Is it time for a third party?
- Thread starter 2ndamd
- Start date
The plurality voting system in place in this country pretty much eleiminates
the chances for a third party. Though I am in favor of runoff elections if no
candidate receives 50% + 1. What we really need more of in this country is
Initative and Referendum so the people and not the politicians can decide issues and set the agenda.
the chances for a third party. Though I am in favor of runoff elections if no
candidate receives 50% + 1. What we really need more of in this country is
Initative and Referendum so the people and not the politicians can decide issues and set the agenda.
I think you would have to be brain dead not to be concerned. However, there's a big difference between "concerned" and "panicked", which is how I would define a lot of the reactions here immediately after the election. After all, it doesn't matter if their Democrats or Republicans, their primary concern is getting re-elected.
If you keep these people in mind when you assert your RKBA rights, you'll do a lot of good for the cause.
I think a third party, free from big-money influences, is needed, but I just don't know what it would take to achieve that in this generation. As Antipitas said, it will be a long process.
I don't know if the people in our "immediate gratification" society have the patience for that.
Gary Conner
New member
Yes, it is way past time for a VIABLE third party.
As evidence, I offer:
Unconstitutional gun bans.
Unconstitutional search and seizures.
Unconstitutional "Free Speech Zones" being implemented around the nation.
Unconstitutional wholesale gun confiscations in New Orleans.
Unconstitutional wholesale forced relocations in New Orleans.
Unconstitutional suspension of Habeus Corpus.
Unconstitutional plans to allow the enactment of martial law at the sole discretion of the president without any input or approval by a State Governor.
Unconstitional conscription, or "involuntary servitude" being plotted by Charlie Rangel, et. al. to be enacted as soon as politically possible, right after promising his supporters the DemoPubs would not escalate the war.
This should do for starters.
As evidence, I offer:
Unconstitutional gun bans.
Unconstitutional search and seizures.
Unconstitutional "Free Speech Zones" being implemented around the nation.
Unconstitutional wholesale gun confiscations in New Orleans.
Unconstitutional wholesale forced relocations in New Orleans.
Unconstitutional suspension of Habeus Corpus.
Unconstitutional plans to allow the enactment of martial law at the sole discretion of the president without any input or approval by a State Governor.
Unconstitional conscription, or "involuntary servitude" being plotted by Charlie Rangel, et. al. to be enacted as soon as politically possible, right after promising his supporters the DemoPubs would not escalate the war.
This should do for starters.
Uh, the Libertarian party is not socially conservative. I wouldn't say socially liberal either but socially conservative these days means banning gay marriage, flag burning, teaching religion in science class, censoring words on the radio and TV in the name of "decency"...the list goes on.
I would, however, like to see a real party of fiscal conservativism that actually cares about our rights but I'm not about to vote for someone that says I can have all the guns I want but I can't even considering marrying a dude or dropping the F-bomb on the radio.
that would frighten me more than the republicans. they want a theocracy as much as the democrats want a socialist oligarchy
I was listening to the local radio station in on the way to work this morning. I heard that only a third of the registered Democrats in Lieberman's home state voted for him. Republicans and Independent voters helped to push him to the win. I can understand this because I can not identify with the leadership of the Republican or Democratic parties.
As a voter I want my represenatives to be responsive to the local folks who put him in office and not to a ideology of folks who I dont and can not vote for. If the politcal party leadership insists on a course that carries them to the opposite ends of the political spectrum I suspect we will see folks who run with an affiliation to a party but do not fall into blank endorsment of the party policy.
This means that the party who wants to win will come to grips with that philosphy and gravitate to a centrist point of view. Dean the DNC chairman claims to have used a 50 state plan to turn the tide in this last election.
So while this isnt a move towards a third party per say, I see it as some folks that are tired of business as usual and want results. If the parties dont gravitate back to the center this may lead to a third party birth somewhere down the road. especially if the GOP and Dems keep doing business as usual.
As a voter I want my represenatives to be responsive to the local folks who put him in office and not to a ideology of folks who I dont and can not vote for. If the politcal party leadership insists on a course that carries them to the opposite ends of the political spectrum I suspect we will see folks who run with an affiliation to a party but do not fall into blank endorsment of the party policy.
This means that the party who wants to win will come to grips with that philosphy and gravitate to a centrist point of view. Dean the DNC chairman claims to have used a 50 state plan to turn the tide in this last election.
So while this isnt a move towards a third party per say, I see it as some folks that are tired of business as usual and want results. If the parties dont gravitate back to the center this may lead to a third party birth somewhere down the road. especially if the GOP and Dems keep doing business as usual.
Actually, yes....without the backing of a "major" party its hard to compete. In many/most cases the guy with the most money wins..
