NationStates Jolt Archive

People have debated for essentially the entire existance of the country on whether a strong third party is useful, practical, or not. I think it would be, especially considering the recent distaste for the strong parties in the U.S. My father thinks differently, as he feels a strong third party right now would destroy the country.(He uses the Green party taking votes away from Gore in 2000 as evidence.)

We need a strong third party. Having to choose from just one of two sides, each of which presents some likeable aspects with a huge deal of dislikeable ones is ridiculous. We need a strong, center party. It is practical, and can be done. I, for instance, wish to reform the Libertarian party so that it becomes such a strong third party. What is your opinion? (Poll coming, so hold on.)

I believe that this country needs a third party. Right now, there's only two parties that have a chance of winning anything. It's completely unfair and it's nearly impossible for a third party to gain much ground. Whenever a thrid party or independent canidate gains ground and has great ideas, the two major parties take those ideas and add them to their platforms.

Well, the way I see it is that we need a party for the left, so all the leftists don't need to tag along with the Democrats and they in turn might be able to pull moderates from the ranks of the Republicans. Not very realistic, but I can dream, can't I? :p

The Democrats and Republicans in my opinion have failed and are just corrupt (Republicans more so). There needs to be a change. I'm in favor of a party that has ideas from both parties, like a Centrist Party.

Well, the way I see it is that we need a party for the left, so all the leftists don't need to tag along with the Democrats and they in turn might be able to pull moderates from the ranks of the Republicans. Not very realistic, but I can dream, can't I? :p

A party of Moderates and Leftists sounds like a good idea.

This is unrealistic but a nice idea: The minor political parties should band together or something, a coalition party of some sorts.

remember this, the Democrats were once a Third party in the US elections.

Why not more than 3?

The minor political parties should band together or something, a coalition party of some sorts.

Its tricky for the same reasons that D/R coalitions are.

Say the Libertarians (yo!), the Greens, and the Socialists start working together to petition to get candidates on the ballot, share info tables, etc.

First off is the issue of fair play. Most people would be honest, since all the minor parties are trying to simply gain basic access to the system. However the Socialist agenda is directly opposed to the Libertarian agenda. As a Lib it would be hard for me to endorse any sort of socialst policy.

Such coalitions will also confuse an already unsettled 'average' voter. Its hard enough to clarify one minor party platform to a voter, to be working in a situation where you have to cope with 2 or 3 ideals is insane.

There is also the matter of returns. I am most familiar with Ohio politics where if such a coalition existed, the Libs would be bringing in more help and organization than the Greens and Socialists combined. So the LPO would not get a good return on its investment of time and organization while the socialists would have a windfall.

I agree with the party leadership. At the state level its just too hard to organize, deliver a clear message, keep people honest, and maintain a party identity. However I have also done some work at the campus level, with smaller groups acting somewhat independently of the main state parties, this kind of organization could work. It could also go disastrously wrong.

Like most politics its great on paper, but is almost guaranteed to cause more harm than good.

http://lp.org for more info on the Libertarian party. Even if you disagree with me, at least be informed about it.

http://peirceforohio.com/ if you are in Ohio.

Three things needed for true democracy, the closer it gets to these, the more democratic a country is:

1. Educated voters
2. The biggest number of candidates possible
3. The largest amount of voters possible

What do we have in the US?

1) Voters who can't tell the difference between Pat Buchanon and Al Gore (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/66/Butterfly_large.jpg).
2) Choosing between the lesser of two evils.
3) More people who vote for American Idol than the American President.

Three things needed for true democracy, the closer it gets to these, the more democratic a country is:

1. Educated voters
2. The biggest number of candidates possible
3. The largest amount of voters possible

What do we have in the US?

In the U.S. we need more voters. Voter turnout is horrible. Confidence in the government needs to be regained. I was going to join the Socialist Party but it would limit the number of elections and primaries I could vote in. Thusly, I had to choose the lesser of two evils, the Democrats.

There are plenty of people elidgeable to vote and there are some educated voters. The whole thing's a mess. It would be nice to have a multiparty system. But, I wouldn't want it to be like the Italian government, what a mess they have. A good example would be Canada or Britain.

Whilst it might be practical if there were 3 'contending' parties, I dont believe that getting matters to that point is practical in the context of the current US electoral system.

Frankly I dont see much hope for improvement in the US political situation, or even much hope of slowing down the rot, independent of drastic happenings.

Probably the best way to address the situation would be to overhaul the electoral system.

Whilst it might be practical if there were 3 'contending' parties, I dont believe that getting matters to that point is practical in the context of the current US electoral system.

Frankly I dont see much hope for improvement in the US political situation, or even much hope of slowing down the rot, independent of drastic happenings.

Probably the best way to address the situation would be to overhaul the electoral system.
We certainly need to do that too, as well as direct elections towards the issues rather than mud-slinging all the time. I could care less about the personal lives of any candidate. I care about their stances on the issues, and that is what matters! Ooooh I sometimes wish I could just choke some sense into the American public...

Whilst it might be practical if there were 3 'contending' parties, I dont believe that getting matters to that point is practical in the context of the current US electoral system.

Frankly I dont see much hope for improvement in the US political situation, or even much hope of slowing down the rot, independent of drastic happenings.

Probably the best way to address the situation would be to overhaul the electoral system.

What aspects in your opinion need an overhaul and how? A strong third party can exist, the people just need to be educated to that. many see that registering for a third party is a waste of their vote. they need to learn that it won't. All I know is that some serious work needs to be done. What kind of work? I don't know.

