NationStates Jolt Archive

According to a poll, that is:


In general, do you think the two-party system does a pretty good job of addressing the issues that are most important to people like you, or not?

Yes, pretty good job: 37%
No, not a good job: 57%
Don't know: 6%

Some people say we should have a third major political party in this country, in addition to the Democrats and Republicans. Do you agree or disagree?

Agree: 57%
Disagree: 36%
Don't know: 7%


(link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19373524/site/newsweek/))

Being French, I've always found a two-party system with a one-round election to be a very foreign idea, and not very democratic. The issue, of course, is: What would this third party be? What could its policies be?

The third party, how about a party that looks after the poor people in society and while ur at it why not change teh political system altogether making not only the rich people being able to win elections but rather making the elections more to do with political skill than money.

According to a poll, that is:



(link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19373524/site/newsweek/))

Being French, I've always found a two-party system with a one-round election to be a very foreign idea, and not very democratic. The issue, of course, is: What would this third party be? What could its policies be?

Yes, Great idea, the problem with the American Libertarian Party of America is its weak isolationist foreign policy and its insane defense of drug use, I thought you had a charismatic candidate in Harry Browne but his insane defense of drug use turned me off.

I loved his political add where he is shown blowing up the IRS - Internal Revenue Service Building, lol, an appropriate add to show his views on the issue.

But his weak isolationist foreign policy and insane defense of drug use turned me off.

I doubt the accuracy of that poll. It's one thing to whine about politicians in a poll that doesn't matter and say "sure why not" to getting a new option that has not even been defined. It's an entirely different matter to trust a new group of politicians enough to consider voting for them leading your country and then agreeing with their whole political agenda enough to really decide to vote for them. Judging by past election results the Americans seem to be pretty happy with either the Democrats or Republicans. If they really wanted another party then they would vote for another party in the elections.

I hope the third party will be these nice individuals: www.pirate-party.us

If they really wanted another party then they would vote for another party in the elections.

Faulty argument. As you well know, the US has a single-round electoral system, which results in votes for a third party being essentially "wasted". Most people opt to make their vote count by picking one of the two big parties.

It would be instructive to see what would happen if you introduced a two-round system.

The third party would be the Libertarian Party, since it's the largest one of the alternatives.

It would finally sort out the Republicans too - I can't see how anyone who knows anything about political philosophy and theory can't be offended by the GOP even existing.

Faulty argument. As you well know, the US has a single-round electoral system, which results in votes for a third party being essentially "wasted". Most people opt to make their vote count by picking one of the two big parties.

It would be instructive to see what would happen if you introduced a two-round system.
Faulty argument. Sweden has a single-round electoral system, 7 parties in the parliament and 5.6% of the votes in the last election went to parties outside of the parliament. So single-round elections does not lead to a two party system unless people choose to vote for only two parties and does not prevent people from voting for parties outside of parliament if they want to.

The third party would be the Libertarian Party, since it's the largest one of the alternatives.

It would finally sort out the Republicans too - I can't see how anyone who knows anything about political philosophy and theory can't be offended by the GOP even existing.
Well, with the Green Party. And I think that with the way our political system is at present, you really need a third and fourth party since we've pigeon-holed our politics into binary thought, so unless we can simultaniously introduce a third party and end thinking about politics as a binary, a third party will just split one side of things and hand it to the other as it has done in the last few elections.

The other major problem is we have to compel the current major parties to open the door for new ones, and of course that's a bit difficult. The other way to do it is from the bottom up-elect people from 'minor parties' in smaller local elections and start to effect the change from the bottom up until the major parties no longer have a choice.

It's just a matter of getting people interested in local politics, which is difficult without a church, apparently.

The third party, how about a party that looks after the poor people in society and while ur at it why not change teh political system altogether making not only the rich people being able to win elections but rather making the elections more to do with political skill than money.

Next thing you'll be suggesting higher welfare payments.. :rolleyes:

Faulty argument. Sweden has a single-round electoral system, 7 parties in the parliament and 5.6% of the votes in the last election went to parties outside of the parliament. So single-round elections does not lead to a two party system unless people choose to vote for only two parties and does not prevent people from voting for parties outside of parliament if they want to.

