• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fastest Route To A Viable Third party?

haymarket said:
Yes - at one time early on he was a Libertarian. Then he got his clock cleaned and left the Libertarian Party behind in the dust and converted to the Republican Party which he ran on for each of his terms in Congress.
Click to expand...

And if we had him this year as a libertarian candidate, he may have had a shot. Many people don't like Paul's libertarian principles, but they still find him to be an honest man and a statesman. He doesn't sling mud and dodge questions like the others. And the disdain for both major candidates this election is so bad, perhaps he would have had a better chance than Gary.

I like Gary and was rooting for him, but his open borders stance turns a lot of people off right now considering the abysmal job market and the threat of terrorism.
 
foadi said:
Big money isn't enough. Americans Elect had more money than the Republicans and Democrats could ever dream of and they couldn't even get on the ballot in all 50 states.
Click to expand...

So surprising, too. A party founded by plutocrats advancing a plutocrats' agenda never got traction with the American public..... mystifying. :doh
 
Dragonfly said:
What's the fastest route "we" can take to having a viable third party?

Will electing Trump do it? Will electing Clinton do it?

Will it take something else? Will it ever happen in your lifetime?

Do the Dems/Reps have such a stranglehold on the system in general that it'll never happen?

If this years election cycle can't spawn something, what will it take?
Click to expand...
Yes, this year may be it .. but likely after it's over and the elected officials start to really f***-up America .. or have promised in their campaign to, in effect, do so.

But for it to happen, people have to really believe they could make a difference.

Also, the effort will have to be centrist, where the majority of Americans naturally align, not liberal or conservative or a libertarian combination of the two.

It will have to be a more populist movement that lifts up American patriotism and really stays focused on the economics of individual American citizens and that doesn't divide us all via appeal to social issues.

And, it will start with a citizens' group really catching fire in the news.

Right now, the only citizens' group that could be this beginning is: Powerful American Political Alliance.

They focus on economic problem solutions, and they even address our sick rescue-and-exploit foreign policy.

Their website's presentation of the economic issues puts other candidates' websites to shame.

They also truthfully say that social issues must be relegated to a secondary status that does not divide and conquer attempts to create economic unity. This is so true.

But, for them to really catch fire with the media, individual citizens must join this website en masse and tell reporters that they have joined and really believe this is the only way to combat whatever screwballs win in November. Then reporters will begin to put sufficient focus on PAPA to report on it .. which will generate more interest ...

That's all it will take.

The rest is to let evolution take its course. Maybe in time this membership will be tapped to convert the citizens' group to a new political party, finally one at the center of the political spectrum.

So far, the only press reporting on PAPA found via Google is here: Powerful American Political Alliance Website Launches Initial Membership Campaign .. but that simply appears to be their own press release.

The people need to compel the media to take off with this.
 
Dragonfly said:
Look at that graph.

Those "Independent" or non-affiliated voters could easily win an election if they bandied together and stopped voting for the R or D of choice.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but the vast majority of those "independents" are pretty solidly attached to a major party but aren't registered with that party. I'm a good example - I vote in a lot of GOP primaries because I know the winner of that is the winner of the election, but since 2004 at least have voted Democratic for POTUS, including this year. I'm an "independent" but will have almost nothing politically in common with the hard right libertarians who are also "independent."
 
JasperL said:
So surprising, too. A party founded by plutocrats advancing a plutocrats' agenda never got traction with the American public..... mystifying. :doh
Click to expand...

The more surprising thing is that they weren't able to get on the ballot in all 50 states. They basically wrote a blank check for signature gathering operations. Wasn't enough. I think that demonstrates how ridiculous the requirements are for new parties. If Bloomberg cronies can't do it then no one can.
 
Dragonfly said:
What's the fastest route "we" can take to having a viable third party?

Will electing Trump do it? Will electing Clinton do it?

Will it take something else? Will it ever happen in your lifetime?

Do the Dems/Reps have such a stranglehold on the system in general that it'll never happen?

If this years election cycle can't spawn something, what will it take?
Click to expand...

Why would you want one? The problem was not with the parties. There was plenty of variety in the policy mixes and personalities. It was the American voter that made that selection. A third, fourth or fifth party won't solve that problem.
 
joG said:
Why would you want one? The problem was not with the parties. There was plenty of variety in the policy mixes and personalities. It was the American voter that made that selection. A third, fourth or fifth party won't solve that problem.
Click to expand...