This is unrealistic but a nice idea: The minor political parties should band together or something, a coalition party of some sorts.Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the current US two-party demockery the result of political consolidation?

One of the things I've never understood about Americans, is that so many of them say that 3rd parties are a waste of time & votes.

When I look at the US parties, it seems to me that the opposite is true. I have a very hard time differentiating the actual policies of the two parties... I guess that's also why I always have a wee bit of a giggle, when someone criticises Bush & another tries to defend him by bashing Clinton.

There is a very strong risk, given the nature of politics in the USA, that a third party would simply draw off all of the 'undecided' voters and leave the country permanently in either a state of coalition between two parties, or with one party in permanent control.

The problem with coalitions is that the government does not represent what any group of people voted for. So it ceases to be representative in any way.

We definitely need a 3rd-party to step in. The first and second parties will grow too complacent and lose interest in the governed (as is now) w/o having a 3rd-party to counter.

The republicand and democrats for the most part are very different. Almost opposite ends of the spectrum. A think a third party would bring in alot of support if they took ideas from both parties. They would attrach moderates from both parties, hopefully. A party in between the line of the other two.

There is a very strong risk, given the nature of politics in the USA, that a third party would simply draw off all of the 'undecided' voters and leave the country permanently in either a state of coalition between two parties, or with one party in permanent control.

The problem with coalitions is that the government does not represent what any group of people voted for. So it ceases to be representative in any way.Which is why a good 10 major parties is great for democracy, and majority governments aren't terribly desirable.

How about you guys down in the States take a few of our Conservatives and Liberals while we take some of your Republicans and Democrats? Then Canada and America would both have FOUR parties! :p

Which is why a good 10 major parties is great for democracy, and majority governments aren't terribly desirable.

I don't think 10 major political parties would be very good. In elections neither party would get a majority and there would be elections after elections. Even if a coalition between several was formed, the coalition could fracture. Italy is a prime example of this. their system is even more of a mess than America's.

How about you guys down in the States take a few of our Conservatives and Liberals while we take some of your Republicans and Democrats? Then Canada and America would both have FOUR parties! :p

The Republicans and Democrats are basically what your Conservative and Liberal Parties are.

The republicand and democrats for the most part are very different. Almost opposite ends of the spectrum. A think a third party would bring in alot of support if they took ideas from both parties. They would attrach moderates from both parties, hopefully. A party in between the line of the other two.

How exactly are the Democrats and the Republicans on "almost opposite ends of the spectrum"?

I can't think of a single issue where that is the case.

I don't think 10 major political parties would be very good. In elections neither party would get a majority and there would be elections after elections. Even if a coalition between several was formed, the coalition could fracture. Italy is a prime example of this. their system is even more of a mess than America's.Hmm.. So it's better to have a static policy, perpetuated by 2 monolithic parties that prevent any change in the political landscape, than it is to have a democracy where shit occationally doesn't work, because parties can't cooperate.

Well that's your opinion. I heartily disagree. The more parties the better & the less majority governments, the better. A government in a democracy shouldn't govern by virtue of having eliminated all other voices. That defeats the purpose of democracy - and that is why I have never, and will never, consider the US "democratic". You're a father-knows-best state with twin daddies.

How exactly are the Democrats and the Republicans on "almost opposite ends of the spectrum"?Indeed. The two parties the Dems and Reps compare to over here are the Conservative CDU for the Democrats and it's Bavarian sister-party the CSU for the Republicans.

Hmm.. So it's better to have a static policy, perpetuatted by 2 monolithic parties that prevent any change in the political landscape, than it is to have a democracy where shit occationally doesn't work, when parties can't cooberate.

Well that's your opinion. I heartily disagree. The more parties the better & the less majority governments, the better. A government in a democracy shouldn't govern by virtue of having eliminated all other voices. That defeats the purpose of democracy - and that is why I have never, and will never, consider the US "democratic". You're a father-knows-best state with twin daddies.

I'm all for a strong third party. having 10 or so would clog up the electoral system and nothing would get done. I'm in favor of several parties. Britain and Canada have more than two major parties but not over a dozen (as far as I know). We're a father-knows-best state? That is ridiculous! Just for the sake of knowing, what country are you from?

How exactly are the Democrats and the Republicans on "almost opposite ends of the spectrum"?

I can't think of a single issue where that is the case.

A big difference is how they want to use our tax money. Democrats are all for using it for welfare and educational programs. Republicans don't really support those ideas, they want the people to keep the money. There are other differences but I'm too lazy to type them all out.

I'm all for a strong third party. having 10 or so would clog up the electoral system and nothing would get done.Why?
I'm in favor of several parties. Britain and Canada have more than two major parties but not over a dozen (as far as I know).Both countries are rather small, compared to the US.

We're a father-knows-best state? That is ridiculous! Just for the sake of knowing, what country are you from?All over the place, really. But I'd love to know why you think it's ridiculous to call the US a father-knows-best state?

Is it because the Republicrats & Democants have drastically different policies? Or is it because they don't prevent any other parties from having influence?

In the U.S. we need more voters. Voter turnout is horrible. Confidence in the government needs to be regained. I was going to join the Socialist Party but it would limit the number of elections and primaries I could vote in. Thusly, I had to choose the lesser of two evils, the Democrats.

There are plenty of people elidgeable to vote and there are some educated voters. The whole thing's a mess. It would be nice to have a multiparty system. But, I wouldn't want it to be like the Italian government, what a mess they have. A good example would be Canada or Britain.