Is it time for a 3rd party? Yes, and a 4th and a 5th....So we have REAL choices....Also time for reform such that laws are passed based on the will of the PEOPLE, not some jerk that owes his allegiance to the guy that contributed the most to his election campaign.
Desert Heat
New member
Just remeber that with the money of the major parites comes their agendas too. THey aren't going to support somebody who doesn't share the same personal interests, oil, tobacco, ect....
I am registered No Party.
I am registered No Party.
Maybe they viewed him as a guy who stood up for what he beleived in and was willing to take some heat rounds from the party leadership for doing what the voters wanted him to do. Even at the cost of having his party write him off because of his stand on issues. Maybe folks in his part of the country wanted a guy who wasnt a rubber stamp for the party leadership. A guy who is willing to make a sacrifice before comprimising with the devil. maybe the voters sent a messsage to the Democratic party telling them where the buck stops.
Runoff elections don't fix the problem. (Neither does IRV.) I'm not sure whether you're implying they do, but run-offs are just a modification of IRV where only the top 2 candidates are kept, rather than eliminating only the lowest candidate and continuing the run-off process until there's a winner.SIGSHR said:
http://rangevoting.org/EscapingDuopoly.html
The only way to solve this problem is to change the voting system to allow ranked or range voting, allowing voters to specify their preferences regarding multiple candidates. The best such systems are Range Voting for range-vote ballots, and Condorcet for ranked-vote ballots. Condorcet has some problems of its own, among them that its tie-breaking (cycle-breaking) methods are extremely compex, and that it doesn't satisfy the Favorite Betrayal Criterion.
1AKpatriot
Inactive
A third party or Independent can be elected
For this to happen we must get rid of the commission on presidential debates (cpd) and replace it with the citizen debate commission. We must set debate criteria that lets more in , other than just the two parties. We also need to go to public funded campaigns, ( which would cost the tax payers less than how we do it now! billions less literally) A good book on the debates is '' No Debate'' by George Farah Another good book about public funded campaigns is ''End Legalized Bribery'' by Cecil Heftel. The reason third parties go for the big prize elections is that they are forced to . In many,maybe most states they have to , so they can keep their party alive in their state. You can research this more at a web site called ''ballot access news'' . We also must require the networks to give equal time to all candidates on the ballot ( free speech does not mean domination of all speech outlets !)
For this to happen we must get rid of the commission on presidential debates (cpd) and replace it with the citizen debate commission. We must set debate criteria that lets more in , other than just the two parties. We also need to go to public funded campaigns, ( which would cost the tax payers less than how we do it now! billions less literally) A good book on the debates is '' No Debate'' by George Farah Another good book about public funded campaigns is ''End Legalized Bribery'' by Cecil Heftel. The reason third parties go for the big prize elections is that they are forced to . In many,maybe most states they have to , so they can keep their party alive in their state. You can research this more at a web site called ''ballot access news'' . We also must require the networks to give equal time to all candidates on the ballot ( free speech does not mean domination of all speech outlets !)
The two party system is the system that has served this country, essentially, since its founding. I think it has worked well. There is nothing magical about third parties. They will be corrupt, hypocritical and incompetent just like the other two.
Third parties have been a waste of time. Most of the time they are vanity projects for benignly kooky demagogues like Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Bucannan, Teddy Roosevelt, etc; Some not so benign, like both Henry and George Wallace. There is, it seems, one thread that joins them: failure and extinction.
The only one of the parties I would be interested in, the Libertarian party, has proved its insignificance after decades of empty promises. If you mention that you are a libertarian to most folks you are likely to be lumped together with guys that spend nights talking about UFOs on ham radios.
Finally, Lieberman is not third party, he is a well-loved Democrat who annoyed crazy Democratic primary voters by recognizing that abject surrender is not a workable solution in Iraq. I think he is an honorable guy, but he would have never won if he had not spent years within the two party system.
Third parties have been a waste of time. Most of the time they are vanity projects for benignly kooky demagogues like Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Bucannan, Teddy Roosevelt, etc; Some not so benign, like both Henry and George Wallace. There is, it seems, one thread that joins them: failure and extinction.
The only one of the parties I would be interested in, the Libertarian party, has proved its insignificance after decades of empty promises. If you mention that you are a libertarian to most folks you are likely to be lumped together with guys that spend nights talking about UFOs on ham radios.
Finally, Lieberman is not third party, he is a well-loved Democrat who annoyed crazy Democratic primary voters by recognizing that abject surrender is not a workable solution in Iraq. I think he is an honorable guy, but he would have never won if he had not spent years within the two party system.
Politics is not a 1-dimensional arena; no matter how many dimensions it is, though, two major parties define a line. Our plurality voting system allows the two major parties to control politics, skewing all political discussion by forcing people to focus only on that line. Those who refuse are branded dreamers and vote-wasters. They are toxic to the two-party political system because they distract people from the "important" business at hand... choosing between Republican and Democrat.
The 2-party system has served this country poorly. It gives both parties license to run this country into the ground, fueled by fear of the other party gaining control.
Third parties may be inept, but that's due to the lack of input from the voters. If "third party" weren't a phrase that gets people shunned at cocktail parties, people would discuss issues other than whether Kerry got botox injections or whether Bush descended from primates more recently than the rest of us. Parties would have a much better idea of where they stand, and they could modify their platforms and elect leaders and candidates who aren't crazy loons.
Third parties are less corrupt and hypocritical than the two major parties, because both of those attributes are closely tied to campaign donations. The two major parties get orders of magnitude more money from special interest groups.
Most importantly, if elections used a fair voting system like Range Voting, people could top-rate third parties they like. Campaign analysts and news media talking heads would be able to get a much more accurate picture of what voters want and how parties compare to each other.
At the moment, elections generate two giant stacks of Republican and Democrat votes. Election results provide no insight into how many of those voters prefer a third-party candidate. They provide the mistaken impression that third parties have no support, which only reinforces the idea that a vote for a third party is a vote wasted. And that impression is wrong. We all know major-party voters who would vote for a third party if they could do that in parallel with a "safety" vote for their preferred major party. Many on these forums have admitted to precisely that sentiment.
The 2-party system has served this country poorly. It gives both parties license to run this country into the ground, fueled by fear of the other party gaining control.
Third parties may be inept, but that's due to the lack of input from the voters. If "third party" weren't a phrase that gets people shunned at cocktail parties, people would discuss issues other than whether Kerry got botox injections or whether Bush descended from primates more recently than the rest of us. Parties would have a much better idea of where they stand, and they could modify their platforms and elect leaders and candidates who aren't crazy loons.
Third parties are less corrupt and hypocritical than the two major parties, because both of those attributes are closely tied to campaign donations. The two major parties get orders of magnitude more money from special interest groups.
Most importantly, if elections used a fair voting system like Range Voting, people could top-rate third parties they like. Campaign analysts and news media talking heads would be able to get a much more accurate picture of what voters want and how parties compare to each other.
At the moment, elections generate two giant stacks of Republican and Democrat votes. Election results provide no insight into how many of those voters prefer a third-party candidate. They provide the mistaken impression that third parties have no support, which only reinforces the idea that a vote for a third party is a vote wasted. And that impression is wrong. We all know major-party voters who would vote for a third party if they could do that in parallel with a "safety" vote for their preferred major party. Many on these forums have admitted to precisely that sentiment.
Vermont Carry
Moderator
The question (title) of the thread is very misguided because it PREsupposes that it was EVER a good thing to have a two party control system. The founders are spinning in their graves fast enough to power the eastern seaboard at the fact that we've allowed a system of power to arise that controls the so called democratic party and the so called republican party at the highest levels.
Truthfully we only have ONE party at the national level: the party of the ESTABLISHMENT, which is also the party of globalism. If americans ever started to care about TRUE liberty again (enough to end the tyranny called the war on americans possessing CERTAIN drugs) and built up the Libertarian party, then at that point is when we would have a TWO party system. Of course, if the founders were here, most of them would totally abolish the parties and vote out every incumbent as they prepared to storm D.C. and the federal reserve's offices, so as to REinstall the constitution.
To tell you the truth, that last one wouldn't happen in the current COMFORTABLE climate. Americans don't prize REAL liberty anymore. Most of them would vote to convict Jefferson and Washington. ANYONE who votes to convict a citizen in either an IRS case, a gun law case, or a drug case, has done the equivalent of sentencing Thomas Jefferson to be shot at sunrise.
Truthfully we only have ONE party at the national level: the party of the ESTABLISHMENT, which is also the party of globalism. If americans ever started to care about TRUE liberty again (enough to end the tyranny called the war on americans possessing CERTAIN drugs) and built up the Libertarian party, then at that point is when we would have a TWO party system. Of course, if the founders were here, most of them would totally abolish the parties and vote out every incumbent as they prepared to storm D.C. and the federal reserve's offices, so as to REinstall the constitution.
To tell you the truth, that last one wouldn't happen in the current COMFORTABLE climate. Americans don't prize REAL liberty anymore. Most of them would vote to convict Jefferson and Washington. ANYONE who votes to convict a citizen in either an IRS case, a gun law case, or a drug case, has done the equivalent of sentencing Thomas Jefferson to be shot at sunrise.
Real Gun:
Now there's some in-depth analysis (just joking). They considered a king. After all, it was the only type of government they knew. If "they wanted a king", we would have gotten one, don't you think? They obviously didn't.
'Could not agree more. Still the most successful social experiment ever concucted in the history of mankind, with all it's flaws. I suggest a better working form of government won't be found until we improve ourselves.