I'm hoping the cause of this is seen clearly as the unelectability of Trump candidates so that the Trump era can once and for all come to an end.

Kari Lake lost. That’s gotta sting, and is yet another reminder that Trump is a big fat loser.

Yes. Very happy to see Lake lose.

Even though this bucked the trend for midterms, it’s still depressing that so many were so close, and the Republicans get the house regardless.

Unfortunate for the Repubs that Trump appointed those conservatives on the Supreme Court. The progression is clear now, with Roe vs Wade overturned and members of the party jumping on a bandwagon of repression like that of the Taliban. Oh, wait, the Taliban are less restrictive than many Republicans, giving a woman 17 weeks to make up her mind.

The Grand Old Party needs to pull itself out of the middle ages.

We need a global movement to end party politics, as it is a bad system.
Governments should be made up of independent local representatives, who are democratically elected based on how well they can demonstrate that they reflect the views of the majority of those they represent. Any second chamber should be an elected citizen's chamber, representing social groups such as youth, the elderly, the disabled, the military, the police, medical, science etc.
Policies, laws should be based on bills introduced by any member of the government chamber and then should be debated by its members. Any law/government act, must be ratified by a majority from the second chamber.
We need a different politics or horrors like Trump, Putin, Bolsonaro, etc will always return to the main stage from time to time

Even though this bucked the trend for midterms, it’s still depressing that so many were so close, and the Republicans get the house regardless. — Mikie

Funny to think that they're gonna win the House purely due to gerrymandering given what the final margins are likely gonna be.

With how the youth vote turned out to overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats, I hope that this will cause the Republicans to reevaluate their stances on issues such as climate change so as to appeal to the increasing concerns of that demographic. I mean I don't think it will happen (they're already calling for raising the age limit for voting), but one can hope.

Democrats holding the Senate is a huge win for them and a loss for Republicans.

I think finally the GOP can come back to it's senses. Trump is a losing card.

In fact, the Democrats can hope that the GOP takes Trump to be their candidate in the Presidential elections: nothing else would mobilize the Dems better and alienate many that otherwise would vote for a Republican candidate.

We need a global movement to end party politics, as it is a bad system.
Governments should be made up of independent local representatives, who are democratically elected based on how well they can demonstrate that they reflect the views of the majority of those they represent. — universeness

That doesn't even logically work when voting in any parliamentary system is based on a majority. It is totally rational to make coalitions. In order to get what is important for you to be pushed through, you have to make then packs with other who have their agenda. Hence the party system basically will emerge, even if they aren't called political parties.

Secondly, even on the local level the political divide is there among the people: some want to use tax money to be spent of issues while others don't and just want lower taxes. Some want more collective decision making and others individual freedoms. It doesn't go away on the local level, you know.

I think the US would need more political parties and coalition governments and then root out it's corruption. But if people aren't aware of the domination of the whole system by the two parties, then there isn't going to be change.

I'm hoping the cause of this is seen clearly as the unelectability of Trump candidates so that the Trump era can once and for all come to an end. — Hanover

Is there a risk that the end of Trump might bring with it more astute and cunning demagoguery by people like Ron DeSantis who might actually know what they are doing?

I'm hoping the cause of this is seen clearly as the unelectability of Trump candidates so that the Trump era can once and for all come to an end. — Hanover

You saying that makes me feel optimistic about the political right in the US.

Insanity has to come to end sometime.

That doesn't even logically work when voting in any parliamentary system is based on a majority. It is totally rational to make coalitions. In order to get what is important for you to be pushed through, you have to make then packs with other who have their agenda. Hence the party system basically will emerge, even if they aren't called political parties. — ssu

I disagree, as any pacts or groupings based on common cause would be terminated at every new election. No establishment of governmental groups such as the tory '1922 committee' in the UK, would be allowed to continue. New groups could be formed after each election, and it would probably be wise to limit the number of times any individual could be elected to become a member of the first chamber.

Addendum to ...

Almost three-quarters of women, it's been estimated, voted for the Democrats in the midterm elections. Murica ain't "Gilead" yet, bubba. :up:

And maybe this electoral gift will keep on giving:

• Sen. Warnock wins re-election handily in run-off on December 6th

• House of Reps – GOP 219 222, Dems 216 212

• Rep. Kevin McCarthy fails to get 218 votes needed to become Speaker of the House on January 3rd because several or more
"Freedom Caucus" Trumpstains don't vote for him ... Maybe an outside, non-member of Congress (e.g. retired federal Judge Michael Luttig :yikes:) will be elected Speaker by mostly GOP and several conservative Dems (which could very much limit the obstructive Trumpy shenanigans next year)

• Sen. "Moscow Mitch" MCConnell loses Senate Minority Leader title (unlikely, but one can still hope)

