How can we really get a third party?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Be Careful Of What You Wish

Having a third party sounds good. After all, most members of the two parties we have have certainly not done anything to endear them. However, there is a down side to too many parties.

In Italy they have literally hundreds of political parties. If you think that it is impossible to get anything done here, go over there.
 
The best way I've heard to accomplish that is a grassroots movement. Pair people up who are in "safe" states (i.e. states that have a foregone outcome) who were going to vote 'against' a party and get them to vote Libertarian instead.
I mean, if you live in California or Utah you're not really throwing your vote away since it's worthless.
 
My high school government teacher was a very wise man. He often stated that 40% of people will vote "D" and 40% will vote "R". It does not even matter who it is. The trick to politics is to sway 51% of the remaining 20%.
 
roy reali said:
In Italy they have literally hundreds of political parties. If you think that it is impossible to get anything done here, go over there.
Click to expand...
The only thing I want the government to do is to undo some stuff it's done in the past. Once that's done, I don't care if the government can't get much else done. There are certain things I would like my government to do, but it isn't doing them now...

My high school government teacher was a very wise man. He often stated that 40% of people will vote "D" and 40% will vote "R". It does not even matter who it is. The trick to politics is to sway 51% of the remaining 20%.
Click to expand...
Even if you replace "D" and "R" with "major party 1" and "major party 2," what about radical multi-way splits like those in 1824, 1860, and 1924? The 60/40 thing more or less held for 1992, but it wouldn't have if a liberal political party had run a viable candidate on a viable platform... that's a risk in any modern election; a good alternative liberal or conservative party has the potential to split either major party in half, at least if everyone wasn't so worried about losing one election to the other side, which is always a risk even if nobody votes 3rd party. I suspect that if the U.S. were less diverse, we'd have 2-party splits of significantly more than 20%.

It's a good general rule for 2-party elections (involving large, heterogeneous populations), but it doesn't imply the existence of some underlying principle that constrains elections within those limits.
 
Even if you could split a major party in half, you would still lose the election. Many belive that third party canidates contributed to Gore losing. The 1924 election proves my point. Progressives took votes from democrats, handing Coolidge the election by a huge margin. If those that supported Nader(Nader voters tending toward liberal/progessive ideals) had voted Gore, we would have the personality of a tree stump sitting in the oval office.

Modern politics with its razor thin margins shows that feilding a "strong" third party canidate will cripple the efforts of the party whose voters are drawn to the third parties ideals.
 
Short answer is, we can't, thanks in no small part to the defeatist mindset.

People, you can't win if you keep voting for losers! If you keep voting for the same old, you GET the same old! Why don't you understand this? :mad:
 
how about this

How about this, instead of trying to create a third party and win political dominance (tough sell), why not try to get the existing govt. to change a few rules, so we can try what I once heard on Paul Harvey (he didn't take credit for the idea, but I can't remember where he said it came from).

Have a last line on the ballot marked "None of the Above", and if that line gets the majority, then hold a new election in 90 days, with none of the previous candidates eledgible to run.

I figure the 90 days might be a little tight, on the other hand, it keeps things movin'. I also figure that , if we did this, we would go through alot of candidates, but that might not be a totally bad idea. I can't help but wonder if we would be any worse off without "professional" politicians.

Another idea, (just for ....and giggles), what if we could change the legislatative process to requiring 2/3 or even 3/4 to get a bill PASSED, and a simple majority to get a law REPEALED.

It makes good sense to me, after all, if the proposed law is actually a good thing, then we should have no problem getting all the votes needed to pass it.

And, if it turns out that it really wasn't such a good thing after all, we shouldn't have to fight so hard to get rid of it.

Sadly I am haunted by the thought of "if I could have gotten 51 votes, Mr & Mrs America turn them all in..."

Just because someone can get 51% to go along doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. This is mob mentality. Pure democracy in action.
 
If You Mean It, Here Is Your Chance!!!

There is a political party that was founded in 2003. Most have not heard about them, because they are doing things the correct way- They have been moving slowly, making sure the people they take in are people who will be dedicated to the party. They did not call themselves a party and immediately run all the big races, crying they didn't have a chance. They have started in the town councils, state legislatures and such. They take their time to make sure the few they reach totally understand them. This is so the informed will spread the word.