Our political system is heavily weighted towards the two major parties, from who gets coverage to who can qualify for ballots in all 50 states. It's far more than just 'no one votes for them therefore no one wants them.' In the last few elections (save the very last one) third party voting has been credited with changing the outcome of the election.

Our political system is heavily weighted towards the two major parties, from who gets coverage to who can qualify for ballots in all 50 states. It's far more than just 'no one votes for them therefore no one wants them.' In the last few elections (save the very last one) third party voting has been credited with changing the outcome of the election.
That I can agree to. If parties outside of parliament don't get any media coverage then they won't get many votes.

Parties need to qualify for ballots there? Here they basically just need arrange to get their ballot papers printed and distributed to the polling stations.

i want a system that either allows for an infinite and unlimited number and diversity of political parties to appear on the ballot, or does not require anyone to join one to do so. i don't really believe we can ever legitimately claim to have democratic freedom as long as a limited number of political parties can effectively shut out anyone who doesn't subscribe to one of them.

the differences between a one party system and two parties that differ more in immage then substance borders on being negligable.

the big problem though, is that i don't have the slightest idea how such a thing could be achieved, other, perhapse, then through constitutional law. which is to say a root constitution that provides for this and spells it out.

=^^=
.../\...

That I can agree to. If parties outside of parliament don't get any media coverage then they won't get many votes.

Parties need to qualify for ballots there? Here they basically just need arrange to get their ballot papers printed and distributed to the polling stations.
Not only do they have to qualify for ballots, but they qualify for matching funds based on the previous election results, so in order to get the monies needed to perform well they have to have already performed well...the whole point of Nader wasn't to win the election but to qualify the Green Party. The hitch was that he was supposed to back off if it looked like he'd tip the election, and he didn't. This upset the Green Party because they just wanted legitimacy, not to be the ones who threw the election the other way. But they did and he didn't manage to get the necessary votes to qualify the Green Party, either.

i want a system that either allows for an infinite and unlimited number and diversity of political parties to appear on the ballot, or does not require anyone to join one to do so. i don't really believe we can ever legitimately claim to have democratic freedom as long as a limited number of political parties can effectively shut out anyone who doesn't subscribe to one of them.

the differences between a one party system and two parties that differ more in immage then substance borders on being negligable.

the big problem though, is that i don't have the slightest idea how such a thing could be achieved, other, perhapse, then through constitutional law. which is to say a root constitution that provides for this and spells it out.

=^^=
.../\...
Well, unlimited candidates can sometimes land you Arnie for Governor...

Good. We need a third party.

if a third major party was created in the US i can quite see it being created out of the dregs of the established two, it wouldn't bring in fresh bodies and ideas.

I hope the third party will be these nice individuals: www.pirate-party.us

I've been waiting for any news from them. I think they're just now getting established in Utah. Utah, fir chrissakes. It's been a year, and all we have to show for it is Utah.

Then 57% of Americans should start supporting, and voting for, third party candidates.

I think political parties need to be disbanded... all this trouble is caused by the party system bullshit.

I think political parties need to be disbanded... all this trouble is caused by the party system bullshit.

So, then, what do we do about the freedom of association?

There are no problems with freedom of association, but there are problems with political parties. There is nothing wrong with a group of people taking common cause with one another. But now with all these poltical parties is we have two groups of pompous jackasses who have nothing in common with there associates other than that they hate the other group. The way congress and the president run these days is simply on that basis. Here's an example:

Congress ratifies law that would help provide health coverage for children.

President vetoes bill because it was written by the other party.

or

Politician actually somes up with a good idea for once

Good idea makes it from the house to the senate and seems to be going strong.

Knowing that they can't defeat it, a rival from another party tacks on another idea that would never make it.

Good idea is shot down because of the connected bad idea.

This shit happens all the time, its bull, simply because of party affiliations these people are running the nation into the ground. Its the induvidual who truly matters and these political parties are nothing more than abstract groups who butt heads. I have had enough, we either need to get rid of political parties or pick a fucking king.

The US could really use a party that's decently socialist, imo. But then when you have people screaming "commie" at the Democrats this seems unlikely.