Multiparty systems being inherently unstable is a myth. They can be, sure. But it is perhaps more accurate to say that if a government is in decline, it will be decline faster in a more PR system, but if it is popular it remains just as strong as a absolute majority government.

In the US legislature there is no whipping system as the Europeans would define it, many on this side of the pond see that as being 'a mess', but it works, and I'm sure a multiparty system would work in the US aswell.

And I wouldn't say we in the UK are a good example, we have 'fusion of powers', whereby the highest ranks of all three branches of government are sitting members of parliament, and all of parliament is controlled by the almost-tyranical whips of the Prime Minister.

More than just a third party. There should be equal opportunity, and equal funding (or lack thereof) for as many parties as want to form in any particular district, state or country.

Why?
Both countries are rather small, compared to the US.

All over the place, really. But I'd love to know why you think it's ridiculous to call the US a father-knows-best state?

Is it because the Republicrats & Democants have drastically different policies? Or is it because they don't prevent any other parties from having influence?

Why? having THAT many parties would jam up the system. No party would win amajority of votes, thus there would need to be another election, then another and so on. Plus, even if a coalition was formed, it may break up. I'm not opposed to a multiparty system. It's just that having THAT many means nothing would ever get done.

Yes, both countries are smaller. But I like they way they run them. They have a multiparty system but not a gorss one.

The government doesn't oppress the people. I don't live in fear of being taken away in the night. I can say what I want. I can bash Bush as much as I want and not have to fear the consequences. I may hate the government, but I love America and what it should stand for.

A big difference is how they want to use our tax money. Democrats are all for using it for welfare and educational programs. Republicans don't really support those ideas, they want the people to keep the money. There are other differences but I'm too lazy to type them all out.

You're thinking American liberalism versus American conservatism. I'm talking about the parties and their actual policies in office. There are significant differences, especially since the Democrats have moved considerably to the right of most US liberals.

The Democrats and Republicans should just go ahead and merge. That might help clear up most people's political confusion.

I'm not saying a multiparty system is unstable. I'm in favor of one. But a system with over 10 major political parties will make it impossible for anything to get done. The government would keep changing every six months.

Probably the best way to address the situation would be to overhaul the electoral system.
And since the people in charge of making election laws belong to the two major parties, there's no chance of meaningful reform on that front. I've said it before--the one issue where you can always count on bipartisanship is the question of two-party, and only two-party, rule.

hell, if I was a Democrat or republican in power. I'd possibly oppose a third party. because I may lose my office.

Why? having THAT many parties would jam up the system. No party would win amajority of votes, thus there would need to be another election, then another and so on. Plus, even if a coalition was formed, it may break up. I'm not opposed to a multiparty system. It's just that having THAT many means nothing would ever get done.

Yes, both countries are smaller. But I like they way they run them. They have a multiparty system but not a gorss one.

The government doesn't oppress the people. I don't live in fear of being taken away in the night. I can say what I want. I can bash Bush as much as I want and not have to fear the consequences. I may hate the government, but I love America and what it should stand for.

There's a difference between majority and plurality ;)

Why? having THAT many parties would jam up the system. No party would win amajority of votes, thus there would need to be another election, then another and so on. Plus, even if a coalition was formed, it may break up. I'm not opposed to a multiparty system. It's just that having THAT many means nothing would ever get done.

Both parties in the US system are really just coalitions, and the alliances that form them are not really more coherent or logical than those formed by most multiparty systems. The only real difference is that the whole arrangement is less official and more static, and that is undemocratic - it restrains the capability for new, possibly more representative coalitions to be formed.

What aspects in your opinion need an overhaul and how?
For a start I wouldnt have a bar of the whole electoral college thing.

I believe that any political system where the person the majority of votes were cast for, and the person who officially 'wins' the election can be two different people, is flawed. I favour portional representation.

A strong third party can exist, the people just need to be educated to that. many see that registering for a third party is a waste of their vote. they need to learn that it won't. All I know is that some serious work needs to be done. What kind of work? I don't know.
Well the problem with this assertion is that in the current context it is not true that lack of education is the reason why 3rd parties do not do well. It's true that many see registering with a third party as a waste of their vote, the problem is that as things stand coming to believe otherwise would come about not through learning but through being mistaken.

Supporting a third party is a waste of a vote so long as no third party is actually a realistic contender - no third party will become a realistic contender so long as supporting it is a waste of a vote....catch 22.

I'm not intimately familiar with the workings of the US political system (what the heck is with the whole registering thing....?), so I can only give generalised imput. I would suggest that a porportional representation system would be preferable to the current system, that 'lobbying' needs to be brought under control.

The US public could help by being wiser better educated voters. It seems to me that 'dumbing down' is increasingly a celebrated ideal in the US, while intelligence and critical thinking are increasingly ridiculed and denigrated.

A big difference is how they want to use our tax money. Democrats are all for using it for welfare and educational programs. Republicans don't really support those ideas, they want the people to keep the money. There are other differences but I'm too lazy to type them all out.

I genuinely do not mean any offence, but I think this stems from your ignorance of the political spectrum as it exists globally.

On the extreme left we would somewhere like North Korea where the government has complete control over its citizens' monies and invests them in creating a state that concerns itself completely with the everyday affairs of its citizens. Let us place this as [0].