• Senate Dems form Senate Select Cmte on January 6th Insurrection to pick up where House Select Cmte will leave off after the GOP takes over in the House

• with 2022 midterm elections concluded, by mid-December the DoJ indicts Individual-1 (at least for Obstruction of Justice, maybe also for Espionage) and/or Fulton County, GA district attorney begins indicting 2020 election interference co-conspirators (e.g. Guiliani, Meadows, fake electors, et al)

We need a global movement to end party politics, as it is a bad system. — universeness

Politics is always ugly and I think you'll always get bad people grasping for power. Here in New England many municipalities have direct democracy - town meetings where either all adult residents or elected local representatives vote. It works reasonably well for small towns, but breaks down the larger the group gets. I think there have to be established and enduring institutions that provide vision and continuity. As badly as it sometimes seems to be working, I can't think of a better mechanism than some sort of party system.

As for the US midterm election, some are saying this will be the beginning of the end of the 30+ year Republican rampage against governance. I hope that's true.

It's a mistake to think that conservatives are all better now, having gotten Trump out of their system.

Conservative interests and politics have been a negative and enduring drag on American life for a long time. Whether they are called "republican" or "democrat" doesn't matter that much. Conservatives resisted legislation to establish Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, social welfare programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and more. Southern Democrats (DBA conservatives) imposed race-based limitations on progressive programs such as UI and and federal housing programs.

Democrats are not eligible for political sainthood either, but they have tended to be more progressive than their conservative counterparts.

One can imagine many schemes that could/would/might thwart partisan politics. We could, for instance, select people at random to fill seats in Congress or Parliament. Why don't we try it?

We don't try such schemes for three reasons. First, groups of people have real interests and they are often at odds with other groups. Hence, politics. Second, whenever a convention is held to conceive reform, politics is present at the moment of conception. A political disinterested constitutional convention is an oxymoron. Third, even IF some scheme were devised that would eliminate the emergence of political parties, it would require some sort of heavy handed administrative body to enforce it. The anti-political administration would end up being worse than the political parties.

Smaller reforms in the way politics operates are a better bet. Maintaining open access to the polls, for instance, is one such approach. Conservatives (in the US) have tended to erect barriers to voter access. Or, recently, they have tried to eliminate voting by mail. Public financing of campaigns is another smaller idea.

I would say your concern regarding the size of the populous being represented and the doubt you express regarding an alternative to party political systems, is probably the majority viewpoint at the moment. However think about the advantages of removing the 'party loyalty,' aspect of politics. In UK politics you have this ridiculous idea of 'whipping' party members. You even have a ridiculous job called the chief whip. The labels used betray how undemocratic party politics can be. Then there is the issue of internal party factions. You get stupid labelling such as 'the left of a right-wing party' and the right of a left-wing party and even occasions when they may join each other and become a new centralist party.
All such nonsense detracts from the much more important actual issues that face the country and the people these party donkeys represent. You also have the awful situation that people will vote for the party and not the candidate. So, if a complete fruit loop stands as a republican in a gerrymandered republican area then it will get elected and everyone the fruit loop represents, suffers for it.
Do you not agree that these are some of the reasons why politics are so toxic at the moment?

It seems to me that coalitions are in general less harmful when compared to any significant party majority. Surely a government of independents who were actually voted in because they have convinced people at a local level that they have their best interests at heart is got to be better that voting for a party label, and not a person.

I think there have to be established and enduring institutions that provide vision and continuity. — T Clark

Why do we need this in politics? We need it in many other aspects of life, I agree, from the Army to the Rotary clubs but why do we need opposing political armies? Party politics has not not shown itself to be a good system, surely, we can do better.
Why did America bring in mid-term elections, was it not as a check, a balnce to ensure that things could not get too bad and go to far before the people had another input of consent?
I think midterms became a good idea in America based on what can happen, if you allow a government based on a party majority, to go full term, before any such checks and balances in place.

We could, for instance, select people at random to fill seats in Congress or Parliament. — Bitter Crank

That would be madcap, which is why I don't and didn't suggest it.

even IF some scheme were devised that would eliminate the emergence of political parties, it would require some sort of heavy handed administrative body to enforce it. The anti-political administration would end up being worse than the political parties. — Bitter Crank

Well, I dont know the name of the current body of such political facilitators in the USA, but in the UK the body you describe is called the civil service. They often have interesting relationships with individual politicians and some people, see them as the one who hold the 'real' levers of power.
This has been dramatised seriously and comedically many times on British TV with programs such as Yes Minister etc. So, such admin bodies exist already in party political systems. I don't see how a government of independents, locally elected, would make that situation any worse. I think the job of civil servants would be made much easier without party politics and I think the civil servants would be kept in check by the second 'citizens chamber' I described earlier.

