Comments by "Deborah Freedman" (@deborahfreedman333) on "Avlon: Why hasn't a viable third party materialized?" video.

  1. A parliamentary system accommodates a multitude of parties better. If one party does not have a majority of seats, they have to form a coalition, and the smaller parties thus get more power. But, in the US system, with one head of government elected, and a a bicameral legislature, smaller parties just don't get much of a voice.
    3
  2. Avalon is correct, we need a third, moderate, party. Both the main parties are moving to the fringes, primarying out moderates. And, most often, third parties are also on the fringe, exacerbating this trend. But, if we had a strong moderate party, it would force the two main parties to move back towards the middle, where most Americans dwell, just to compete.
    2
  3. What if there was a popular referendum, that did something horrible? The American people are easily swayed by advertising, and could be convinced of almost anything. Populism is what saddled us with Trump.
    2
  4.  @markgreen4612  Ross Perot got to participate in debates.
    1
  5. How?
    1
  6. Nope, we have two parties, moving further and further away from the center.
    1
  7. Why? You don't justify your premise that a three party system would be unstable. It is very easy to envision a third moderate party, coexisting within the current system. There have been multiple parties in the past. The Republicans arose from Whigs and Democrats, unhappy with slavery, and coexisted with both those parties, for decades, after the demise of the free soil American party (dubbed Know Nothings). That past would support the premise that a three party system is more durable than a four party one.
    1