They should really rewrite campaign laws to make smear campaigns illegal though, it should be some "positive campaign" sort of rule, where you're only allowed to run ads that say how awesome you are, not how shitty your opponent is. They should do that here too since politicians around here are starting to pick up the american trend of badmouthing their opponents.

The US could really use a party that's decently socialist, imo. But then when you have people screaming "commie" at the Democrats this seems unlikely.

There is an American Socialist Party

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

According to a poll, that is:



(link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19373524/site/newsweek/))

Being French, I've always found a two-party system with a one-round election to be a very foreign idea, and not very democratic. The issue, of course, is: What would this third party be? What could its policies be?

Two parties are too binary. It's too easy a choice.

I doubt the accuracy of that poll. It's one thing to whine about politicians in a poll that doesn't matter and say "sure why not" to getting a new option that has not even been defined. It's an entirely different matter to trust a new group of politicians enough to consider voting for them leading your country and then agreeing with their whole political agenda enough to really decide to vote for them. Judging by past election results the Americans seem to be pretty happy with either the Democrats or Republicans. If they really wanted another party then they would vote for another party in the elections.

You don't seem to understand how our system oppresses third parties, making it nearly impossible for them to mount a significant effect. Also, only 40% of the country votes. The other 60% might add in a third party.

If people want another party then why don't they vote for one?

There is an American Socialist Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America
Perhaps I should have said "a party that's decently socialist and stands more than a snowball's chance in hell of getting into power"

If people want another party then why don't they vote for one?

because the people who want another major party all want different things, obviously.

It'd pretty much have to come from the ruins of one of the two we have now, aye?

Being French, I've always found a two-party system with a one-round election to be a very foreign idea, and not very democratic. The issue, of course, is: What would this third party be? What could its policies be?

I'm American, and I whole-heartidly agree.

Americans are tribal voters*, so any talk of a third party is silly.

*The minority that votes, that is.

If people are serious about a third party, then they will vote for a third party in the election next November.

If they are not serious, then they will vote for one of the two parties for real, and vote third party in fantasy polls like the one in the OP.

It remains to be seen, but my money is on either the democrats or the republicans winning.

-->

If it were up to me though, religious conservatives would form their own party, and the contest would be 3-way between Democrats, Republicans and Religious People.

;)

many people are serious about a third party.....but it just so happens to be a large number of third parties. When the group you support has no candidate running for a position, or does, but did not make it onto the ballot, then who is there to vote for? With the current American system, it's always going to boil down to two major parties. It makes more sense for groups to join a larger party that has a better chance of winning and do what they can to influence that group than to stick it on their own. A run-off system would help to solve this problem. Other things that would help.....removing the idiot's ability to make one click, hole, etc. and vote a straight ticket......removing party affiliation from the names on the ballot. Anybody deserving to vote already knows the names of the people they want to vote for.

As I see it now, the best chance for a new party to gain real power in the forseeable future will come in the year 2012. This is due mostly to the inertia of the current system being such that both major parties wil have to discredit themselves before a third party has a realistic chance of winning in our winner take all single member district system.
More to the point, it is almost impossible for the Republcans to win next year unless the war looks like it will have a completely different outcome next year from what appears likely now. Thus, we're going to likely have a huge Democratic win in 2008 which will likely see The Hillary installed in the White House.
Power will not go directly from one discredited major party to a totally new party in one election. The base vote of both major parties will have to be cut into for a third party to win and the Democrats will not fragment next year even if the Republicans do. However, if Hillary's administration proves unable to carry out a program that can be bought into long term by a majority of the voters and the Republicans fail to reform themselves before 2012, there is likely to be a serious major party effort put forth in 2012.
My guess as for the most likely outcome, and I say this as one who does not endorse Hillary for president, is that she will manage a successful enough presidentcy to get a second term in 2012. The second most likely outcome is for the Republicans to make a comeback in 2012. However, the odds of a new party winning power at the national level in 2012 right now looks greater than at any time scince 1856. In that year, a new party called the Republicans pulled it off. And the system has a lot more inertia now than it did then, which is why it is such a hard feat to pull off.

