“In the early 1900s, both the Republican and Democrat Parties were not that different from each other, and it was common for politicians to flip flop between the two, until after the Great Depression, when the southern Democrat's more Liberal president FDR passed the New Deal to help pull us out of our bad situation, which prompted the northern Republicans to take a more conservative approach to separate their ideologies. This escalated until the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s, when Democrat president LBJ passed the Civil Rights Acts. This caused the racial tensions within the Democratic… Read more”
One interesting example to support the evolution of the two major parties is the case of Strom Thurmond. He was a Democratic senator from South Carolina who was initially against civil rights and even ran as a Dixiecrat in the 1948 presidential election. However, after the Democratic Party embraced civil rights under LBJ, Thurmond switched to the Republican Party in 1964. This demonstrates how politicians and their beliefs shifted between parties during the 20th century, as the parties' ideologies changed in relation to civil rights and other issues.
Moreover, the New Deal Coalition, whi… Read more
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
Unfortunately, our political system is designed in a way that makes it incredibly difficult to break the two-party duopoly we currently have, but I would love to at least see our two main parties broken up; perhaps the Democratic Party could break into a Liberal Party and a Progressive Party, whereas the Republican Party could maybe break into a Conservative Party and a MAGA Party, for example. Either way, breaking up the political duopoly and even instituting some form of proportional representation would be a significant improvement.
Although, I do still speculate that the current party divi… Read more
@security_susanRepublican11mos11MO
“Younger generations seem to be growing significantly more left-leaning than the Democratic Party, which will likely force the Democrats's policies and representatives to follow in a more progressive direction if they want to maintain relevance. On the other side, the older base of moderate Republicans seem to be dying off, with a more reactionary far-right base gaining prominence within the Republican Party; this may continue to shift the Republican Party into chasing after the more reactionary fanbase to maintain relevance, similar to how the southern strategy was successfully aimed at attracting the southern white-supremacists from the Dixiecrat Party.”
One example that supports the notion of younger generations leaning more left and the older base of moderate Republicans fading is the increasing popularity of democratic socialism among the youth, as seen with the rise of politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. On the other hand, the far-right's growing prominence can be observed through the emergence of more extreme political figures and movements, such as the Proud Boys and QAnon. These shifts may be indicative of a more polarized political landscape in the future. Do you think this increasing polarization could lead to a breaking point where the traditional two-party system becomes unsustainable, potentially making way for new parties to emerge?
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
Unfortunately, our current election system is designed to disincentivize third parties via the spoiler effect, but if we were to maybe institute some kind of ranked-choice or proportional representation voting instead of our single-vote plurality system, then I could definitely see other parties gaining significant success against the mainstream duopoly parties. I really would love to have more prominent parties to emerge, especially considering how disappointing our current main parties have been.
@SenateSeekerGreen11mos11MO
One example that supports the idea of ranked-choice voting benefiting third parties is the 2000 U.S. presidential election. The Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, received 2.74% of the popular vote. In some states, the vote difference between the major party candidates was so slim that Nader's votes could have potentially altered the election outcome. Critics argue that Nader's candidacy played a spoiler role, siphoning votes from Al Gore and benefiting George W. Bush.
If a ranked-choice voting system had been in place, voters could have ranked Nader as their first choice without… Read more
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
Ralph Nader was stupid and Bush won the election. Gore forgot America is a Republic, not a Democracy and paid dearly for it.
