How to Break the American Two Party System

While growing irritated while watching the 2016 presidential election, I tried to make this video explaining how we've been trapped into two bad options. 2016 was essentially an UNPOPULARITY contest.

This video outlines the best method I know of to expand on voter choice, and break the two-party gridlock of politics.

For a better version by a much more experienced creator, see this video:

More information:

In November 2016 the state of Maine adopted IRV, becoming the first state in the US to do so. Hopefully more will follow.

[rider]

Awesome video! With Maine JUST approving this ranked voting system for its state elections, the idea continues to gain supporters and credibility.

Hopefully this reform can put an end to the "wasted vote" aspect that currently cripples third party and independent candidates trying to gain traction in elections.

[jakekitzmann]

LOVE this, writing a college essay about the misrepresentation of the two-party system right now. This has helped so much, thanks!

[odenpetersen]

We already do this in Australia, and yet we still have only 2 major parties.

[zombiedude]

IRV isn't actually voting for more than one choice. The proper system to do that is approval voting. Vote yes/no on each choice individually. This solves the problem of a "third party" getting the most popular second choice, but still being eliminated because of how few votes set them as first choice.

[rider]

Too often the press and the politicians wrongly look at the vote results as a "mandate" from "the people" as to what agenda a plurality (not necessarily even a majority) of these voters want implemented.

Of course, people often vote (those that DO vote) for the lesser evil (especially so in this election) -- which has NOTHING to do with supporting some imaginary mandate -- or a mandate for all aspects of a politician's agenda.

Ranked voting (IRV) gives a more accurate gauge of voter sentiment than our binary choice we currently face. Still flawed as a gauge of voter policy preferences, but far more accurate than our lesser evil "all or nothing" option.

[bitofethereum]

"Wikileaks:GOP Candidate's secret plan to kill anyone whose name starts with D!!!" LOL!

[Iwannawinprizes]

Excellent logic and easy to follow. How do we get the establishment to give up the system that favors them?

[willdwyer]

In Colombia voters can cast a ballot without voting for anyone. If the majority of the ballots are blank, they hold another election with different candidates.

[eyescreamcake]

Sorry, but IRV is a fake reform that won't fix anything. You've been misled.

Yeah, it reduces the spoiler effect for fringe third parties that didn't have a chance of winning anyway, but as soon as they become competitive, they become a spoiler again. Expressing your true opinion under IRV still helps your least-favorite candidate win, perpetuating a two-party system. This isn't even theory; it's real world experience: IRV is already in use around the world, and all the places that use it are still two-party dominated.

If you want to break the two-party system, keep researching and keep learning. Don't advocate IRV just because it's the only reform you've heard of. Learn about the others. Cardinal voting systems like Score, Score-Runoff, and Approval actually do eliminate the spoiler effect, and can actually break the two-party system.

[quasi]

This is why i dont vote(i cant cause im not regestered to vote) but i doubt i would there really isnt any good canidates

[MrApplewine]

I like STAR voting. But changing the voting system is an incomplete plan. You still need a plan of how you are going to change the voting system. The two parties are unlikely to vote for it

[josephthomas]

But this would be useless as long as we have the electoral college, right?

[toughluck]

Asking the people in power to give up their power? Fat chance

[GAJake]

It’s also important to remove “winner take all” for the electoral votes. Meaning the electoral votes are divided up to each candidate rather than all going to the majority candidate in a single state. Also remove the electoral college but still keep electoral vote. This way electors can’t change the votes but you can still balance how much say a big vs small state gets. Obviously larger states should have slightly more say because they have more people, but not so much so that the country is ran by Texas, California, and New York. Remember the states created the federal government not the other way around. It’s similar to the two houses of congress compromise. One based on population and one even.

[xXSubZeroGamesXx]

What if you first tried to evaluate who had the majority of votes instead of who had the most votes, and then if no one did, figured out who had the most votes? You would end up with the same result, but the us vs. them mentality wouldn't be there. At least 95% of the time.

[annemarie]

In Canada we have this for our party leaders, this time around for the conservative party it was the person with the most 2nd place votes and virtually no one had them 1st so we are stuck with a conservative leader no one wanted.

[jpfrssnv]

Then why do other countries have more than two Parties?

[dakotastein]

this is compelling and would be an ideal solution..but there is a problem.
this functionality of this whole concept hinges on the Idea that the Popular vote is counted to begin with.
i dont care if they let you check 1 box, or 100 boxes that is just a slip of paper that they can resend, overturn or otherwise flat out ignore.

another issue is the idea that there even are ideal candidate to begin with..its so easy for people to lie and make all kinds of ridicules promises that SOUND good, but you noticed they never follow through on them.and when this happens, their supporters are more often than not either too stupid or too stubborn to admit that they were suckered into believing in someone who does not give to damns about them.

look at trump for instance...he promised to create jobs and lower taxes for everyone, and replace and create stable healthcare and to build a security wall.
but instead he has... complained about the media, complained about democrats, tried to instigate north korea, nearly starting a war make the cut other programs just to inflate the miltary budget more. lock children up in prison. and push that stupid "Space force" military branch.
and most recently inadvertently enticed Armed civilian militias to line up on the border..who will more likely than not open fire on any man, woman or child that gets too close.

you cant win against these poeple, its a rigged game.

[AsylumEscapade]

Sound logic, except, the so-called third party was just an extension of the Democratic party.

I voted for Trump, however, if he stayed in the race, my vote would have gone to Rand Paul...

[Katilina]

The problem is more like democracy is the system, where dumb people rule...and it's simply won't work any better since a clean-up lady has the very same vote as an international relations student, we would need census, to not have such a dumb campaigns...