The third party, how about a party that looks after the poor people in society and while ur at it why not change teh political system altogether making not only the rich people being able to win elections but rather making the elections more to do with political skill than money.

http://www.gamestar.de/community/gspinboard/images/smilies/atomrofl.gif

Yes, Great idea, the problem with the American Libertarian Party of America is its weak isolationist foreign policy and its insane defense of drug use, I thought you had a charismatic candidate in Harry Browne but his insane defense of drug use turned me off.

I loved his political add where he is shown blowing up the IRS - Internal Revenue Service Building, lol, an appropriate add to show his views on the issue.

But his weak isolationist foreign policy and insane defense of drug use turned me off.
Ah, another single issue voter.

I'm not really sure. I've been personally considering joining the Green Party, but I still feel that there may be more potential for change if the revolutionary left in America hijacks the Democratic party like some of us have been trying to do.

his insane defense of drug use turned me off.




Yeah, heaven forbid humans are allowed to choose what to put in their own bodies, imagine the chaos the world result....:eek:

Perhaps I should have said "a party that's decently socialist and stands more than a snowball's chance in hell of getting into power"

That might've been better but then, that is what some members of the Democratic Party are for. Some of them ARE socialists.

It'd pretty much have to come from the ruins of one of the two we have now, aye?

That's how the Republican Party got going. LOL

Yeah, heaven forbid humans are allowed to choose what to put in their own bodies, imagine the chaos the world result....:eek:

Dont forget that it isnt an issue just about personal freedoms - just think what would happen to the prison industry! Are you seriously suggesting we should cripple the prison industry by depriving it of half its trade? Where is your American pride? We have the highest incarceration rate - lets keep America number 1.

Then you also have the criminal gangs that make so much off of illicit drug sales - you would remove a major source of funding for them. The war on drugs adds so much character to the inner city, surely you wouldn't want to see that go away.

It really isn't about personal responsibility and individual freedoms - if that were true you could just point to what life was like before drugs were outlawed.

Democracy (be it a direct democracy or its cousin, the democratic republic) blows and a third party would only make it worse. Oh? What's that? You want REASONS for why democracy is a shit system? Let me count the ways:

1. Tyranny of the majority.

2. Since there is (1), you have an oppressed minority.

3. In regards to a democratic republic, representatives have a tendency to become career politicians, obsessed with power and money. And, apparently, young boys and/or chubby interns.

4. The individual is a non-entity.

5. A question: would you rather live under Fidel Castro, or hundreds of millions of lil' Fidels?

6. All the above, and more that I cannot think of at the time.

I'm not really sure. I've been personally considering joining the Green Party, but I still feel that there may be more potential for change if the revolutionary left in America hijacks the Democratic party like some of us have been trying to do.

Talk about leaving us between a rock and a hard place...

Heh.. we could always use a libertarian, green, socialist, or fundie party. :D

(Jk on the last one)

Democracy (be it a direct democracy or its cousin, the democratic republic) blows and a third party would only make it worse. Oh? What's that? You want REASONS for why democracy is a shit system? Let me count the ways:

1. Tyranny of the majority.

2. Since there is (1), you have an oppressed minority.

3. In regards to a democratic republic, representatives have a tendency to become career politicians, obsessed with power and money. And, apparently, young boys and/or chubby interns.

4. The individual is a non-entity.

5. A question: would you rather live under Fidel Castro, or hundreds of millions of lil' Fidels?

6. All the above, and more that I cannot think of at the time.

Most importantly is #3. I remember that long ago, when the citizens were screaming for term limits. Well, there are term limits on the presidency, why not on the legislature? Of course, these grandiose senators and representatives would not bring up the issue in the federal legislature, since it was a "state matter", that only the citizens of the state could decide on term limit legislation.

Term limits

During his time in the House, Foley repeatedly opposed efforts to impose term limits on Washington state's elected officials, winning the support of the state's voters to reject term limits in a 1991 referendum. However, in 1992, a term limit ballot initiative was approved by the state's voters.

