Maybe but Thatcher fought on equal grounds against men. The others probably not

is my internet really this bad? damn

that's 3 separate posts that refuse to be sent

@GoldenPhoenix it's not just you, the Clinton foundation is DOSing us

ditto Phoenix

all because I wanted to dunk on social security 😢

Maybe we should get rid of Political Partys?

or limit them to 10 States

we should get rid of our current electoral system and replace it with one that makes party control untenable

Can't get rid of political parties, that's restricting free assembly

if we work from the bottom up they'll naturally reform because of our FPTP system

And if there's any form of representative government, you're gonna have parties. Unless you abolish the republic

If the US can pass diversity laws that restrict free assembly, what's stopping it from banning political parties?

Let me write you out the list of reasons.

if you use a runoff system that allows for same-party competition, it would remove the two party system and make it so that parties are ideological affiliations and not monetary affiliations, while at the same time increasing the diversity of thought amongst politicians

Done.

Because it's one thing to force you to associate with people and it's another thing entirely to force you to disassociate from people @devpav

if these people would think for their damn selves instead of just blindly following their party affiliation, we'd actually get stuff done

or, at least, when we do get something done, it'll be actually good

Right, but why wouldn't there be two huge factions competing for the median voter in the equilibrium state? @GoldenPhoenix

Freedom of assembly is the freedom to associate or dissociate voluntarily.

how so? the runoff system eliminates strategic voting

which is dumb and anti-democratic

(I know we're a republic, but still)

The only way a third party would win in the US is by claiming the vast centrist no man's land in between the two hyperpolarized major parties.

Right, but the winning strategy for politicians is still to achieve a plurality of the vote, so the incentives haven't changed at all. There would still be a tendency towards two parties each controlling about 50% of the electorate and trying to wiggle for that extra 1%

not necessarily, because it would allow for third parties to "band together" and it would also split the major parties by allowing same-party competition, splintering the voter base further. it might still be 2 parties, but it could balance out to be a 3 or 4 party system, as opposed to the forced 2 party system that FPTP enforces

Fair enough

no, they should vote people. Not Partys

Limit the Size of the Partys

They should vote policies.

^

or change the Party System completely

oh nah

No direct democracy pls

I don't trust you people

Nobody wants direct plebiscite democracy.

I'd rather vote for a president than vote for a group of people that *might* vote for the president for me

Certainly not at the federal level.

I'd rather have a local government with much more power than the president.