On the extreme right we would then have somewhere like Monacco. The Monaccan government does not have the right to levy income tax on anyone but resident Americans and Frenchmen. Monacco has a negligible welfare state, even Fire Departments rely on charitable donations to stay afloat. Monacco is widely considered to be a 'tax haven'. Let us place this as [10].

In real terms the Democrats and Republicans would stand at around [7.5] and [7.8] respectively. Both parties use rhetoric to appeal themselves to voters outside of their range, but in reality their policies will rarely deviate from this .3 gap.

The Democratic Party and republican Party may have many similaritis with some differences. The big difference in politics are Liberals and Conservatives. It's when those two groups are in the two parties are when we see major differences.

Why? having THAT many parties would jam up the system. No party would win amajority of votes, thus there would need to be another election, then another and so on. Plus, even if a coalition was formed, it may break up. I'm not opposed to a multiparty system. It's just that having THAT many means nothing would ever get done.If what you're saying is true, then why not prove it? If you don't know where to start, try the Scandinavian countries.

The point I'm trying to get across to you, is that 1 party majority isn't desirable in a democracy. It allows the one party to force through policy, regardless of a united opposition. If you ask around in some of the democratic countries in Europe, I'm sure people will tell you that the occational majority governments have always been the worst - for that very reason.

Yes, both countries are smaller. But I like they way they run them. They have a multiparty system but not a gorss one.Well.. The UK is a piss poor example, as has already been mentioned. It's ripe for abuse.

The government doesn't oppress the people.How do you know? It's not like you have any way to change who weilds the political power... Oh wait! Isn't that oppression in & of itself?

I don't live in fear of being taken away in the night. I can say what I want. I can bash Bush as much as I want and not have to fear the consequences.I'm aware your twin-daddy is comparatively benevolent. I haven't claimed anything else.

I may hate the government, but I love America and what it should stand for.Why on Earth wouild you hate the government in a democratic country? If you dislike it, you can replace it... Right?
Likewise, how is it relevant that you love what a country should stand for, if you have no way of making it happen?

On the extreme left we would somewhere like North Korea where the government has complete control over its citizens' monies and invests them in creating a state that concerns itself completely with the everyday affairs of its citizens. Let us place this as [0].

The "extreme left" according to whom?

There are at least a hundred varieties of "extreme left," and while some undoubtedly tend towards something resembling the picture you paint, North Korea (not an idealized view of North Korea, but actual North Korea) is not exactly the best depiction of the vast majority of said varieties.

The Democratic Party and republican Party may have many similaritis with some differences.

A few differences, yes. The Democrats tend to be more multilateral in foreign policy, more secular in social policy, and marginally more left-wing economically than the Republicans. But the differences are slight, and there is far more disagreement between the radical and moderate factions within the parties than there is between the moderates (who tend to hold the power) in either party.

If what you're saying is true, then why not prove it? If you don't know where to start, try the Scandinavian countries.

The point I'm trying to get across to you, is that 1 party majority isn't desirable in a democracy. It allows the one party to force through policy, regardless of a united opposition. If you ask around in some of the democratic countries in Europe, I'm sure people will tell you that the occational majority governments have always been the worst - for that very reason.

Well.. The UK is a piss poor example, as has already been mentioned. It's ripe for abuse.

How do you know? It's not like you have any way to change who weilds the political power... Oh wait! Isn't that oppression in & of itself?

I'm aware your twin-daddy is comparatively benevolent. I haven't claimed anything else.

Why on Earth wouild you hate the government in a democratic country? If you dislike it, you can replace it... Right?
Likewise, how is it relevant that you love what a country should stand for, if you have no way of making it happen?

The Italian government is an example of a piss porr multiparty system. Why do you act like I'm against a system of more than two major political parties?

I can change who weilds political power. I can vote. I can back a canidate whom I support. I can't wave a magic wand to change the government. Chancge doesn't happen overnight. But I do what I can. Wht kind of oppression are you talking about? It must be different from what I think of opression. My one vote can't change the government, but many votes can.

Like I said, all I can do is vote and support the canidate I want. Or, I can run for a political office. I hate the present government under Bush.

For the sake of knowing, just tell me what country you're from.

The Italian government is an example of a piss porr multiparty system.Ok, but if their system is the problem, why isn't the similar systems of other countries also a problem?Why do you act like I'm against a system of more than two major political parties?I don't. I act like you're against a pluriform multi-party system - a system where it usually takes more then one party to form a government.I can change who weilds political power.Can it be done in practice, or just in theory? Do the two parties block all other contenders, or don't they?

If you only theoretically have the power to change your political landscape, I fail to see how you can insist you live in a democracy. To me, it seems like you live in a two-party regime with a nice paint job.My one vote can't change the government, but many votes can.So why aren't there more than two parties?I hate the present government under Bush.My sympathies, but it's a bit besides the point here.For the sake of knowing, just tell me what country you're from.Sorry, no.

I honestly don't know why other countries don't have the same problems as Itlay. if you know, then elighten me.

having a multiparty system doesn't mean that there can't be a coalition of political parties.

I can change who's in office. The two parties do block other parties, but it's also the people who are unwilling to support these thrid parties.

Many people don't think a third party stand a chance. I think a third party can have a chance, they just need the support of the people.

Thanks for the sympathies

I keep asking what country you're from so that I may be able to better understand who I'm dealing with and what political system you are under. Can I assume you're European?

The "extreme left" according to whom?