There was NOT a lot of variety.
The two-party system sucks.
14% of the people in each party have decided which one stinking loser is going to be POTUS. That's just wrong.
More options means more options. Since when is more options a bad thing?
 
Dragonfly said:
There was NOT a lot of variety.
The two-party system sucks.
14% of the people in each party have decided which one stinking loser is going to be POTUS. That's just wrong.
More options means more options. Since when is more options a bad thing?
Click to expand...

When moderate voters are split amongst multiple candidates and allowing a radical candidate to win.
 
foadi said:
The more surprising thing is that they weren't able to get on the ballot in all 50 states. They basically wrote a blank check for signature gathering operations. Wasn't enough. I think that demonstrates how ridiculous the requirements are for new parties. If Bloomberg cronies can't do it then no one can.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they tried after their campaign to select the party's candidate via online voting was such a disastrous failure.

I'm all for making ballot access easier, but I don't really see that as the limiting barrier to third parties. The worthless Green Party is on the ballot in 45 states, for example. And just as a general comment, I think Bernie and Ron Paul show the way to create a "third" party - take over an existing party. It didn't work for either, but Bernie got FAR more support as a Democrat than he'd ever have received as a Green or Democratic Socialist or whatever third party banner he selected. The in-place infrastructure is just immense and a huge barrier to a from-scratch third party option, and IMO if you can't convince a majority of one of the parties to adopt your agenda, you have no chance at becoming a major force in American politics.

Let's take the numbers above. Rounded, 30% of the country identifies as a democrat. The number of people in positions of power in the party apparatus maybe 1% of that number. Why should anyone believe your "Real Progressive/Conservative American" party is viable if the group cannot manage to take over the local democratic party apparatus, then the state, then the national.

And I'm going off tangent here a bit, but I'm not impressed at all with people who whine about the woeful state of our two parties, then sit around for the next 4 years and do NOTHING to change the parties from within, do no work to push party candidates they like at least locally, then whine again in 4 years. Thom Hartmann on his program at least used to field a ton of calls by disgruntled progressives/liberals and he'd often ask, "What are you doing to change the party in your area?" 99 times of 100, the answer is nothing. Well, crap, politics that will change the world is hard work, and people want to complain and do NONE of the hard work, then whine that people like Hillary and DWS who work their ass off building support for their agenda and get their way!
 
JasperL said:
I'm not sure they tried after their campaign to select the party's candidate via online voting was such a disastrous failure.

I'm all for making ballot access easier, but I don't really see that as the limiting barrier to third parties. The worthless Green Party is on the ballot in 45 states, for example.
Click to expand...
I collected signatures to get Jill Stein on the ballot in 5 states this year. In four of those states was being payed by Republican donors. That's how it is most election years. För Libertarians, they spend the vast majority of their money maintaining ballot access. Pretty ridiculous system IMO. The Green party and Libertarian party already have the infrastructure tho, it's still expensive, but relatively manageable. It would be nearly impossible for a new party to do it even with unlimited funding. Would take a few election cycles minimum.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Not referring to you specifically, but for many people a "better conservative candidate" has meant an increasingly more extreme right wing candidate. As long as Republican voters think the answer to losing Presidential elections is to move further away from the middle, the Republicans will continue to lose the Presidency.
Click to expand...

I doubt that will happen. What will happen is that the fat will get trimmed. Certain right wing policies will be pushed for, but a lot of the social right wing crap is going to get dumped. Especially as the older generations die off and my generation gets older (and actually votes).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
foadi said:
I collected signatures to get Jill Stein on the ballot in 5 states this year. In four of those states was being payed by Republican donors. That's how it is most election years. För Libertarians, they spend the vast majority of their money maintaining ballot access. Pretty ridiculous system IMO.
Click to expand...

First of all, obviously the rest of my rant that I added later doesn't apply to you since you're doing the work. I do respect that, even when I don't agree.

Again, just as a general comment, I think the third party approach of doing next to nothing at the state and local level, then trying for the big prize of POTUS is a mistake. It's simple as heck to get on the ballot as a third party in local races where I am - 25 signatures. So how many Greens and Libertarians could I vote for in 2016? None in about 10 races in the city and county and state this year. Seems to me that's how you build a PARTY - start local, and go up, instead of with the top job.