If you truly want a government to represent you the voter, please take a look at the AMERICA FIRST party. They can be found at www.americafirstparty.org and by telephone at 1-866-SOS-USA1 (1-866-767-8721.)

They are really good people, they have their complete platform and principles posted on their website. ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, New Mexico & TEXAS...You are the states that need to look at, join and support this party. If anyone is interested, Arizona only needs 9 more members to be enabled with an organizing committee. That includes replacing my wife and I, as we will be moving out of state before summer starts. However, I am going to continue to assist in creating and nurturing Arizona's party, so if anyone has interest, please go to the website, call that free telephone number, or ask me questions through private messaging. The website is awesome; not fancy, but very informative.

If they can build the momentum starting now, they could awaken as a 2008 contender in many local, state or congressional races. Unfortunately, they would probably not be able to run a presidential candidate in time, but again, the idea is to start small and plant your roots into solid soil.

I was an officer in the Arizona and Maricopa County Liberterian parties, and I could not stay with them. Although we were successful in making the Liberterians the third registered major political party in Arizona, I cannot accept their support of open boarders, abortion or one or two other major issues.

I believe in the America First party because you will find NOTHING they support that is not in the US Constitution. You will find them opposed to EVERY authority our governemnts at all levels have taken for themselves that is not granted to them by the Constitution and they are not hypocrites. Let us remember that the 2nd Amendment is not the only one;They all count.
 
Last edited:
Another idea, (just for ....and giggles), what if we could change the legislatative process to requiring 2/3 or even 3/4 to get a bill PASSED, and a simple majority to get a law REPEALED.
Click to expand...

44, Heinlein suggested exactly that in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.
 
The America First Party looks pretty good but I just can't agree with some of their issues. I certainly wouldn't want a ban on cloning or genetic manipulation, I see no reason homosexuals cannot be considered "honorable men and women" to serve in the military, I don't want them deciding the context of marriage based on their religious beliefs...

sry
 
If you truly want a government to represent you the voter, please take a look at the AMERICA FIRST party. They can be found at www.americafirstparty.org and by telephone at 1-866-SOS-USA1 (1-866-767-8721.)
Click to expand...

Wow! I have always disagreed with the Libertarians on a couple things, and the Constitution party on one thing...but this...

This is the perfect political party! I mean, every single one of their values is pure America, no BS, no double talk!

If this isn't ripe for a signature line, I don't know what is. From now on, they have my support.
 
As one examines the comments here it is obvious that we could not ever agree on enough issues, that are not negotiable, to form a third party.

For me, the moral issues, abortion and homosexuality, are not negotiable.
The moral compass of a nation is what keeps it on track, and is the underlying key to whether it flourishes or falls.

This nation has largely abandoned the moral standards upon which it was formed and became great. It is on the downhill slope now.

So it is obvious that while we have some common goals re the 2nd, there are other issues that greatly divide us.

Jerry
 
This nation has largely abandoned the moral standards upon which it was formed and became great. It is on the downhill slope now.
Click to expand...
You're forgetting the fact that the nation has also abondoned some pretty immoral standards that it was founded upon. Everyone seems to think that the good ole days of John Wayne and Teddy Roosevelt were the golden age of America but it's a bunch of crap. This country was founded on principles of freedom and liberty but ironically enough it was done so by mysoginists and slave owners.

Many things are worse but many things are better. To claim the country is on a downhill slope is to ignore the many positive changes that have come about.
 
No, Redworm, you are incorrect. Yes, there were some immoral things, such as slavery.
However, I cannot think of too many immoral things that were accepted.
Shacking-up, homosexuality, abortion were not accepted, although it happened, but to a much less extent.

People had a work ethic that is not present today. They cared more about others. Today there is no respect for others, and we see vulgar T-shirts and hear language that would not have been spoken in mixed company.

Children were taught respect, and were spanked for infractions as necessary, but they were not abused and killed as today. There is unbridled sex, and it is encouraged. The girls dress like sluts, and the boys like it.