There are at least a hundred varieties of "extreme left," and while some undoubtedly tend towards something resembling the picture you paint, North Korea (not an idealized view of North Korea, but actual North Korea) is not exactly the best depiction of the vast majority of said varieties.

Allow me to clarify, I am refering to left and right in purely economic terms, the left being defined as 'tax-n-spend', and the right being 'laissez-fait', for social affairs i prefer to use the tags 'liberal' and 'authoritarian'.

Also, I do not intend to idealise North Korea (I hate tyranny more than anything else in the world), nor do I intend to demonise the Left, I mostly define myself as left-wing, I used to consider myself a socialist but my views eventually led to a strong respect (but with a hint of fear, like how one would feel towards a shark) for the Laws of the Market and an Anarchistic adoration of liberty, so much so that my views evolved out of that blanket term.

It is an imperative, if your nation is to progress beyond this state of nihil it has reached. I would hope that the Libertarian Party forms this third slot.

Also I think that Italy is getting an unfair picking on in this thread. For the most part Italy is a tolerant liberal democracy that manages to get on fine creating just laws and managing its economy.

The reign of Silvio Berlusconi was brought about by a fatal lack of confidence in the two main parties, Berlusconi, being a slick media tycoon flung together his party 'forza italia' (litterally a football chant, the equivilant of 'enguh-lund! engug-lund!'). 'Forza' was inherently a short-term project, whether it was intended to be or not, a reactionary movement to remind the political establishment that the people are important and should be listened to. Sometimes the most stable of democracies needs the short-sharp shock of a charismatic autocratesque leadership to reinvigorate politics (something that is impossible in the US system [to briefly return to the OP's topic], and arguably a reason why American political participation is in unreversable decline).

Silvio Berlusconi's reluctance to resign his post was simply him being a character, it is the sort of thing he would be expected to do, and that was the sort of passion Italians wanted back into politics. Alternatively, it was him being an asshat, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

Like the Roman Republic that preceded it by 2000 years, Italy's political problems do not lie within the constitution, but without it. Republican Rome suffered from an oligarchic aristocracy and abundant corruption. Italy also has quite a corruption problem (nothing compared to African countries, or the USA, but pretty corrupt by European standards), and suffers from highly destructive organised crime circuits.

But overall, Italy is a great country, one of the founders of the European project and a generally progressive tolerant liberal democracy.








... Okay Ambassadorio, that'll be €200, unmarked bills.

I honestly don't know why other countries don't have the same problems as Itlay. if you know, then elighten me.
I'm inclined to say "Pick a random EU country".having a multiparty system doesn't mean that there can't be a coalition of political parties.Eh.. I'm almost certain I don't understand what you're getting at. The statement is self-evidently correct. I could list a bunch of multi-party systems that are governed by coalitions of independent parties - and that, incidentially, is what I've been trying to tell you is a good thing.I can change who's in office.But you can't change what parties are in power. Thus your democratic influence has been reduced to electing which of the predefined candidates you want. Seeing as how static US policies are, I don't see how this translates to actual political influence.

To use an analogy; you're free to choose the colour on your walls, but not to choose where you live.Can I assume you're European?I'm European, yes.

1) Voters who can't tell the difference between Pat Buchanon and Al Gore (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/66/Butterfly_large.jpg).
2) Choosing between the lesser of two evils.
3) More people who vote for American Idol than the American President.


Its because the majority of people who do not vote feel that it matters not a wit if a DEMOCRAT or Reublican is elected. It will effect them the same way so why bother ? I know I work the polls at every election and when I ask why someone will not show up that is the answer I am given . " Whats the diffence " ? Should be the name of the third party .

The Democrats have to cater to the fringe elements of the left wing that form part of their base ...theu MUST cater to them to have even a small chance of winning...the left wing SCARES the living shit out of the vast majority of American voters..That is a FACT . The Republicans must count on their version of far right looneys and the ban gay marriage sects..they must pander to them because these are CORE voters ..the people who you can count on to come out and vote.

in a national election the party that gets the independents and the moderates to vote for them wins ..That is a FACT .

When the Democrats stop putting crazy left wingers like Kerry ( people have memories, they remember him comming home from Vietnam and throwing his medals away and screwing the shit out of his fellow soldiers by calling them ALL war criminals ) You cant put a moderate shine on a piece of shit like that..the voters saw through it ...one of the only people who could have lost to G . Bush...WHO had the bright Idea to put him up as a candidate ?
I can only suspect that they figured Bush was so bad that the American voters would vote for mickey mouse rather than put him back in power.

So whats a third party have to offer ? If its a moderate party it will draw the votes away from BOTH the reublicans and the Democrats..but here lies the conumdrum ...will that be enough to overcome the base of diehard looney toons from both the republicans and democrats along with those that just vote the party line because " thats what we always do " ?

In that case the MODERATES are out of power and you take the cahance of having an EXTREME right or left wing nut job in power...and in todays enviroment we are MOST certainly looking to the right wing nut case .

As it is you are more than likely going to get a Nader or an eccentric like Dean or Perot or some other extremist with a base ..and more than likely it will come from the left hand spectrum ..and that will guarantee a republican in power for years .

If the republicans get too moderate...then you will start seeing guys like Fallwell and other far right Christian fanatics forming the new American taliban party...They may not call it that but thats what it will be.
they just got a little sniff of power..and they are running around like nuts trying to get teachers to throw science out of school etc. etc.

So there you go . If either party swings too far to the left or right you will get a viable third party candacy...its gotta be a HUGE swing though or its just not gonna work .

