no food. (That is they are not allowed any money other than their one week pay no matter how rich they are)
Voting for someone because they win a popularity contest is wrong .
That is exactly what democracy currently is… a popularity contest. If you want people to vote on actual policy, you first need to convince the people to do that. Some people just vote for who they like without considering policy.
That sounds like a parliamentary system where the head of government is elected by legislature. I mean I personally have nothing against that system, but isn’t America build on the idea of separation of powers between 3 branches? A parliamentary systems makes the executive and legislature pratically one body. Are you sure you want such a system? I don’t think most Americans would be willing to accept a parliamentary system.
In a lot of parliamentary systems still have very effective splitting into three branches. Thats because when you have an effective multi-party system, the government often consists of the “largest minority” coalition in the parliament. For example: After an election, the parliament consists of
They get together and discuss who will form a government. A, B, and F agree on enough topics to form a government together, but only have 40 % of the votes. Unless some other coalition, with a larger number of votes, forms, the government will consist of A, B, and F.
Now comes the fun part: A, B and F are at the mercy of the parliament. If they pull some stuff that makes parliament mad enough, C, D and E might put aside their differences, vote out the government and form a new government, so the government has to compromise with e.g. D, to get enough votes to stay in power. This can give small parties a large amount of swing power.
Also: Once A, B and F are in government together, they agree on a platform. That means that even though B is the largest party in government, they have to give in to some requirements from F. This effectively means that the government functions as its own body, enacting the agreed upon political platform of A, B and F.
Because they have pre-agreed-upon compromises, A, B, and F effectively enhance their power in parliament. Even if a representative from A disagrees with some policy the government is trying to pass, they will likely vote for it, because they know that at a later stage, B and F will vote for some policy that they propose. However, if the government goes too far, a party in parliament might decide to pull support, and leave the government they are a part of, effecting a change of government.
This system also incentivises wide compromises and stability. If, after some later election, the government consists of A, D and E, they are unlikely to undo a lot of the work by the previous government, because A will oppose that.
All voting is a popularity contest, so I guess you don’t like voting or democracy?
I don’t. They are terrible systems. However.every other system.ends up far worse so I begrudgingly recommend it.
He’s got a point. The Republican party is fundamentally not healthy at all.
Yes, but the framing of it reads like the Democratic party being too powerful is the worst possible outcome, rather than the Republican party destroying society.
Ding ding ding
It’s honestly impressive how accurate and succinct that part of his analysis is. I actually do agree that the long-term viability of the establishment GOP could be in serious trouble, and that the outcome a few years hence, of the Democrats as the only viable political party in Washington, would be a big problem for several different reasons. And, I think this is literally the first time I’ve heard that fairly serious topic being raised anywhere in the media.
But, our democracy is facing another slightly more pressing and short-term problem at the moment…
Nonsense. It’s very unlikely that a party with members as diverse politically as Joe Manchin and AOC would form a monolithic power block in the absence of the GOP. It’s far more likely that the Democratic party would fragment.
They could. Actually having the party fragment would be among the best options; the AOC wing is pretty tiny right now, and either switching to a non-ridiculous non-FPTP voting system, or fragmenting the party, would position it to actually be able to gain some traction.
One worse way it could shake out is the Democratic primaries become the main event (loosely divided between a progressive wing and an establishment wing). A lot of the establishment people who run the system would actually like that better, because the primaries don’t have to operate as democratically as the general elections, and a lot of people would still “have to” vote for the Democrats, so in practice it would be a small minority progressive wing within a largely-establishment party. Pretty similar to now except with more corruption. Like I say, I think there are a lot of problems with that outcome.
For now. What will the Democratic party look like in ten years without a decent opposition party?
Either the Republican party will change its ways or a new party will take their place. Or they won’t change their ways and enough will (stupidly) give them the benefit of a doubt because they are tired of the Democrats.
It’ll be the latter. The US hasn’t had a legitimate 3rd party since the Whigs in the 1850s
It wouldn’t be a third party, it would be a replacement party. It’s happened many times, and not always with a name change.
Any one party becoming too powerful is the worst possible outcome, especially in what is effectively a two party system.
Sure it might start off good, but as soon as they’re comfortable with the fact that people will vote them in regardless, they will eventually stop following the will of the people.
party systems come and go. ours is almost over, and the republican party’s death will be the cause
I don’t remember hearing this grief when it was the Democratic party in disarray (mainly during Dubya’s time in office). As always with republicans, something isn’t a problem until it directly affects them.