Enough of mainstream political parties

Very possibly. At any rate, I can't in good conscience support the political sewers created by the Democrats and Republicans. The Libertarians were my choice.

Cheers,
Jason Bourne

 

In the quote I gave you, don't know how much more clearly it can be put.

He literally says, he supports open borders.

 

That's your choice as a voter but history shows us that the parties all act the same once they get into power.

Tell us what libertarians are doing in office now that is different from what their counterparts are, or the few Green People, or the Tea Party people?

 

No, he doesn't.

Cheers,
Jason Bourne

 

What "history" is that?

https://www.theadvocates.org/greatest-libertarian-accomplishment-history/

Cheers,
Jason Bourne

 

That's funny.

Why are you giving libertarians credit for that, why not Christians, those guys believed in god also you know.

 

History speaks for itself.

Cheers,
Jason Bourne

 

There were all types in the abolitionist movement you know.

 

Including a large number of libertarians.

Cheers,
Jason Bourne

 

It's become something of a shadow of what it's supposed to be because the constitution has been almost completely ignored. We're trying to hold on to fragments of what it once meant, but losing a little bit of the war every time the sun rises.

What was supposed to be a very limited government has become the world's largest government.

 

This is what I've been saying for many years.

 

How do you figure our system was made for two parties and that's something that would require amendment?

 

I guess you could say that it's set up for 50 parties.

 

Here is his quote again:

My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders.

 

Because its based on a winner take all result.

This will limit the number of parties that have a valid chance at winning, eventually shrinking down to just two. If you have multiple parties running on the same platform it will guarantee the opposite party winning everytime so those other smaller parties will consolidate into one. One for the left, and one for the right.

That is how our system favors two parties.

And it was done this for a reason, by the Founders, because it is this two party system, and the constant exchange of power back and forth, that enables our checks and balances to work. It allows our nation to go right and left but never too far in one direction before it flips. This is why the president was given things like the power to nominate judicial people, because some will be left and some will be right but their hopes, and its worked, is that it would end up as some sort of balance, and it has.

 

Except most people don't vote. If you found something that appealed to them you would beat either parties numbers or both.
Also the state's choose how their electoral college votes apply. See for instance Nebraska.

 

Yes they do, but with the exception of two states its basically the same.

And it shows, that with the addition of the 12th amendment, that even though states may adjust their electoral rules, it rarely will change the outcome of the college.

Basically their system still functions as intended with the same results.

So your point is irrelevant to the fact of two parties. You would need to change the actual 12th amendment to affect the results no matter what the states do.

Until that happens we will only have two viable parties.

 

I doubt it. The best thing to do is to get rid of political parties entirely.