• 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!

If A Third Party Went Mainstream...

If A Third Party Went Mainstream, Which One Would You Want It To Be?


  • Total voters
    53
It's not going to happen. The only way a party can go mainstream is if it's platform appeals to a wide swath of American voters and I don't see any of the third parties that we have in America today doing that.

I would've said at one time (Perot grass roots) that there were enough Independents to create a party, in between the Republicans and Democrats. The problem with them, is that they don't have enough issues they agree on, they simply disagree with the other two dominate parties.
 
Problem is that many fiscal conservatives latch onto the libertarian theme of free markets and personal freedom (for them) and don't really give a rat's arse about the rest. Libertarianism, to them, becomes a talking point and a rationalization instead of a heartfelt belief.

There are a ton of people that I know who wear the libertarian label but really are single-issue voters, they don't give a damn about the rest of the platform.
 
Today, that's true but there was a time when the Republican party was actually conservative and that wasn't the case. Yet even though I am very much a conservative, I'd never vote Libertarian because I want a lot more personal responsibility than personal freedom.

With personal freedom, comes personal responsibility. The two are not mutually exclusive.
 
With personal freedom, comes personal responsibility. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Funny, I see a lot of people who claim to be libertarian who only want personal freedom and no responsibility for their decisions at all. They want to be able to make decisions that they want to make but not have to consider whether these are good decisions to begin with.
 
Funny, I see a lot of people who claim to be libertarian who only want personal freedom and no responsibility for their decisions at all. They want to be able to make decisions that they want to make but not have to consider whether these are good decisions to begin with.

Key word: claim.
 
Funny, I see a lot of people who claim to be libertarian who only want personal freedom and no responsibility for their decisions at all. They want to be able to make decisions that they want to make but not have to consider whether these are good decisions to begin with.
I see this a lot, too.
 
I think you are being rather kind of the prospects of the Libertarians.

No, go, going off the hypothetical numbers rocket was giving was being rather kind.

I dont think any 3rd party has any chance to out forward even double digit numbers on even a semi regular basis at a federal level.
 
Key word: claim.

Since it's just a label and people can pick whatever label they like to refer to themselves, so what? Nobody elected you the official arbiter of what is and what is not a libertarian. If we go by people who only adopt the entire party platform, libertarianism looks even more pathetic than it otherwise is.
 
I see this a lot, too.

This is especially the druggies who only want to take drugs and don't care about anything else in the Libertarian Party platform. I can't tell you how many of those people have also said that they expect others to take care of them, give them government checks, cover the cost of the care for their health problems that come from using drugs, they just want the freedom to stick a needle in their arms.

I'd argue that most self-labeled libertarians are closer to this than the Libertarian Party would want to admit.
 
No thanks. I'd rather people with a shred of economic sense be in charge of the fiscal side of things. Liberals couldn't be more financially illiterate if they tried.
We know, we try our best.
 
Since it's just a label and people can pick whatever label they like to refer to themselves, so what? Nobody elected you the official arbiter of what is and what is not a libertarian. If we go by people who only adopt the entire party platform, libertarianism looks even more pathetic than it otherwise is.

It's not about party platform, it's about philosophy. The reality of the situation is that many people these days are slapping the "libertarian" label on themselves without possessing even a juvenile understanding of the philosophy. They think it's about guns and low taxes, they don't give a crap beyond that. Libertarianism is about self-ownership and the right of the individual to pursue their life as they see fit so long as they do not harm anyone else. It is also about, as you said, personal responsibility and reaping the consequences of the personal decisions they make while enjoying this freedom. Some of the newer libertarians do not understand this and cherrypick issues they like and think that makes them libertarian.
 
I dont think any 3rd party has any chance to out forward even double digit numbers on even a semi regular basis at a federal level.
One of the problems is that no party...save, to a small extent, the Green Party... makes an effort to establish local and state bases from which to build a national base.

Just for the sake of conversation, let's say a third party candidate could get elected President. Then what? Which party will be most likely to work with them? Neither. That's which party.
 
It's not about party platform, it's about philosophy. The reality of the situation is that many people these days are slapping the "libertarian" label on themselves without possessing even a juvenile understanding of the philosophy. They think it's about guns and low taxes, they don't give a crap beyond that. Libertarianism is about self-ownership and the right of the individual to pursue their life as they see fit so long as they do not harm anyone else. It is also about, as you said, personal responsibility and reaping the consequences of the personal decisions they make while enjoying this freedom. Some of the newer libertarians do not understand this and cherrypick issues they like and think that makes them libertarian.

I understand that, it's no wonder the party can't get anywhere remotely close to 5% of the electorate for matching funds. You can, of course, have whatever philosophy you want and slap whatever label on yourself that you want, but when it comes down to national leadership, the only thing that matters is who actually gets elected into office and can lead the country. Libertarians are unlikely to ever achieve that because of the extreme fragmentation of their party. In all reality, there isn't a Libertarian Party, there are a bunch of individualists all doing their own thing, with very little in common, just wearing the same hat. In terms of this thread, that makes them even less likely than the Greens or the Constitutionalists or the Communists to ever be a major factor in national leadership.
 