The Green party and Libertarian party already have the infrastructure tho, it's still expensive, but relatively manageable. It would be nearly impossible for a new party to do it even with unlimited funding. Would take a few election cycles minimum.
Click to expand...

I agree which is why I don't worry much about third parties, but I'm willing to be proved wrong and wouldn't mind if I was.
 
blackjack50 said:
I doubt that will happen. What will happen is that the fat will get trimmed. Certain right wing policies will be pushed for, but a lot of the social right wing crap is going to get dumped. Especially as the older generations die off and my generation gets older (and actually votes).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I doubt it too but that would be the fastest way it would happen.
 
Dragonfly said:
5_2jqzaulusmlps9-fmska.png


Look at that graph.

Those "Independent" or non-affiliated voters could easily win an election if they bandied together and stopped voting for the R or D of choice.
Click to expand...

Except most "independents" aren't really independent they just don't like to be labeled but they mostly always vote for the same party the swing voters are only something like 7-12%
 
A viable third party needs to be driven by principle and not personality.
 
Bassman said:
Nothing. The idea is to reform the existing parties.
Click to expand...

They are irredeemable.

I don't have a solution to get there, but what we need is runoff elections. One reason why people vote for the lesser of two evils is that it is seen as throwing away their vote, when voting for a third party. However, the two parties in power will never change the election laws to real runoff elections.
 
Dragonfly said:
Why do you think that? Americans can't handle more than two options?
Click to expand...

It's not about the people; it's about the system. You can have more than two parties if you use different electoral models, but not with the model we use. The reason why is easy to demonstrate graphically.

Imagine that the below shows where Candidate A and B are in the left-right spectrum. If you are to the left of A then you are going to vote for A because that candidate is closest to your views. If you are to the right of B you will always choose B over A because B is the candidate whose views are closest to your own.
<----------A------B---------->

Where can you fit a third party in there? If you put a party to the left of A then you steal voters from A; resulting in a victory for B. Same thing happens if you put a party to the right of B. If you put a party in the dead center then all you get is that tiny area in the center and both A and B can easily defeat your party; in fact they would naturally move closer to the middle to crowd you out. So, where do you put a third party?

The only way to encourage more parties is to implement electoral policies to end the first past the post system, introduce elements of proportionality, etc. But even if you did all of that, you still often wind up with two dominant parties and a series of smaller ones that band together to form political fronts which wind up being de-facto single parties.
 
Dragonfly said:
There was NOT a lot of variety.
The two-party system sucks.
14% of the people in each party have decided which one stinking loser is going to be POTUS. That's just wrong.
More options means more options. Since when is more options a bad thing?
Click to expand...

How wide was the field in the two parties to start with. Even now there are four names with very different policy mixes. The problem you are having is due to the voters and certainly not in the variety.
 
joG said:
How wide was the field in the two parties to start with. Even now there are four names with very different policy mixes. The problem you are having is due to the voters and certainly not in the variety.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Most voters are too stupid to seek the right information, and let the media pundits tell them what to believe.
 
joG said:
How wide was the field in the two parties to start with. Even now there are four names with very different policy mixes. The problem you are having is due to the voters and certainly not in the variety.
Click to expand...

Seems to me the problem is more 'math' than voters - winning a plurality means basically appealing to the middle in some way or another, so we elect what are basically liberal republicans (aka RINOs) and democrats to the right of that party (corporate democrats). Bottom line is there just aren't many voters like Jill Stein or the libertarian flavor of the cycle.

Plus, the massive in-place infrastructure of the two main parties matters a great deal, and the big money matters. And when you have races that like now cost over $2 billion (from all sources, both major parties) for POTUS and a House seat now costing $millions, Senate seat $10 million minimum, the candidates have to attract the money and so, no kidding as expected and what any rational person wanting to WIN would do, push policies that appeal to (or don't really harm at least) very rich people!

Blaming "voters" might be fun, but IMO it's like a business that failed blaming its customers for not recognizing how awesome the product was. Might even be true, but pretty worthless as any kind of strategy or suggestion on how to make things better.
 
allowing 3rd party candidates to debate with the GOP and D nominees would do the trick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom