Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Selatius

(20,441 posts)
31. You could only break the two-party monopoly by imposing a majority rule for elections.
Fri Nov 16, 2012, 05:13 AM
Nov 2012

(i.e. you require that a candidate for a seat in the House or Senate must win more than 50% of the vote or face a run-off)

If you did this in Congress, in a decade or two, the two-party monopoly would be finished.

As it stands, only requiring that the winner get the plurality and not a majority for the seat invokes Duverger's Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

If it were a race between a right-wing Democrat, a far-right Tea Partier, and a left-wing Green Party candidate, you would vote for the candidate closest to your ideal, and if he does not win the first round of elections, then you vote for the alternate. In this example, you would likely vote for the Green Party in the first round, and if that candidate loses, you throw your vote behind the right-wing Democrat to prevent the Tea Partier from winning. In this manner, you don't have to worry about splitting the vote and handing victory to the total opposite of what people wanted, like George W. Bush in 2000.

A faster version of this is called IRV or instant run-off voting. That's like the above example, but it's done in one election, not two.

thats the best think that could happen to America putitinD Nov 2012 #1
it would be wonderful for the country graham4anything Nov 2012 #2
The world works best when there is a balance Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #3
^^ This! ^^ (n/t) Amaril Nov 2012 #21
The GOP is nothing but a front organization for certain business interests. Those interests will... freshwest Nov 2012 #4
The Democrats would probably split between liberal and conservative lines. dchill Nov 2012 #5
One way to look at it is, defacto7 Nov 2012 #6
I think they have been a minor or regional party for some time now. Raksha Nov 2012 #7
Tories, Whigs, Bull Moosers, Federalists, etc.... MADem Nov 2012 #8
the california ballot Mothdust Nov 2012 #9
Here's some info on Rosanne's party: Peace and Freedom Party Tx4obama Nov 2012 #11
wow! thanks : ) Mothdust Nov 2012 #24
Having listened to rosanne on Stephenie Miller a few times... Johonny Nov 2012 #22
Not at all, it would create a vacuum and make room for another populist party. Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #10
Ask the Whigs. MrSlayer Nov 2012 #12
It would certainly fix the "two parties vying for the apathetic voters" rut n/t Scootaloo Nov 2012 #27
You could only break the two-party monopoly by imposing a majority rule for elections. Selatius Nov 2012 #31
We need a two-party system of center left and far left. nt Comrade_McKenzie Nov 2012 #13
I like the way you think. Jamaal510 Nov 2012 #19
Corporate money would just go to Democrats then, and they would be just as bad. ToxMarz Nov 2012 #14
Democrats would be watered down into a moderate party davidn3600 Nov 2012 #15
No, one of the conservative "third" parties would take them up. Scootaloo Nov 2012 #28
It would be a good thing. The party is corrupt and effectively broken Motown_Johnny Nov 2012 #16
short term it would be wonderful - long term not SmileyRose Nov 2012 #17
This is a silly question... brooklynite Nov 2012 #18
"Became"? 50 years after the invention of the pill, they still want it outlawed. Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #20
I meant "irrelevant" as in being unable to compete in nat'l elections. Jamaal510 Nov 2012 #23
Historically, I think one-party rule has usually ended up with some tyranny. moondust Nov 2012 #25
NO Skittles Nov 2012 #26
The GOP as we know it is being propped up by a group of tycoons. jonthebru Nov 2012 #29
Tycoons is too kind. The GOP bigwigs border on a crime syndicate boss. graham4anything Nov 2012 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Would it be bad for Ameri...»Reply #31