On the face of it ..there is not that big a difference in the party platforms for most Americans to give a shit who is President. american Idol be damned .

A third party is a good idea, but only violent revolution will bring it.

The tree of liberty must be periodically refreshed with the blood of patriots.

The Democrats and Republicans in my opinion have failed and are just corrupt (Republicans more so). There needs to be a change. I'm in favor of a party that has ideas from both parties, like a Centrist Party.
This is insane. The two parties are already so similar. There is no need for another replica of the Republicrats.

Similization,

Sorry if my rantings haven't madde sense. I'm not sure how to properly word it. I am in favor of a multiparty system in America. A system with more than two major political parties. I'd like to see 2-4 other major political parties. That's not counting the Republicans and democrats. What I don't want to see is a system with 10+ political parties. in my opinion that just clogs up the electoral and legislative system. I'm not OVERLY familiar with European governments.

Getting people to vote for representitives from a certain political party is a way to change government. I can't even make a ripple in government. But a collective group who vote for a certain political party and canidates they endorse can make a splash.

A third party is a good idea, but only violent revolution will bring it.

The tree of liberty must be periodically refreshed with the blood of patriots.


This is insane. The two parties are already so similar. There is no need for another replica of the Republicrats.

One thing I'm not in favor of is using violence to bring about change. A Centrist-like party would bring in moderates, independents, etc.

One thing I'm not in favor of is using violence to bring about change. A Centrist-like party would bring in moderates, independents, etc.
You don't think that the two parties already share enough policies? The supposed great ideological divide is mostly exaggeration and cosmetics.

You don't think that the two parties already share enough policies? The supposed great ideological divide is mostly exaggeration and cosmetics.

...I'm just throwing ideas out there. Ideas for a third political party. I would like to see a moderate party. because I'm liberal on some issues but mainly liberal.

You cant even get people to vote...and your going to some how get them to revolt ? :D

gimme a friggin break .

It would be great if a thread coud be taken seriously at times .
This one actually deserves it .

I am about as social liberal / libertarian as they come ..so why is it the democrats suck so bad to me ?

Can you answer that ? when you can you may be able to figure out why they cant win an election .

Similization,

Sorry if my rantings haven't madde sense. I'm not sure how to properly word it. I am in favor of a multiparty system in America. A system with more than two major political parties. I'd like to see 2-4 other major political parties. That's not counting the Republicans and democrats.
Hehe, OK.What I don't want to see is a system with 10+ political parties. in my opinion that just clogs up the electoral and legislative system.Not having a limit on the number of parties, and encouraging as many as possible, makes the political process accessible to the citizens.

It also means that any given party can concentrate on representing their voters, rather than simply trying to manipulate public opinion & behaving like populists - and as an added bonus, you don't end up with parties, where you have to lynch gays to get a tax decrease.Getting people to vote for representitives from a certain political party is a way to change government. I can't even make a ripple in government. But a collective group who vote for a certain political party and canidates they endorse can make a splash.In theory, yes. But the reality of the situation is that this is impossible. That means the very reason for putting up with the inherently unfair & ridiculously complicated morass that democracy is, has been removed.

And like I've said before, this is why I called the US demockery a "twin-daddy-knows-best" state.

You cant even get people to vote...and your going to some how get them to revolt ? :D

gimme a friggin break .

It would be great if a thread coud be taken seriously at times .
This one actually deserves it .

I am about as social liberal / libertarian as they come ..so why is it the democrats suck so bad to me ?

Can you answer that ? when you can you may be able to figure out why they cant win an election .
Propaganda.

...I'm just throwing ideas out there. Ideas for a third political party. I would like to see a moderate party. because I'm liberal on some issues but mainly liberal.
What is your idea of moderate? Republicans are on the solid right, Democrats are centre-right. Maybe you're looking for the Green party? America already has numerous parties vying to be #3, why start up yet another one?

Similization,

Limiting the number of political parties seems undermocratic, I understand what you're getting at. But, let's try to get at least one major third party on its' feet before we start discussing the possibilities of others. Someday, there will be a third major political party. When? I can't say. Will there be more than that one? I can't say. It's just in my opinion that TOO many political parties would just make it even more difficult.

What is your idea of moderate? Republicans are on the solid right, Democrats are centre-right. Maybe you're looking for the Green party? America already has numerous parties vying to be #3, why start up yet another one?

A moderate is someone who's willing to compromise. Someone who's conservative of some issues and liberal on others.

Here's my political party: The Procrastination Party

Platform: We'll tell you when we get around to it

Motto: ''There's always Tomorrow"

A moderate is someone who's willing to compromise. Someone who's conservative of some issues and liberal on others.

Otherwise known as "Catch-All Parties".

Otherwise known as "Catch-All Parties".

I can't say I've ever heard that phrase before.

I can't say I've ever heard that phrase before.
If anyone has ever studies politics, they will have come across it.

Depending on where you are from, there are varying examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_all_party

If anyone has ever studies politics, they will have come across it.

Depending on where you are from, there are varying examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_all_party

That clears some things up. I actually intend to go to college and major in Political Sciences or Criminal Justice. So, I'm sure I'll run across that term further down the road.

We have plenty of third parties. We just need electoral changes:
-popular vote of presidents only(electoral college go byebye)
-at least one house of congress(preferably house of representatives) be elected proportionally, not by state. So even small parties can get a few seats. That will let their voices be heard and they might eventually get someone for president.

