# If America had a multiparty system, which party would you join/support? (poll\]) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 2, 2012, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407 "2012-09-02T01:20:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/41 "2012-09-04T13:51:46Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The next election will probably be in 2015; it could theoretically be earlier or be put off until 2016, but it won’t be, barring some weird occurrence. > > There is no particular reason the NDP COULDN’T win that election. They’re fairly well in place as the alternative to the Conservatives. The Liberal Party looks like it has a terminal illness. Going by [this](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper) I would’ve thought the Tories the terminally ill ones. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/42 "2012-09-04T17:33:55Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > I’d likely be trying to work within the Democrats to move them a bit to the left, not nearly to actual Socialism but to be more interested in pushing social issues and restraining business power to a more effective degree without imagining unions are godly and perfect. > > Your list of parties leaves out Moderate Progressive, is my view; it jumps straight from Center-Right (Democrats) to Socialist and near-Socialist (Working Families), with the Greens (Greens) out being Greens in Green-land where Science Is Evil and you can’t buy a decent loaf of bread without giving money to people who honestly believe chiropractic can cure the autism that the mercury in your last vaccine gave you. > > However, I am far too pragmatic to think that, even in a multi-party system, trying to spin a Moderate Progressive party off the Democrats would actually do very much. Call me an entryist, but being able to debate within the halls of power is more conducive to _actual_ debate than trying to shout down everyone else with sound bites in the general tumult outside. > > So I’d be happy in a somewhat wonky splinter faction within the Democratic party, a lot like now. Yeah, but, progressives have **tried** that; it never seems to get nuttin’ done. And, I think the WFP **are** your “Moderate Progressives.” ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/43 "2012-09-04T17:37:17Z")
No, BG, the Tories are a terminal _illness._ > [@Trinopus](#): > > A few problems, alas: no matter how it’s configured, it can break down. You can end up with different results based on very small differences in people’s 2nd or 3rd choices – violating a principle called “independence on irrelevant alternatives.” Most of the criticisms of Instant-Runoff Voting seem to be people objecting to how it deals with its preference data. But that’s data other voting systems don’t even collect, so how can they claim superiority? It’s still an improvement over several other systems–and a vast improvement over FPTP–in that you get to vote for the person you want, and have alternatives ranked as you please. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/44 "2012-09-04T17:38:22Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Missed the edit window. Just wanted to add I strongly prefer capitalism over full-on socialism, which is why the WFP as the OP describes doesn’t seem like a great fit, all-in-all. Especially considering capitalism being very central to the backbone of not only our economy, but as a hallmark of the US since its inception. It ultimately seems more flexible and adaptable over socialist frameworks (as far as I can glean from other truly socialist economies/governments). But, it’s not a socialist party. Check out its [issues](http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/our-issues/); now, compare and contrast with [those](http://www.dsausa.org/about/index.html) [of](http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf) even a moderately socialist organization like the Democratic Socialists of America. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/45 "2012-09-04T17:41:12Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > I don’t think politics can sustain itself much further without a serious branch of government, lead by serious scientists and engineers, spearheading progressive science and technology in the US . . . Wait, you mean, scientific and technological **research?** At present that is handled/funded by (1) academia, (2) profit-oriented business corporations, (3) non-profit foundations, and (4) some government agencies. You don’t think that’s enough? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/46 "2012-09-04T17:44:03Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > No, BG, the Tories are a terminal _illness._ Considering how far to the right they seem to have moved, how do they keep winning elections in such a (reputedly) liberal political culture as Canada’s? ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/47 "2012-09-04T18:26:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, it’s not a socialist party. Check out its [issues](http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/our-issues/); now, compare and contrast with [those](http://www.dsausa.org/about/index.html) [of](http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf) even a moderately socialist organization like the Democratic Socialists of America. I see, I hadn’t really looked into the Party’s issues that closely. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Wait, you mean, scientific and technological **research?