New way of voting in the United States?

Question

Presidential election process:

What if, with each new term, we alternated between Democrat and Republican? There would still be a voting process to determine which candidate wins office, but it would not be between the two parties. What would be the ramifications?

Answer 1

Two troubling implications come immediately to mind:
The first is the likelihood that political volatility and partisan extremism would increase, as each party would be likely to "make the most" of it's turn in the Oval Office, and each successive president did his or her utmost to undo the actions of the previous administration and enact the policies most dear to his/her party.
The second, more troubling ramification is the elimination of "third-party" candidacies, which have, throughout U.S. history, been an important means by which new ideas are introduced into the public debate. Workers' rights, racial equality, and a host of less profound but equally important notions were first brought before the public not by the major parties but by presidential nominees of parties like the Socialists, Populists, Greenbacks, and Progressives. (When the Republican Party was founded as a vehicle for abolitionism and women's rights, it was a third party, toiling in the shadow of the Democrats and the Whigs.)
A system that excludes such candidacies stifles political development and the introduction of new ideas.

Answer 2

The electorate already has this option. They just have to vote that way. But we're not really into a neat system of preordained party control (of ANY branch or level of the government).

We like things messy.

There's a certain irreplaceable value to the random chaos of the parties fight for control of the White House, the Congress, the State House, the City Council and the School Board.

I like the chaos. It illuminates the best, and the worst in our candidates and their supporters.

Let's not dim the spotlight.

Answer 3

No, becasue it would limit our options and bring a instabiltiy to the growth process of our country. Unfortunately we are growing in the wrong direction, but hopefully that changes someday.

What we need are more strengent requirements to run for president. Last election there was a couple running that actually were the leaders of a canabis society. They looked like the manson family. If anyone voted for them, it thew off the votes.

Answer 4

Most states cannot legally secede from the US; this issue is addressed in the Constitution. However, since most items in the Constitution were purposely written to be open for interpretation, this was challenged by the south and led to the Civil War. Whether or not you believe the Civil War was a legal war depends on your interpretation. I also state most states cannot legally secede because there are exceptions. For example, Texas IS allowed to legally secede. This was written into their Constitution and agreed to by the US when they joined the Union.

Answer 5

What if, instead, everyone voted Libertarian? Then it would not be between the two parties! The ramifications would be wonderful.

Answer 6

I think something like that would completely change the way politicians strategize and might result in a lot more arguing on Capitol Hill than there is even now.

Answer 7

Why have an election then? They would just choose who they want to appoint the next time out. Nope....don't like this at all.

Answer 8

I would not like to see it happen. It would be a law that would limit peoples choices.