Smaller reforms in the way politics operates are a better bet. Maintaining open access to the polls, for instance, is one such approach. Conservatives (in the US) have tended to erect barriers to voter access. Or, recently, they have tried to eliminate voting by mail. Public financing of campaigns is another smaller idea. — Bitter Crank

I would accept trying all of the above and see if any of them improve on the status quo.
We must be at or very near the bottom by now so any improvements would be welcome I'm sure.

Surely a government of independents who were actually voted in because they have convinced people at a local level that they have their best interests at heart is got to be better that voting for a party label, and not a person. — universeness

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work. If you started out with 100 individual, independent representatives, they would start to make coalitions around specific issues. Those coalitions would grow, consolidate, and become institutionalized. Then they'd be political parties. I think it's inevitable, and for good reason. As I said, when a jurisdiction gets to a certain size, it is ungovernable as a direct democracy.

Do you not agree that these are some of the reasons why politics are so toxic at the moment? — universeness

I am not unbiased, but I think the reason things are so troubled in the US is simple. Starting in about 1970, the Republican Party decided winning elections was more important than governing the country.

A dead guy was elected in Pennsylvania. It reminds me of the Artemis Ward quote, “inasmuch as we don't seem to have a live statesman in our National Congress, let us by all means have a first-class corpse”. The absolute state of American elections.

It isn’t the two-party system that’s the problem—proportional representation, where those voted out can still cling to power in their coalitions and minority governments, is stupid. It’s that there isn’t an effective opposition. You could not get a sheet of paper between the official positions of the two parties.

I agree that many would find common cause, in fact I am relying on it. You and I disagree on many issues, but we do find some common ground on occasion. I doubt we would ever be members of the same political party, but we might vote the same way on certain issues. That's what we need. Issue by issue politics. Political independents, fighting for the interests of their own voters, who will negotiate and find common cause with other independents, who make up the government. It would be up to the second chamber and the civil servants to identify any unacceptable stealth tactics in use or any backroom deals in play when individual representatives vote.
Each representative would also have to answer every month, to their local constituency group. These groups would be made up of local volunteer, qualified and experienced stakeholders that reflect/mimic the elected second chamber of citizens. This constituency group would be there to ensure that the government representative was representing the will of the people who voted for them. The constituency would have the power to call for a local re-election, if it was strongly felt that the elected representative was not voting in the way they expected.

You could not get a sheet of paper between the official positions of the two parties. — NOS4A2

Is that not a reason for getting rid of both of them and every other political party and you voting for the local independent who best matches your viewpoints? PR and the single transferable vote are essential imo. Universal suffrage has to be the foundation of any democratic voting system.

I’m against voting in general. But I don’t think we should get rid of the parties. Parties can change. Party civil wars are welcome, in my opinion.

You could not get a sheet of paper between the official positions of the two parties. — NOS4A2

The Roe vs. Wade decision had 36 sheets of paper. The Dobbs decision had 213.

Your viewpoint seems a very large distance away from where I am.
I think we would struggle to find any common ground.
I agree with those who think that those who don't vote, stand on shakey ground, when they still want to be heard or have their viewpoints considered.

None of which was legislated in congress.

I doubt we would ever be members of the same political party, but we might vote the same way on certain issues. — universeness

We're both pretty liberal. I think you're a bit more on the @Bitter Crank branch of the party though.

Issue by issue politics. Political independents, fighting for the interests of their own voters, who will negotiate and find common cause with other independents, who make up the government. It would be up to the second chamber and the civil servants to identify any unacceptable stealth tactics in use or any backroom deals in play when individual representatives vote. — universeness

I'll go back to my original argument. It doesn't matter what would happen if we had our druthers. It only matters what is possible and sustainable. I don't believe the system you describe is either.

The only viewpoint under consideration when it comes to voting is deciding which person you want to decide matters for you.

New groups could be formed after each election, and it would probably be wise to limit the number of times any individual could be elected to become a member of the first chamber. — universeness

Term limits is smart, but it's another issue.

But if new group are formed after each election, that could be detrimental also: you simply wouldn't know what de facto your candidate will choose. It's the basic "problem" with coalition governments: you might pick a President in direct elections, but you never know who will be the prime minister as usually it's the one who finally gets the administration together, which might not be the leader of the largest party.

Now you wouldn't know which faction you would be voting for. If your an American, perhaps this idea is strange because you have just two parties, but in reality specific candidates would be hard to notice just what they represent.

I assume that you also have these "election surveys" where you can answer a question set from a broad variety of political issues and then get the candidates that are closest to you (and the most against your ideas). Usually in multiparty system you'll easily get the parties that are most against you, but many candidates that have answered the questions most according to you are from different parties. Some that you would never vote.

None of which was legislated in congress. — NOS4A2

Dobbs would not have happened if the Senate was Democratic during the last half of Obama's second term or while Trump was president.