Foley brought suit, challenging the constitutionality of a state law setting eligibility requirements on federal offices. Foley won his suit, with federal courts declaring that states did not have the authority under the U.S. Constitution to limit the terms of federal officeholders.
...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Foley

As you can see, our so called "elected" representatives have so much respect for the electorate, that they will sue us in a heartbeat if we want to curtail their power.

So with that being said, you know that the Demoplican and Repucratic parties will fight any other party from joining in on their little monopoly. I wonder just how much longer before the American people decide that a litle reminder needs to be done, either by a revolt at the ballot or a revolt on the streets.

To have a third party that has a good chance of actually influencing legislation I think the US's electoral system would have to move to some kind of proportional representation. Since this would mean Americans would have to vote for parties, not people, for at least some legislative seats. I don;t see that happening, sadly.

I don't think a third party can win anything at the federal level.

They don't get the name recognition, so they don't get the money needed to be viable. Thus they can't buy ads.

The biggest problem is that 3rd parties aren't in the debates. The rules are arcane, but the upshot is that unless you have a D or an R behind your name, you'll never be in a national debate. That means that no one who isn't already on the gravy train won't get on. They can't win people over because unless you look for them, you'll never find them. So a Dem or Rep is guarenteed a win unless something earth shaking happens (like Lieberman's break with the Democrats).

So I think the easier answer is to allow any candidate on the ballot to run. For the presidential elections that means on the ballot in all 50 states. If you can do that, you debate, people know your name, and maybe you win. it's a simple solution.

I personally tend toward the greens, but I want all partie sto have a fair shot.

yeah, I agree, the united states need a third party and preferably a 4th, 5th, 6th and maybe 7th.

Democracy (be it a direct democracy or its cousin, the democratic republic) blows and a third party would only make it worse. Oh? What's that? You want REASONS for why democracy is a shit system? Let me count the ways:

1. Tyranny of the majority.

2. Since there is (1), you have an oppressed minority.

3. In regards to a democratic republic, representatives have a tendency to become career politicians, obsessed with power and money. And, apparently, young boys and/or chubby interns.

4. The individual is a non-entity.

5. A question: would you rather live under Fidel Castro, or hundreds of millions of lil' Fidels?

6. All the above, and more that I cannot think of at the time.

which system would you prefer then?

I would LOVE for there to be a third major party. Actually, I think we need at least four. I think the Libertarian party would actually be a great third party. The Democrats can't be trusted with the economy and the current Republicans can't be trusted with anything. :p

Yay. There is still hope for my greenies! :D

yeah, I agree, the united states need a third party and preferably a 4th, 5th, 6th and maybe 7th.



which system would you prefer then?

Enlightened dictatorship. It might actually accomplish something.

Enlightened dictatorship. It might actually accomplish something.

Do explain your view of enlightened, and while you are at it, explain how you plan to keep power in check?

The Democrats can't be trusted with the economy

The economy did pretty well the last time a Democrat was President, although I can't help but assume you're talking about Jenny Granholm here.

Do explain your view of enlightened, and while you are at it, explain how you plan to keep power in check?

Enlightened as in me.:D

Enlightened as in me.:D

hahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa *sigh*

No, seriously.

Faulty argument. As you well know, the US has a single-round electoral system, which results in votes for a third party being essentially "wasted". Most people opt to make their vote count by picking one of the two big parties.

It would be instructive to see what would happen if you introduced a two-round system.

Or you could have preferences in elections... Seems like an easier solution.

According to a poll, that is:



(link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19373524/site/newsweek/))

Being French, I've always found a two-party system with a one-round election to be a very foreign idea, and not very democratic. The issue, of course, is: What would this third party be? What could its policies be?
France? Isn't that on its fifth republic?
I think the multi-party system works in other countries, but the Constitution wasn't really created to allow democratic elections of the President. The two-party system is actually slightly more democratic, because it makes it more likely the party with the most votes will become President. Usually.
But this is only for President. There is at least one independent in Congress (a Socialist, I believe) and in more regional elections, it is much less a two-party system. But with the current form of election, more than two parties would only make it more likely the House gets to decide.

if a third major party was created in the US i can quite see it being created out of the dregs of the established two...

Thus the Libertarian and Green parties. Republicans and Democrats who smoke weed.