Take the last presidential election:
Republican-50.7%-220
Democrat-48.3%-210
Ind/Reform-.4%-2
Libertarian-.3%-1
Constitution-.1%-1
Other-.1%-1

Eventually parties would gain more seats because people realize they aren't full of hogwash. Then, they may be able to send a candidate that could become president.

I think it is a good idea. The Socialist Party of America should be good.

I think it is a good idea. The Socialist Party of America should be good.

I tried to join them.

A moderate is someone who's willing to compromise. Someone who's conservative of some issues and liberal on others.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. Define liberal and conservative in the context of both parties.

Propaganda.


I could say you are a poster child for birth controll ...that may be "propaganda "


Please take the time to elaborate on your argument ...if you have one .

Its high time the US had a third or more political parties. But, not just for the sake of voting against the Democrats or Republicans. Other parties must be clear on issues and expect a big fight, especially from the more corrupt GOP. Frankly, if Americans weren't so ignorant and complacent, I don't see why it would not be possible.

I could say you are a poster child for birth controll
Yes you could.

...that may be "propaganda "
I suppose it might be, but it's probably not of the kind of quality/magnitude that will win you an election...


Please take the time to elaborate on your argument ...if you have one .
If you want to elaborate specifically in regards to yourself you'd have to supply more information.

Generally speaking the Republicans and their supporters have cultural hegemony in the US at the moment. They are more effective at propaganda.

To put it bluntly, there was a lot less wrong with Kerry than there was with Bush, in fact Kerry was not a terrible candidate, yet he remains vilified and reviled.

Yes you could.


I suppose it might be, but it's probably not of the kind of quality/magnitude that will win you an election...



If you want to elaborate specifically in regards to yourself you'd have to supply more information.

Generally speaking the Republicans and their supporters have cultural hegemony in the US at the moment. They are more effective at propaganda.

To put it bluntly, there was a lot less wrong with Kerry than there was with Bush, in fact Kerry was not a terrible candidate, yet he remains vilified and reviled.


One question and be honest..what exactly did Kery stand for ?


We know what bush stands for ..but Kerry ????????

be Honest .

One question and be honest..what exactly did Kery stand for ?


We know what bush stands for ..but Kerry ????????

be Honest .
Honestly, if Bush stood for something it's news to me...honestly!:confused:

Since you apparently know what he stood for, could you clue me in because to me it was all about 'buzz-words' and sound-bites....

Honestly, if Bush stood for something it's news to me...honestly!:confused:

Since you apparently know what he stood for, could you clue me in because to me it was all about 'buzz-words' and sound-bites....


No democracy,,aside from the US of course ...ever attacked another country....but we did because we felt threatened ...BAD BUSH ...BAD BOY !


democracy in the middle east...taking away the reasons to be terrorist..will secure the US better than just ignoring it.

when you get hit you hit back ...and hit Hard .


I have BALLS they dont .


I have a plan ...lets stop supporing dictaors and assholes and work towards supporting democracy in the middle east ...unlike what we have done in the past .


I could go on and on but see I'm an independent voter and get shot at from both sides ...the US has not given me tthe best body armor....:rolleyes:


WTF ???????????????

No democracy,,aside from the US of course ...ever attacked another country....but we did because we felt threatened ...BAD BUSH ...BAD BOY !


democracy in the middle east...taking away the reasons to be terrorist..will secure the US better than just ignoring it.
Democracy is one of those buzz words, 'taking away the reasons to be terrorist' missed that...
more to the point, buzz words and sound bites aside, Bush didnt go to the Middle East to democratise it - he went there to depose the reigning regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq on the basis that Afghanistan wouldnt hand over Osama (democracy just a side-effect) and on the basis that Saddam was a nutter with WMD (democracy a side-effect)...yes I know he said democracy a lot, along with 'freedom', 'family values', 'national security', etc...but at the end of the day that's because these words/phrases have a certain ring to them, and evoke certain emotive responses....that's why they are buzz words.

when you get hit you hit back ...and hit Hard .
Again sound bites and buzz words...what'd he steal that line out of a lost 'Rocky' script...

I have BALLS they dont .
Er, you must be joking! Who the frig are 'they'? I'm not even sure what this means and whether it is something Bush said or a summary of what you are alledging he stood for.

I have a plan ...lets stop supporing dictaors and assholes and work towards supporting democracy in the middle east ...unlike what we have done in the past .
Right...that explains why Saudi Arabia is in the bad books...oh hang on...ok well it explains the acceptance of the democratically elected Palestinian authority...oh, that's right...
Another words buzz words and sound bites. What was really going on was 'lets attack those I single out for attack and keep working with assholes if that is convinient to my ends...'


I could go on and on but see I'm an independent voter and get shot at from both sides ...the US has not given me tthe best body armor....:rolleyes:
None of this illustrates that Bush stood for anything. He simply capitalised on a national tradegy to push through his own agenda by manipulating the nation's mood in order to force feed meaningless rhetoric, buzz and sound bites down their throat.

What next? 'Family values'...come on these are meaningless rhetorical devices - buzz words and sound bites.


WTF ???????????????
As I said buzz and soundbites.

Bush didnt so far as I can tell stand for anything...he made a lot of noise about national security, freedom, spreading democracy, having a plan, because such words can often fool people into thinking you are actually saying anything...

Based on what you've shown here Bush stood for buzz words, rhetoric and manipulation - he had no plan just a general notion that 'this 'ill show em' - Kerry meanwhile stood for reasoning...you know why people failed to understand what Kerry was about? Honestly, because he had so much more faith (misplaced apparently) and respect for the US voters, he didnt dumb it down...

