America needs a new political party. Both of the current ones are bad. Republicans are way too reactionary, Democrats are pro-censorship, and both are getting more extreme. Neither appropriately represents an average person.
comments
Polarisation is the route to violence, and I agree the current American system is everything which is wrong with modern politics. Why strive for a system with a huge elective dictatorship majority? We need collaboration, clarity and choice. Neither the UK or the USA have these, the UK multi party system which in reality is a two party system is just as bad, minority parties voices are dampened to the point we can no longer hear the ones that centre on anything outside of extremism.
poltilics
What happens
If I give this post
3 more comments?
it needs 28 more comments to be my most commented-on post
Ranked choice voting
I thought you left
A third political party solves nothing. Both parties need to be dissolved and fractured into several (preferably as many as possible) and elections need to be reformed to prevent a two-party system from cropping up again (abandon first-past-the-post and the Electoral College). Congress also needs to be increased in size, at least tripled, since one person representing 800,000 people is absurd.
also, the president should be able to be removed by any time by a simple >50% majority of congress, similarly to how the UK parliament works. This ensures that if the people change their mind, or dislike a president, the president’s decision will still reflect their voices. Same thing with congress. Also helps with accountability (*cough* George Santos *cough* )
no, that would be misused so much. In fact, that’s one of the main things the founding fathers tried to stop when they wrote the constitution.
It would mean that one party could kick out people they don’t like (similar to how republicans kicked out 3 people from the Tennessee house). For example, right now the republicans could kick out Joe Biden and Kamala Harris (because Diane Feinstein is absent right now).
No, it would mean that the president would always represent the people. Look at the UK, in their system, the president is always of the same party as the biggest (not necessarily majority) group in parliament. I agree that in a two party system, this would lead to problems, but when bundled with more parties, it would require much, much more cooperation between political groups, so that the president selection more accurately reflects a combination of many viewpoints, compromises, etc.
Look at when Boris Johnson “resigned”. He knew that, because his own party (and his party’s ally parties) did not support him, he would be kicked out if he didn’t resign. This means that as soon as a president’s popularity drops, they will be held accountable.
In the founding fathers’ era, politics and the interactions between political groups with different motivations was very different and many of the systems that are currently successful in countries like the UK and Canada had not been implemented yet.
If implemented, it would basically mean that the people don’t elect the president, and the congressman would elect them instead
Exactly! But, the congresspeople can also be removed by the members of their parties at any time. Check the Wikipedia page for the British Parliamentary system for more information. many other countries (Canada, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Latvia, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, South Africa) use almost identical systems.
all of that would decrease the amount of say that the people have, and increase bureaucracy. We don’t want either of those. I want a government that has the smartest people in the world who work together to make decisions for the good of the people, not for themselves, then they implement those decisions ASAP.
There already is. It’s called impeachment.
Impeachment doesn’t cut it. Impeachement requires that the president has committed “Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” What I’m talking about is a party in Congress being able to get rid of their own president for any reason (as long as the majority agree)
What other legitimate reason is there to remove a president besides having committed a crime? If a president is merely incompetent, then their power has a 4-year time limit. If a president is really incompetent, see Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.
Look up how a vote of no confidence works in the UK and many other parliamentary democracies. Trusting the president to make “the right choices” is simply not an adequate solution for a country. If the people no longer wish for a president to be in office, especially if his own party no longer supports him, he should be removed. It’s about increasing accountability and it works. Look how Liz Truss and Boris Johnson were easily replaced with a (slightly) more competent person. It means that there is no way for a politician to do anything that doesn’t align with what he promised to voters and what his party stands for 
I don’t think following the steps of the UK is a good idea considering its politics is an absolute shitshow. A party in power that knows that the populace despises it choosing a PM on their own volition is inheritably undemocratic.
especially if his own party no longer supports him
No, only the people should make that choice
Also, I just had this same conversation with oren above, but in summary my main points were:
In the time of the founding fathers, there was more concern about the general political-awareness that ordinary people had (the reason for the electoral college). Today, however, it is inexcusable for politicians to be trusted to a level where "they know best" or "know better than the people do" about issues. Politicians in he US can do anything they like, mostly because of this reason. There is no way to hold them accountable and you just have to "trust them". They can also change their minds about any issue (or lie to voters, cough George Santos cough) and get away with it
@joebiden said it pretty well:
senator joe manchin is a great example of this, look up his pictures with pro-abortion and anti-abortion groups lol, it’s whoever donates
In the UK, politicians cannot be bought by corporations as easily, because their policies have to cater to what the ordinary people actually want. When Liz Truss promised lower taxes, lower inflation, etc. and failed to deliver, she was able to be removed and her party replaced her with someone else. She didn't have another 4 years to cause mayhem/destroy the country, which is a good thing.
TLDR: It’s not about choosing the lesser of two evils in that system, as there are many more parties/viewpoints/perspectives to choose from, and you vote for a party or a set of ideals, rather than for a person.
All of that is just a side-effect of a two-party system, not a presidential system as opposed to a parliamentary system.
george santos is SUCH a bad liar it’s crazy 
how you gonna claim that you did drag as a joke and then imply that you watch rupauls drag race, the GOP got him in such heavy denial
This would probably require a rewrite of the entire constitution, which would never happen
It actually doesn’t. The Constitution says nothing about exact voting systems or the number of representatives; those were decided by bills past later by Congress which can be replace.
I wonder if America genuinely would be better if it was completely democratic
honestly it would be, but there would need to be some centralized government to make sure it stayed democratic. but that obviously leads to it’s own problems
I wonder if America would be better if it didn’t prevent people from voting too.
You mean people under 18?
No, I mean its non-white citizens… However, a good argument could be made for why a bunch of 70-year-old men are making decisions that affect the future of the country (which they won’t be around to see). 25% of Americans are under 18 btw…
Also, if Marjorie Taylor Greene can vote, I think the vast majority of 16-year-olds should be allowed to too. I personally believe that applying a general rule against all young people, regardless of maturity isn’t fair. There are many 16-year-olds with a better understanding of politics than some >80-year-olds.
teenagers don’t pay taxes they shouldnt vote
billionaires don’t pay taxes they shouldn’t vote
Why is not paying taxes such a problem? There is no organization that wastes money better than the federal government. Evading taxes in every way possible is actually a good way to steward your money.
If this was really true, than why do low-income people (who pay a higher tax rate than the rich) vote at lower rates (because of voter suppression, employers not giving them time off on voting day, lack of transportation, etc.) than billionaires.
A better way to think of this is: Teenagers are affected by almost all laws, and are expected to follow them, but have practically zero say in voting for them, while someone who is elderly, sick, and 6 months away from dying (who will not be around to see the laws take effect, and who will not be affected by them) can vote…
Sources:
Rich people have been working hard to make the poor, working-class, and young people (all who are typically more progressive) fear talking about politics by making it a taboo. By lowering engagement among these groups, voter turnout becomes low, as people feel less motivated to create actual change in their country, and the billionaires can do whatever they want.
Source/Study:
Are you saying that Marjorie Taylor Greene shouldn’t be able to vote?
No, I’m saying that the vast majority of 16-year-olds (who are more aware about / understand politics/science/the world better and who are usually more mature) should.
also, they should put in term limits
The problem is that politicians are controlled by corporations and lobbies, neither of which care about the problems affecting ordinary people…
that’s what i’m saying
those who do speak out against corporations & congressional daytrading (e.g. bernie sanders), are labeled as “socialists” or dismissed…
Yeah, it seems like only the most extreme members of congress actually do anything good. For example, Matt Gaetz and AOC teaming up on a bill recently
That’s mostly because corporations are unwilling to team up with either of them, so they have less restrictions on what they say/vote on…
Matt Gaetz just wants to improve his image among voters and challenge mainstream republicans (who usually cater to a wider audience of conservatives than him). By claiming that he has the moral high ground and attacking them, he gains an advantage.
How do you know that’s not true for AOC as well?
because she’s pushing for policies that hurt corporations (pro-union, higher minimum wage, higher taxes)???