> it almost virtually guarantees no more Republican presidents.
No, it doesn’t, unless the Republican Party doesn’t adapt to changing conditions as it has continuously since it’s founding. It probably guarantees the Republican Party will realign slightly around some peripheral issues to shift it's geographic focus slightly while retaining it's core economic message, and
continue on without breaking stride.
This urban republicians and rual democrats are under represented in our current system. They have some what depressed turn out because of this. Changing to a popular vote empowers them on the national stage and will likely lead to increased turn out, shifting the Ballance.
There will always only be Democrats and Republicans, and because the system is a duopoly, when people get sick of one they will exercise their choice to revolve again to the other, round and round and round. Republicans are no more "finished" by Trump than Democrats were finished by Clinton.
Dislodging the duopoly (that is, opening the electoral system to 3rd parties) will require proportional representation full stop. Nothing else will do.
> There will always only be Democrats and Republicans, and because the system is a duopoly,
Maybe, but people probably thought that about Democratic-Republicans and Federalists, or Democrats and Whigs. The subsequent realignments have so far been more gradual adaptations within the existing major parties, but a radical and suddenly realignment destroying (and replacing, either immediately or in short order) one of the majors is still possible.
> Dislodging the duopoly (that is, opening the electoral system to 3rd parties) will require proportional representation full stop.
Something like that, yes. (Not necessarily party-list PR, but electoral systems with greater proportionality than FPTP.)
I don't think we disagree. Fair point about "Democrats" and "Republicans" not always helming the Duopoly, but I do maintain that FPTP + winner take all will always and inevitably lead to only 2 dominant parties, whatever they're called.
If you disagree with that last point, I sincerely hope you're right, but one need only cite the weight of history and Duverger's law to support it.
No, it doesn’t, unless the Republican Party doesn’t adapt to changing conditions as it has continuously since it’s founding. It probably guarantees the Republican Party will realign slightly around some peripheral issues to shift it's geographic focus slightly while retaining it's core economic message, and continue on without breaking stride.