In fact, today it is a self-centered society that worships entertainment, and pleasure. It rejects that anyone has a right to tell someone what to do, within the law.

It is a very much morally deteriorated society/nation. It has turned its back on the living God who blessed us more than any nation in history.

I have personally witnessed the moral degradation. It is getting worse.

Jerry
 
For me, the moral issues, abortion and homosexuality, are not negotiable.
Click to expand...
For me also, the moral issues of abortion and homosexuality are not negotiable.
The moral compass of a nation is what keeps it on track, and is the underlying key to whether it flourishes or falls.
Click to expand...
The nation does not have a "moral compass." It has laws. The people of this nation each have a moral compass, and they can orient it however they want. Those laws of this nation based solely on a religion-based "moral compass" have caused certain areas of scientific and social progress to approach a standstill.

Aside from that, if I seriously tried to tell someone how and with whom they could go for a ride, I would expect to find myself in a fight, and probably not the yelling kind.

Back to third parties, before I rant about abortion and get banned. The Constitution and America First parties are unacceptably naive. The latter has some particularly disturbing platform planks.

America First Party Platform, selections
Cloning/Genetics
Outlaw the cloning of human beings and of other mammals, fowl, fish, and reptiles.
Click to expand...
I guess amphibians are fair game for cloning? What about extinct species? Something about a reference to "fish or fowl" in public policy activates my idiot early warning system.
Outlaw the modification of the human genome to eliminate undesirable traits, to enhance existing abilities or traits, or to create new abilities or traits.
Click to expand...
Where's the proposal to mandate random breeding and cull anyone too far up the bell curve? Oh, if only this policy had been in place back when we were apes, the Earth would not be suffering this plague of idiotic humans.
Outlaw the use of fetal tissue for genetic or other research, but permit the use of placenta tissues collected following the natural birth of a child.
Click to expand...
Another brilliant policy point. Parents can choose to cremate a (naturally) aborted / stillborn fetus, but can't choose to donate it for science?

Judicial Activism
Congress shall have the power to overturn federal judicial decisions that misinterpret the laws Congress has passed.
Click to expand...
They have got to be kidding. Everyone has a gripe with one or several SCOTUS decisions, but shifting unaccountability from the Courts to Congress is not a solution.

Homosexuals in the Military
The America First Party will not support any proposal that allows homosexuals into the military service of the United States of America, in any capacity.

The United States military service is an honorable vocation for honorable men and women.
Click to expand...
Please tell me this is some kind of joke. This policy ignores all the valid concerns about sex and sexual activity in the military (pregnancy, more interest in a fellow soldier than on the mission, lowering of physical standards to allow more women to pass, etc.), and it takes the ridiculous step of banning homosexuals rather than homosexual conduct. I wonder what the America First Party's stance is on bisexuals and transsexuals in the military. I suppose the first fall under "homosexuals," but what about trannies? Are they homosexuals as well? What if they're homosexuals (post-op)? That would make them naturally heterosexual, so there shouldn't be a problem, right? What about eunuchs?

Religious Expression
No society can survive in the absence of moral governance. In recognizing America's historic Christian roots, the America First Party firmly supports the necessary restoration of God to the public square.
Click to expand...
That's none of the Government's business. References to God by private persons or entities in a community are perfectly legitimate. References to a particular God (outside of historical/cultural discussions) in publicly funded programs like schools are forbidden through the 1st and 14th amendments. A citizen can feel however he wants about God, but cannot claim it's fair to recite only a Christian Prayer in a school with Muslims and Buddhists. Not even local communities are democracies when it comes to basic rights, and religious freedom is one of those rights. If these America First and Constitution Party loons don't like that, they can move to Saudi Arabia and find out what religious oppression really is.
 
I appreciate the ideas of a moral compass. However, this is America with liberty and justice for all. You are allowed the pursuit of hapiness. For me what you do in your own bedroom is your own business. I have served with gays in the military who were professional in every aspect. The kept thier private life private and did thier duty. You are allowed to practice your moral beliefs as you see fit. You do not have the right to impose upon others your moral standards or religious standards. I personally oppose homosexuality. However, I fully support a gay persons constitutional rights in this country and society. Democracy is all inclusive or it is mutually exclusive. I do not think it right to say we will give gay persons the rights as we see fit according to our moral standards. The British Crown only wanted us to live as they saw fit.