Then 57% of Americans should start supporting, and voting for, third party candidates.

Unfortunately, a network news "poll" can't tell the difference between what people say they want, and what people actually want.

I think political parties need to be disbanded... all this trouble is caused by the party system bullshit.

As inane as political "ideology" usually is (especially in the United States), the fact of the matter remains that political parties serve as the way in which people receive information about issues, and the way in which people are motivated to participate in the political process. This is because collective action is far more effective than individual actions, in terms of spreading information and gathering support for a cause. Political parties constitute exactly that sort of collective action. In the absence of such collective action, disenfranchised individuals are all one has left, where each individual alone does not possess nearly enough power, influence, or information to either be or feel effective.

Of course, a big mass of politically isolated, disenfranchised, and dissatisfied individuals has the potential for exploding into a very Bad Thing. See also Third World party-less "democracies" where guns, bombs, kidnappings, assassination, and other methods are favored over ballots and inane campaign speeches.

People are uneducated about political issues enough as it is. Let's not make far, far, far worse.

According to a poll, that is:



(link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19373524/site/newsweek/))

Being French, I've always found a two-party system with a one-round election to be a very foreign idea, and not very democratic. The issue, of course, is: What would this third party be? What could its policies be?

A "Classical Liberal" party. Pro legalization of most drugs, legalization of nudism (well, at least top free legalization), fewer gun control laws, less enforcement of political correctness, pro-lower taxes, pro-economy, anti-welfare, anti-draft, harder on terrorists, total separation of church-and-state, anti-illegal immigration, pro-legal immigration, allow legalization of suicide, and generally harder on real criminals, ect.

They should really rewrite campaign laws to make smear campaigns illegal though, it should be some "positive campaign" sort of rule, where you're only allowed to run ads that say how awesome you are, not how shitty your opponent is. They should do that here too since politicians around here are starting to pick up the american trend of badmouthing their opponents.

How does one objectively judge what qualifies as "legal" under the "positive campaign" rules? "By claiming that he is totally awesome, you Honor, my opponent is implying that I am totally shitty, and thus his political speech must be suppressed..."

But the First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment) makes the above a moot point, anyway. And there are already laws about libel, so no extra laws are necessary. If, however, a "smear campaign" is nonetheless telling the truth about someone, it's the truth and it is protected free speech.

At any rate, I would assume that a set of "positive campaign" rules would very quickly be used by politicians to keep the general public for knowing things they need to know in order to make intelligent decisions about who their political leaders should be. How long until voting records, criminal records, or other things are suppressed because they make Mr. Candidate sad?

...but I still feel that there may be more potential for change if the revolutionary left in America hijacks the Democratic party like some of us have been trying to do.

All three of you?

I'm not trying to make like a neocon here, although I find the idea of "revolution" morally dubious and extremely prone to backfire (history is replete with examples of "revolutionaries" becoming "reactionaries" once they have power...) But let's be serious. What revolutionary left?

All three of you?

I'm not trying to make like a neocon here, although I find the idea of "revolution" morally dubious and extremely prone to backfire (history is replete with examples of "revolutionaries" becoming "reactionaries" once they have power...) But let's be serious. What revolutionary left?

Furthermore, hijacking the Democratic party with revolutionary leftists would leave voters with the extreme right and extreme left to vote with. Leaves moderates out of the picture.

According to a poll, that is:



(link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19373524/site/newsweek/))

Being French, I've always found a two-party system with a one-round election to be a very foreign idea, and not very democratic. The issue, of course, is: What would this third party be? What could its policies be?

I am one of those 57% :).

Interesting, but I think that the two-party system is too thoroughly entrenched both systematically and culturally in America for a third party to be feasible. Also, I'd be surprised if this 57% feel particularly strongly on the issue.

It would be hard to really have a "Third Party Candidate" in the USA now...everything is polarized politically and the media would end up still branding the new party candidate as "liberal" or "conservative"...Although i do believe as younger generations reach voting age 3rd party candidate(s) will be elected into office(s)..but they will still be branded with the left or right titles like I said earlier

The other thing about third party candidates is that they have no where as much money to spend campaigning versus the Dem and Republican candidates. Or the publicity, either.