I understand that, it's no wonder the party can't get anywhere remotely close to 5% of the electorate for matching funds. You can, of course, have whatever philosophy you want and slap whatever label on yourself that you want, but when it comes down to national leadership, the only thing that matters is who actually gets elected into office and can lead the country. Libertarians are unlikely to ever achieve that because of the extreme fragmentation of their party. In all reality, there isn't a Libertarian Party, there are a bunch of individualists all doing their own thing, with very little in common, just wearing the same hat. In terms of this thread, that makes them even less likely than the Greens or the Constitutionalists or the Communists to ever be a major factor in national leadership.

Have you ever been to a Libertarian Party meeting? Do you have personal experience with the party itself or is your experience just primarily with asshats on political forums who label themselves libertarians but supported Mitt Romney in 2012?

I, however, have had experience with the party. I consistently attend local meetings, and state meetings. I even attend national meetings and I can tell you from personal experience that we are united and all, save a few, share the core tenants of Libertarian philosophy.

My beef is with the Republican "libertarians", of which are basically fake libertarians trying to rope people into continuing to vote for the party. Don't mistake the Randbots for Libertarians.
 
Have you ever been to a Libertarian Party meeting? Do you have personal experience with the party itself or is your experience just primarily with asshats on political forums who label themselves libertarians but supported Mitt Romney in 2012?

I, however, have had experience with the party. I consistently attend local meetings, and state meetings. I attend national meetings and I can tell you from personal experience that we are united and all, save a few, share the core tenants of Libertarian philosophy.

My beef is with the Republican "libertarians", of which are basically fake libertarians trying to rope people into continuing to vote for the party. Don't mistake the Randbots for Libertarians.

Did it ever occur to you that the only people who attend those meetings are the ones who buy into the libertarian dogma, but only make up a small percentage of people who would mark "libertarian" on a ballot? Nah, didn't think so.
 
No, go, going off the hypothetical numbers rocket was giving was being rather kind.

I dont think any 3rd party has any chance to out forward even double digit numbers on even a semi regular basis at a federal level.

Perot was able to get nearly a fifth of the popular vote and I think that is probably the max for a third party. The issue which will absolutely kill them and prevent them from ever getting to the mainstream is the entire civil rights laws discussion. It is simply the kiss of death for them.
 
Did it ever occur to you that the only people who attend those meetings are the ones who buy into the libertarian dogma, but only make up a small percentage of people who would mark "libertarian" on a ballot? Nah, didn't think so.

Did it ever occur to you that voting for a candidate of a certain party does not make you a member of that party? I voted for Ron Paul, doesn't make me a Republican. I've voted for several Democrats, doesn't make me a Democrat. I'm talking actual members.
 
Did it ever occur to you that voting for a candidate of a certain party does not make you a member of that party? I voted for Ron Paul, doesn't make me a Republican. I've voted for several Democrats, doesn't make me a Democrat. I'm talking actual members.

I'm talking actual numbers too. Supposedly, going to a Libertarian Party rally, those are people who are committed to voting for Libertarian Party candidates, right? Ron Paul has been one in the past, he just abandoned the Libertarians when he realized that they'd never put him in office so he ran as a Republican instead. He lost there too. You can run as a candidate in any party you want, it just depends on whether they're willing to put you up there officially or not. You've already said that you think most people who claim to be libertarians are not and then you try to argue that people who attend party rallys, while they might be the true believers, I think we both acknowledge that they are not the majority of people who register Libertarian. So what actual numbers are you trying to argue? That the people who think like you are vastly underrepresented in the Libertarian Party?
 
Well, you should have given the option for multiple choices.

Since I made the forever shameful vote for Obama in 08 I've voted exclusively 3rd Party ever since going between the Libertarians and Greens...

It depends on the candidate which I would choose

If Gary Johnson ran as a Libertarian again, I'd have to say Libertarian Party...
 
I'm talking actual numbers too. Supposedly, going to a Libertarian Party rally, those are people who are committed to voting for Libertarian Party candidates, right?

I'm not talking about "rallys." There are no "rallys." I'm talking about meetings. Actual meetings with actual members. You know, the people who physically run the party.

You've already said that you think most people who claim to be libertarians are not

Yeah, I did say that.That's because Tea Partiers and gun nuts are slapping the label on without understanding the philosophy. Most of these people are in the Republican Party and are enthusiastically supporting Rand Paul, who is one of the biggest political chameleons to date.

That the people who think like you are vastly underrepresented in the Libertarian Party?

No, that the label is overused by people who don't understand the philosophy.
 
The libertarian party is already the third biggest political party in the US. Unfortunately they are being ground down by a conspiracy between the two main parties and the mainstream media is biased against them so I doubt they will go mainstream anytime soon.
What? No...the Libertarians dont need someone else to oppress them. The party has more holes in its feet than Jesus.
 
Back
Top Bottom