Was 2015/2016 the closest we've been to bucking the two party system?

HockeyBjj

HockeyBjj

Putting on the foil
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
30,818
Reaction score
38,169
I'm not saying work was done by libertarians or any other group to finally shove off the yoke of Democrats vs. Republicans as the only options, where American voters are unfortunately forced to pair their social views with their economic policy preferences rather than the two being completely separate as they should be

But, by chance and whatever the hell else that was going on during the primary process, there were two outsider heavy hitters in the pool. One in each party's playground. Bernie got screwed out of his potential nomination but then fell in line to support Hillary. Trump actually got his and the rest of the Rs fell in line.

It hadn't happened, but it seemed the stars were moving into formation to give us the perfect storm. Dems nominate Hillary, but Bernie doesn't go down without a fight and his grassroots movement on social media grows to new heights. Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio gets the Repub nomination, and Trump truthers stay on board and loud as Trump continues self funding his campaign.

A 4 way fight, with the outsiders with as much support as the internal candidates could have been one hell of a kick to the two party system and possibly forced meaningful and beneficial change. It didn't happen, but what could have become of the system if it had? Could we have ended up with multiple parties who form coalitions when needed like Europe does? Or would it have been just a wild ride of an election year and then everything gone back to soon enough?

Does anyone see a tangible way of getting us out of our two party American system that actually has a chance to happen?
 
No


Ross Perot was


However if Johnson hadn’t shit the bed he’d have gotten some votes
 
We did with Trump.

The Republican Party of old is no more.
 
Ross Perot actually got electoral votes in 1992. That was probably the closest we've come in recent history.
 
sub_thug said:
Ross Perot actually got electoral votes in 1992. That was probably the closest we've come in recent history.
Click to expand...

Ah. Since I was 1 year old at the time, I was unfamiliar with that. I'll more look into his story. Thanks

Edit: From Wikipedia: In the election, Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote but did not win any electoral votes.

19% nationally is a hell of a showing for a 3rd party candidate, and it seems at one point he was up in polls over both HW and Clinton but temporarily withdrews for some reason, but he didn't get any electoral to potentially break the 270 rule
 
Tangible ways involve states changing their election laws, which means Democrats and Republicans voting to weaken their parties. Ultimately, it would probably require a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC, which we can all probably agree isn't happening soon because it's so heavily skewed in favor of the Republican Party.

In 2016, there wasn't a threat to the two-party system, but instead two attempted takeovers of the parties by outsiders- one very successful, one partially successful.
 
bobgeese said:
We did with Trump.

The Republican Party of old is no more.
Click to expand...
"Two-party system" is a phrase that has a meaning, as opposed to a phrase that means whatever you want it to mean. Please consult your online resources.
 
HockeyBjj said:
Does anyone see a tangible way of getting us out of our two party American system that actually has a chance to happen?
Click to expand...
Well, it's right there in the phrasing. It's the system. If a third party candidate won a presidential election, there would be a shake up, but fairly quickly we'd end up with two parties again. There are disadvantages no doubt, but also some big advantages to such a system. In an era where both right and left are getting extreme, the most likely winner of national elections will be those tacking toward the center. One of the reasons the US has been so stable through the decades is that the system forces both major parties to fight for votes in the middle.

I'd argue that we are seeing a shake up of the parties in the sense that different constituencies within each major party are reexamining where they fit and considering if there aren't greener pastures elsewhere. I think that is probably for the best.
 
The media is making sure that never happens. The news is slanted to Us vs Them all in pursuit of boner pill ad dollars.
 
Fawlty said:
In 2016, there wasn't a threat to the two-party system, but instead two attempted takeovers of the parties by outsiders- one very successful, one partially successful.
Click to expand...

Well said
 
HockeyBjj said:
Ah. Since I was 1 year old at the time, I was unfamiliar with that. I'll more look into his story. Thanks

Edit: From Wikipedia: In the election, Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote but did not win any electoral votes.

19% nationally is a hell of a showing for a 3rd party candidate, and it seems at one point he was up in polls over both HW and Clinton but temporarily withdrews for some reason, but he didn't get any electoral to potentially break the 270 rule
Click to expand...
You are correct. I was mistaken.

But yeah, he did quite well and likely ended up throwing the election to President Clinton. I use the term "likely" because we can't know with certainty due to a lack of testing that theory, but it seems almost certain that President George HW Bush would have been reelected had it not been for Ross Perot diverting so much of the conservative vote.
 
Teddy Roosevelt came in 2nd place in the General Election in 1912 running with the progressive party.
 
HockeyBjj said:
Ah. Since I was 1 year old at the time, I was unfamiliar with that. I'll more look into his story. Thanks

Edit: From Wikipedia: In the election, Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote but did not win any electoral votes.

19% nationally is a hell of a showing for a 3rd party candidate, and it seems at one point he was up in polls over both HW and Clinton but temporarily withdrews for some reason, but he didn't get any electoral to potentially break the 270 rule
Click to expand...
His run was bigger than the vote count suggests.

Perot at one point led the polls.

He was very much in the race when he suddenly quit, later citing blackmail by the the Bush Sr campaign.

It was like he was supposed to split the Republican vote to ensure a victory for Bill Clinton, but he did his job too well.
 
HockeyBjj said:
I'm not saying work was done by libertarians or any other group to finally shove off the yoke of Democrats vs. Republicans as the only options, where American voters are unfortunately forced to pair their social views with their economic policy preferences rather than the two being completely separate as they should be

But, by chance and whatever the hell else that was going on during the primary process, there were two outsider heavy hitters in the pool. One in each party's playground. Bernie got screwed out of his potential nomination but then fell in line to support Hillary. Trump actually got his and the rest of the Rs fell in line.

It hadn't happened, but it seemed the stars were moving into formation to give us the perfect storm. Dems nominate Hillary, but Bernie doesn't go down without a fight and his grassroots movement on social media grows to new heights. Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio gets the Repub nomination, and Trump truthers stay on board and loud as Trump continues self funding his campaign.

A 4 way fight, with the outsiders with as much support as the internal candidates could have been one hell of a kick to the two party system and possibly forced meaningful and beneficial change. It didn't happen, but what could have become of the system if it had? Could we have ended up with multiple parties who form coalitions when needed like Europe does? Or would it have been just a wild ride of an election year and then everything gone back to soon enough?

Does anyone see a tangible way of getting us out of our two party American system that actually has a chance to happen?
Click to expand...

Bernie and Trump in 2016 weren't great outside challengers for institutional change. They were more figure heads for a movement towards institutional change. Trump wasn't even a politician, and Bernie was always kind of a loan wolf.

You need to have a bigger vision then that. I think Bernie has shown he has that. He is building something right now, that could actually dethrone a party.
 
If bucking the system means having a libertarian party on a national level paint me happy that we have a two party system.
 
VivaRevolution said:
Bernie and Trump in 2016 weren't great outside challengers for institutional change. They were more figure heads for a movement towards institutional change. Trump wasn't even a politician, and Bernie was always kind of a loan wolf.

You need to have a bigger vision then that. I think Bernie has shown he has that. He is building something right now, that could actually dethrone a party.
Click to expand...
He tapped out to the Democrat establishment he is not where outside the 2 party system.
 
Ron Paul could have done it. Probably why he wasn't elected and just suddenly disappeared in the media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,994
Messages
55,459,937
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top