It's just a matter of getting people interested in local politics, which is difficult without a church, apparently.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070929/29502_Giuliani:_I_Pray_to_Jesus_for_Guidance.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57908
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/christan-conservatives-consider-third-party-effort/
Any of those helping the point?

Well, unlimited candidates can sometimes land you Arnie for Governor...

yes, and limited ones can land us a shrubery. so the rotten apples can get in either way. but which creates the greatest opportunity for anything other then corporate mafia hand picks to get in?

(and i'm not suggesting aaahhney is such a totally rotten apple now that he's in. he wouldn't have been my first pick, (i would have prefered a green, or one of the strippers) but he seems to actually be more sane then what the oval office has been for the last seven years)

=^^=
.../\...

What would this third party be? What could its policies be?

Eh. I think the US need a centre-left party, on the lines of Germany's SPD, that is a moderate left for Europe, a commie assault under US standards.
All they have now is a right-wing (the GOP) and a centre (the Democratic).

Unfortunately, a network news "poll" can't tell the difference between what people say they want, and what people actually want.

So people who say they want a 3rd party really don't?

Enlightened dictatorship. It might actually accomplish something.

Enlightened dictatorship blows. Oh? What's that? You want REASONS for why enlightened dictatorship is a shit system? Let me count the ways:

1. Tyranny of the enlightened despot.

2. Since there is (1), you have a totally oppressed population.

3. Dictators have a tendency to become career politicians, obsessed with power and money. And, apparently, young boys and/or chubby interns.

4. The individual is a non-entity.

5. How would you keep the dictator in check, and how do you assure his/her benevolence? Plenty dictators started "not to bad" but ended "totally insane".

6. How will this benevolent dictator gain power without being democratically elected? By violence?

7. Democracy has accomplished a lot, all the best countries to live in are democracies.

8. All the above, and more that I cannot think of at the time.

100% of non-Americans would like to see that the Republican Party would disappear.

We don’t want anymore such trigger-happy Hillbillies-in-costume cartoon figures.

They are all, without exceptions, evil.

100% of non-Americans would like to see that the Republican Party would disappear.

We don’t want anymore such trigger-happy Hillbillies-in-costume cartoon figures.

They are all, without exceptions, evil.

Hrm you failed to make one factual point in your entire post

...and yes the campaign laws etc etc need to be entirely rewritten...which would make it fairer for a 3rd party candidate to compete against the billions the democrats and republicans have

100% of non-Americans would like to see that the Republican Party would disappear.

We don’t want anymore such trigger-happy Hillbillies-in-costume cartoon figures.

They are all, without exceptions, evil.

Source?

Why the hell would you guys settle for a 3rd major party that can easily be corrupted by the same corporate interests that now run the other two, when you could instead reform your electoral system to get proportionnal representation and get an actual, real democracy installed?

I mean, it's what we're trying to do in Canada.

I want to see a big communist party in USA.

Just for fun reasons.

All they have now is a right-wing (the GOP) and a centre (the Democratic).

We have a far-right and another that goes maybe as far as center-right...

100% of non-Americans would like to see that the Republican Party would disappear.

We don’t want anymore such trigger-happy Hillbillies-in-costume cartoon figures.

They are all, without exceptions, evil.

Then that would reduce it to a one-party system. Wrong-way Nelly!

Why the hell would you guys settle for a 3rd major party that can easily be corrupted by the same corporate interests that now run the other two, when you could instead reform your electoral system to get proportionnal representation and get an actual, real democracy installed?

I mean, it's what we're trying to do in Canada.

If we (US) gets rid of the electoral system, then most of the States would not have any voice in the elections. All it would take is for a person to win the popular vote in less than 15 States, and they would win the presidency. The number of electors is based on the number of representatives each state has (which is based on population) and the number of senators.

Bush Jr is not the only US president that has won the electoral college but not the popular vote. It also happened in 1876 and in 1888...

This has the full explanation of how the electoral system works.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electcollege.htm

If we (US) gets rid of the electoral system, then most of the States would not have any voice in the elections.

Wait, since when did states vote? I thought it was people...

According to a poll, that is:



(link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19373524/site/newsweek/))

Being French, I've always found a two-party system with a one-round election to be a very foreign idea, and not very democratic. The issue, of course, is: What would this third party be? What could its policies be?
Oh heavens yes. I would absolutely love a liberal party to vote for!

If we (US) gets rid of the electoral system, then most of the States would not have any voice in the elections. All it would take is for a person to win the popular vote in less than 15 States, and they would win the presidency. The number of electors is based on the number of representatives each state has (which is based on population) and the number of senators.

Bush Jr is not the only US president that has won the electoral college but not the popular vote. It also happened in 1876 and in 1888...

This has the full explanation of how the electoral system works.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electcollege.htm

And let us not forget the one that was decided by the House of Representatives. John Quincy Adams.

A 1824 scenario occurs when no candidate receives enough electoral votes to win the election. In such a case, the president and vice president of the United States are chosen per the 12th Amendment. The selection of president is decided by a ballot of the House of Representatives. For the purposes of electing the president, each state only has one vote. A second ballot of the Senate is held to choose the vice president. In this ballot, each senator has one vote. The 1824 scenario is named for the presidential election of 1824, in which Andrew Jackson received a plurality, but not a majority, of electoral votes cast; when the presidential election was thrown to the House of Representatives, John Quincy Adams was elected to the presidency. 1824 is the only presidential election in which this provision of the 12th Amendment for presidential selection has been invoked. In all other presidential elections since the amendment's ratification, one candidate has received a majority of electoral votes cast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_presidential_elections#Presidential_election_trends

There's a key at the bottom of the chart that tells you what the symbols mean.

Wooo! More space for more liars to stab voters in the backs! Yeah, that's exactly what Americans need.

Sorry, we don't really want a third party. What Americans really want is a sense of political efficacy. Adding another party to the mix just means another set of liars who say one thing and do the other. What America needs is a means of holding our politicians accountable for what they say, and making them listen to people. Right now, there's no sense of efficacy. We hate the war, but the Dems are paralyzed by the beltway bubble. We hate GWB, but the Dems cowtow and talk "bipartisanship". A third party would just do the same thing (or worse).

Besides which, given the shape of American politics, any viable 3rd Party would be a Nationalist-Populist party, with strong overtones of Christian Dominionism (leaving the Rethugs to become the party of Nationalist-Capitalism with a more secular tone). Do you really want one of those.

Because, yeah, there wouldn't be a viable Leftist party because America doesn't have a group of viable leftists.

I'm all for changing the SMD FPTP system, but is MMD PR (The only way to get viable 3rd parties) any better? Sure, your "beleifs" are represented, but the cost is that party, rather than constituent, loyalty is overemphasized.

Besides which, given the shape of American politics, any viable 3rd Party would be a Nationalist-Populist party, with strong overtones of Christian Dominionism (leaving the Repubs to become the party of Nationalist-Capitalism with a more secular tone). Do you really want one of those.

1) I hate name calling regardless of who it is directed against

2) Prove it.

Because, yeah, there wouldn't be a viable Leftist party because America doesn't have a group of viable leftists.

That's because this country is nowhere near the left.

1) I hate name calling regardless of who it is directed against

2) Prove it.

1. That's nice.

2. I'm sorry? Did you miss the overwhelming populist note in the rhetoric of the Religious Right that differs from the more fiscally conservative tone of the existing GOoP? A large portion of Christian "Conservatives" are really FOR National Health Care, and Entitlements, AND for socially conservative policy.

That's because this country is nowhere near the left.

Meh. It's because there is no real left. We have a far left, which is insane, and the Democrats, who are moderate-right. We have no real left.

Source?

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/graphics/statesfinal.gif
?
Eh, got nothin'. Perhaps it's just a feeling ...

Could be nothing .... could be the stench of unfathomable evil.

the founding fathers warned against bipartisanship, and this (the state of the union) is what they meant.
What we need is some way to take money out of the equation? perhaps, no advertising? you just do the debate, put in real face time, but none of those stupid ads that don't change anyone's votes anyway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

That there is a pretty good explanation of why you'll never see a long lasting third party, so long as our election system remains the same.