** At present that is handled/funded by (1) academia, (2) profit-oriented business corporations, (3) non-profit foundations, and (4) some government agencies. You don’t think that’s enough? Close, although I know technocracy is a loaded term due to past failures. I’d be more for a new arm of the government, not unlike the military, that would get it’s own budget on where to lay new research and how to implement and forge bills on new technologies. Science, as applied to the military and commonwealth is reaching a tipping point. Either it’s fueled on its own merits in academia (rare), or out-right paid for by the military, government grants (burdened with agendas), or corporate R&D. There’s a ton of areas that really need to be explored and developed much faster than it’s currently being handled (green tech, bio-tech, Internet/communications, space, etc.) that I believe are being delt with in very inefficient manners, and their futures are ultimately being decided by laymen; at times ill-informed, misguided, or for downright political zeitgeist. Stem-cell research, fracking, nuclear power, net neutrality, etc. come to mind, that just seem to languish (or thrive to the detriment of other, more long-sighted tech) because they sound ‘scary’ when they could be thriving stepping stones ushering in new areas of technology to our nation’s economy, health and prosperity. But, this is more a fantasy than anything I’m seriously pushing for seriously on a political level. I just usually vote Democrat. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/48 "2012-09-04T19:14:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Under a [proportional representation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation) system (which most of the world’s democracies use, in one form or another – there are several forms), OTOH, if the Libertarians get 10% of the **votes,** they get (more or less) 10% of the **seats.** The problem is, there’s no guarantee that any of them - for that matter, anybody - will represent you in particular. With the current system, there is somebody who is “your” representative in Congress. Okay, maybe they represent a different political party than yours, but if your area needs something done, you can say, “Let’s take it to Congressman \_\_\_\_\_\_”. However, with strict proportional representation, everybody represents the party and the nation. Even if it is done at a state level, there’s a good chance that most of the representatives from California are going to be from the southern part of the state - good luck getting anybody to listen to you if you are from the north. Okay, who just said, “And having your representative ‘represent’ just the political party at the national level is different from how it works now in what way?” ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/49 "2012-09-04T19:33:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well and good, but a multiparty system fines that down to more than one kind and a limited number of kinds – e.g., would you swing between the WFP and the Greens, or between the WFP and the Democrats, or between the Republicans and the Libertarians, or between the Constitution Party and the Pubs, or between the Dems and the Pubs? Probably only one of those describes you – nobody would swing, e.g, between the Constitution Party and the WFP, nor between Constitution and Green, and probably not between Constitution and Libertarian. I know of some evangelical environmentalists who, given the choices in this thread, would probably swing between Constitution and Green, depending on whether social conservatism or natural conservation issues were thought most pressing at the time. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/50 "2012-09-04T19:36:13Z")
I’d still be an independent. I’d stop voting if I had to belong to a political party. And if forced to join one and vote I’d go to prison or leave the country. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/51 "2012-09-04T20:52:59Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > A few problems, alas: no matter how it’s configured, it can break down. You can end up with different results based on very small differences in people’s 2nd or 3rd choices – violating a principle called “independence on irrelevant alternatives.” > > e.g., one can construct an hypothetical election between Bush, Gore, Perot, and Nader, where if Nader is eliminated first, Bush wins, but if Perot is eliminated first, Gore wins. Since both Nader and Perot will be eliminated, it shouldn’t matter which of them is eliminated first. Shouldn’t it? I’m aware of the ‘principle,’ but I’m not convinced that it’s right to uphold it, given a system which meets Arrow’s other criteria. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/52 "2012-09-04T21:29:45Z")
I notice BrainGlutton didn’t spell out where the Working Families stand on the social issues. Are they pro-choice or pro-life? Against or for gay marriage? There are all kinds of working class families that might be attracted to a Working Families platform, but not if they had to swallow a liberal social agenda. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/53 "2012-09-04T22:16:01Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I don’t know, really. Maybe I’d be a swing voter, or start my own, even smaller, party. I considered saying, “I’ll join the Working Families Party, because BG is!” which I think makes a good example of how votes actually often work. > > I decided to look at the poll results before picking:There was a 6th vote for Working Families while I was formatting my post. > > OK, I guess that says something about the board, and those of us who respond to BrainGlutton threads? Well, I do notice the Pubs are running dead last so far, with only two votes – while Constitution has got 5 and the Libertarians have got 29; which says something about the right wing of this Board, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/54 "2012-09-04T22:21:37Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > I notice BrainGlutton didn’t spell out where the Working Families stand on the social issues. > > Are they pro-choice or pro-life? Against or for gay marriage? > > There are all kinds of working class families that might be attracted to a Working Families platform, but not if they had to swallow a liberal social agenda. See [here.](http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/our-issues/equal-rights/) > [@](#): > > **Civil Rights** > > Historically, women, people of color and other minorities have not enjoyed the full protection of the law in the America. Through heroic struggles for justice, full civil rights and equality before the law have gradually been extended to millions of people were once denied equal rights. The Working Families Party believes that the extension of civil rights to gays and lesbians is in this honorable tradition. > > The right to marry the person of one’s choice is a basic freedom. Marriage is one of society’s most important social institutions, and — with a healthcare system in crisis — marriage is also a key economic benefit gays and lesbians can’t be excluded from. > > The Working Families Party supports efforts to **open marriage to all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation.** Bolding in the original. I can find nothing on the website about abortion, but I have not the slightest doubt they’re pro-choice. Consistently lefty all the way. If you want something combining social conservatism with economic populism, that’s paleoconservatism, and I guess that’s what the Constitution Party (or maybe the America First Party) is for. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/55 "2012-09-05T11:44:27Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > See [here.](http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/our-issues/equal-rights/) > > Bolding in the original. I can find nothing on the website about abortion, but I have not the slightest doubt they’re pro-choice. Consistently lefty all the way. > > If you want something combining social conservatism with economic populism, that’s paleoconservatism, and I guess that’s what the Constitution Party (or maybe the America First Party) is for. In that case… there WOULD be a market for your party, but the name is completely misleading. There wouldn’t BE any actual blue-collar working families in the Working Families Party you describe. It would be a party of intellectual socialists. More College Faculty Club Party than Working families Party. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/56 "2012-09-05T12:30:09Z")
> [@](#): > > The right to marry the person of one’s choice is a basic freedom. I have trouble considering this a “right” because it’s not based on what someone is free to do. What it’s really saying is that the rest of society should be obligated to recognize and respect one’s marriage, and people should face sanctions if they refuse to. That sounds an awful lot like a privilege, not a right. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/57 "2012-09-05T16:50:14Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > In that case… there WOULD be a market for your party, but the name is completely misleading. There wouldn’t BE any actual blue-collar working families in the Working Families Party you describe. It would be a party of intellectual socialists. More College Faculty Club Party than Working families Party. The WFP is not a socialist party; see post # 44. And actual blue-collar working families are not all as socially conservative as you seem to think they are. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/58 "2012-09-05T16:56:12Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Close, although I know technocracy is a loaded term due to past failures. Only if you mean political failures; as a result of which, [technocracy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement) has never actually been tried – nor even much talked about, since the 1930s. > [@cmyk](#): > > I’d be more for a new arm of the government, not unlike the military, that would get it’s own budget on where to lay new research and how to implement and forge bills on new technologies. Ah, but then who owns the patents? There would be political objections to the government owning them – how is it to exploit them properly and bring the new technologies to market? It’s not set up for that like a corporation is. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/59 "2012-09-05T17:01:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The WFP is not a socialist party; see post # 44. And actual blue-collar working families are not all as socially conservative as you seem to think they are. BTW, the WFP is closely associated with [SEIU,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEIU) and you can’t get more genuinely blue-collar than that. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407/60 "2012-09-05T18:18:44Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I have trouble considering this a “right” because it’s not based on what someone is free to do. What it’s really saying is that the rest of society should be obligated to recognize and respect one’s marriage, and people should face sanctions if they refuse to. That sounds an awful lot like a privilege, not a right. Whatever; the party’s position on the issue – that SSM should be legally recognized on the same basis as those weird mixed marriages (a man and a woman! :eek:) – is clear enough. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-america-had-a-multiparty-system-which-party-would-you-join-support-poll/633407.md?page=4)