Democracy is one of those buzz words, 'taking away the reasons to be terrorist' missed that...
more to the point, buzz words and sound bites aside, Bush didnt go to the Middle East to democratise it - he went there to depose the reigning regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq on the basis that Afghanistan wouldnt hand over Osama (democracy just a side-effect) and on the basis that Saddam was a nutter with WMD (democracy a side-effect)...yes I know he said democracy a lot, along with 'freedom', 'family values', 'national security', etc...but at the end of the day that's because these words/phrases have a certain ring to them, and evoke certain emotive responses....that's why they are buzz words.


Again sound bites and buzz words...what'd he steal that line out of a lost 'Rocky' script...


Er, you must be joking! Who the frig are 'they'? I'm not even sure what this means and whether it is something Bush said or a summary of what you are alledging he stood for.


Right...that explains why Saudi Arabia is in the bad books...oh hang on...ok well it explains the acceptance of the democratically elected Palestinian authority...oh, that's right...
Another words buzz words and sound bites. What was really going on was 'lets attack those I single out for attack and keep working with assholes if that is convinient to my ends...'



None of this illustrates that Bush stood for anything. He simply capitalised on a national tradegy to push through his own agenda by manipulating the nation's mood in order to force feed meaningless rhetoric, buzz and sound bites down their throat.

What next? 'Family values'...come on these are meaningless rhetorical devices - buzz words and sound bites.



As I said buzz and soundbites.

Bush didnt so far as I can tell stand for anything...he made a lot of noise about national security, freedom, spreading democracy, having a plan, because such words can often fool people into thinking you are actually saying anything...

Based on what you've shown here Bush stood for buzz words, rhetoric and manipulation - he had no plan just a general notion that 'this 'ill show em' - Kerry meanwhile stood for reasoning...you know why people failed to understand what Kerry was about? Honestly, because he had so much more faith (misplaced apparently) and respect for the US voters, he didnt dumb it down...


you said alot of shit...


but did you ever say what Kerry was about ?


now you know why Bush is president .

you said alot of shit...Smelt better than yours though. but did you ever say what Kerry was about ?Are others allowed to reply? now you know why Bush is president .He's a lying, manipulative bitch for the PNAC? Don't worry, that's not news. Knew about that before he stole the first election.

you said alot of shit...


but did you ever say what Kerry was about ?


now you know why Bush is president .
I already knew why Bush was president. It's not because Kerry didnt say anything. He said plenty and frankly what he said demonstrated that he was a better man for the job.

Kerry stood for presidential responsibility and accountability, he stood for leadership and both national and international statesmenship, and governmental integrity. He stood for democracy and freedom and family values, not as buzz words but as real tangibles - for instance civil liberties and transparency of government, accessable and adequate education, health care and standards of living, he stood for bi-partianship in issues of national importance and a realistic, worldly-wise approach to international relations.

To add another shade to this discussion, let's consider the history of the voting system in the USA:

The Founding Fathers deliberately decided that electoral results should be limited to the smallest possible number of parties needed to still maintain the illusion of choice, two. This may seem out of character, but remember, the USA was never intended to be an experiment in democracy, as evidenced by the fact that until relatively recently Senators were appointed by states and slavery was accepted. Indeed, for a long time America lagged behind its former Imperial master Britain in terms of democratic government. It could be argued it still does, as Britain's highest legal authority is an elected parliament, while America's is a largely static document, never voted on, and written by an unelected vanguard.

But I digress, the Founding Fathers were aiming to create a perpetual federation. And they feared, perhaps quite likely, that if genuine political choice was given to the people early on in the project then they would vote to end it almost instantly. Imagine the first Continental Congress with PR; the congregation would be so factionalised that the Unionist project would die in its infancy.

And the problem could still be faced today. If PR was introduced what would be stopping secessionist parties being elected to office, or on the other side, parties that propose eroding states' rights in order to maintain a closer union. In short, the Founding Fathers felt that genuine choice would be a threat to their constitution, and so they protected it in any way possible, in the way that any writer would protect his creation from editors.

(This is largely me playing Devil's Advocate, I largely support a more proportional system in the USA)

And the problem could still be faced today. If PR was introduced what would be stopping secessionist parties being elected to office, or on the other side, parties that propose eroding states' rights in order to maintain a closer union. In short, the Founding Fathers felt that genuine choice would be a threat to their constitution, and so they protected it in any way possible, in the way that any writer would protect his creation from editors.

(This is largely me playing Devil's Advocate, I largely support a more proportional system in the USA)
The problems you refer to are not inherent in PR. If a PR elected government could do these things then so could a non-PR government.

Firstly in order for legislation to pass a majority of reps have to vote in favour. So in fact only if a party had the majority could it attempt such legislation - that being the case the situation is no different to the current status quo. Anything that cant be done with the status quo majority cant be done with a PR majority and anything a PR elected majority could do, so too could the status quo majority.

I dont quite see how a secessionist party would form a majority unless a significant number of people both in the state concerned and out of the state supported their platform.

In fact there is no reason why legislation that effects the fundamental operation of the current nation as a whole (for instance central v state government jurisdiction/rights, or member states to the union being added or secceeded (sp?)) couldnt require a particular portion of the representitive house rather than a simple majority.

By the way interesting treatise on the rationale of the 'founding fathers'...thanks for that tidbit!:)