As long as a persons lifestyle is not endangering public safety, they are hardworking and contributing to society..they have the right to pursue happiness and excercise thier constitutional rights free of what others self imposed moral and religious standards are.
 
My solution....

I am going to sign Kinky Friedmans petition for Gov of Texas.

In the next election for President lets all find a good Independent candidate and roll the dice..... I dont think we could do worse than the potential candidates.
 
Hi Tyme,

On the contrary, a nation does have a moral compass. It?s laws reflect that fact. I won?t use the word ?all? but laws have their origin in the religious views of the nation. We were settled, and ?formed? by people who did in fact follow the precepts of Christianity.

Various presidents, including George Washington, acknowledged God as creator. He is quoted as saying, ?It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.? You might argue what or who he meant by God, but the Bible is a specific book.

To think that the nation?s leaders are to set aside their own morality gleaned from their religion is totally unrealistic. One?s religion, and his dedication to it, defines who he is, and he cannot act contrary to it and be true. I am proud that GWB does not hide it.

We do have laws that tell people what they can do within the Constitution. That is necessary for an orderly society.
In truth the nation was found upon Christian principles, and not Buddhist or Muslims or any other religion. We were formed as a Christian nation. Our laws in general reflect that, as do the 10 Commandments which were posted in public places.

I might add that sexual deviates do not belong in the military.


Eghad,

Liberty and justice for all does not include the right to do anything he might desire, and not things that are detrimental to a nation. Homosexuality is such a thing. It is harmful to the nation, and has cost a lot of money with AIDs. It was considered illegal until just recently so the founders and early "fathers" obviously agreed it was not acceptable.

Yes, we do have the right to impose moral standards upon others. That is what laws do. We do it within the process set up by the Constitution, by voting. I will always do what I legally can to stop the murder of the unborn, and to stem the tide of the acceptance of homosexuality. I will do so within the legal process. Maybe I will be successful, and maybe not, but I will try.

Jerry
 
To think that the nation?s leaders are to set aside their own morality gleaned from their religion is totally unrealistic. One?s religion, and his dedication to it, defines who he is, and he cannot act contrary to it and be true. I am proud that GWB does not hide it.
Click to expand...
The religious should be able to distinguish between moral precepts that have a social function and those that are entirely a subjective matter of their religion (like the "life" of a 1st-term embryo/fetus, or the propriety of homosexuality). If they cannot distinguish such things from traditional crimes (acts that do real harm to those who are already part of the social contract), they should be barred from public office.

As for this country being founded on Christianity, you are just plain wrong, and this has been pointed out numerous times on TFL and THR and I see no reason to rehash it in depth. Quite simply, some founders were Christian, and some were not, and those who were not did not sign on to the creation of a Christian nation.
 
Well we will just disagree with each other on that. I do not know how many of the founders were born again Christians, but I do know some of the quotes such as the George Washington quote, and together with laws that followed Christian ethics and principles, plus the 10 Commandments being posted just shows the attempt to change historical facts.

I agree that in the area of morality or religion there must be no attempt to make a particular Christian view the state religion. GWB is a Methodist, but he does not impose that particular view on others. But that does not negate the fact that he does hold to the Christian principles of the Bible. No one has said we should have a state religion. The founders did not intend that, and neither do I. But what we see is an outright hostility to Christianity.

That, maybe, should not be surprising, as fewer and fewer want to consider that there are moral absolutes that in due time will judge them. It really took off in the 60s, and they became the professors and leaders. Most never changed their godless outlook. It is now coming home to roost with single parent families and latch key kids. The drug culture, abortion, sex at ages so young in earlier years they did not even know what it was.

TFL is not the authority as to how this country was founded, and the subsequent way we thought and acted. It is a poorer nation than even a half century ago. More money, fewer morals of the right kind. Kids having kids, and kids who do not know who their fathers are. And the acceptance of homosexuality and murder of the unborn. I accept neither. Both are terrible sins for which we will suffer the consequences, and are to some degree.

Jerry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top