What do you think of a Third Party in the United States?

Ikari said:

That's what we do. We campaign a lot on local levels, we can get some success there as well. But the system is corrupt and is specifically designed especially on the federal level to ensure that other parties are not presented to the people in order to cement the rule of the Republocrats.

Click to expand...

How? (I don't necessarily disagree with you).

I'm not saying I'm against it because I am not but does anyone else see the negative part that a candidate could become president with support from only 34% of he country if we had 3 major parties?

misterman said:

How? (I don't necessarily disagree with you).

Click to expand...

Campaign finance is one way in which they do a very good job holding back third parties. Raising money become tough unless you already have a large sum of money to invest into campaigning. Which means you either come from one of the main parties with huge coffers or you're independently wealthy. That last part, they took out by restricting participation in debates. That's thanks to Ross Perot who was absolutely crazy, but rich enough to spend massive money on advertising and captured a significant portion of the vote because of it. They don't want to repeat that, so the League of Women Voters which typically held things such as Presidential debates were removed from the system and now its governed by a set of rules specifically constructed to effectively keep out third parties. It is further exacerbated through the partisan nature of our press whom will report primarily only on the main parties in some way.

For instance, in the Bush/Kerry debate in Arizona I believe, the Libertarian and Green party Presidential candidates were arrested outside the debates. Did you hear that on the news? Presidential candidates at a Presidential candidate debate were arrested outside the debate. Seems like maybe that's news worthy.

I don't say that my way is the only way, there are many other opinions out there. I also know that you can't let everyone into debates because if you get 15 or so candidates the debates become unworkable (well now they're just a little puppet show for us). But that doesn't mean that we should limit it to 2. Our system is stable at 2 main parties because of the winner take all system in place. Fine. But we need to have healthy third parties waiting in the wings in case the main parties stop listening to the People. That way, they can be replaced when they no longer serve a purpose. It will continue that way because any party in power long enough will become corrupt and unresponsive to the People. So you have to have some mechanism by which one or both of the main parties can be replaced.

pro-bipartisan said:

I'm not saying I'm against it because I am not but does anyone else see the negative part that a candidate could become president with support from only 34% of he country if we had 3 major parties?

Click to expand...

Well half the people don't vote now, and the rest of the vote is pretty much 50/50 + noise. So essentially, right now the winning candidate has about ~25% of the votes from the total population of potential voters.

Ikari said:

Campaign finance is one way in which they do a very good job holding back third parties. Raising money become tough unless you already have a large sum of money to invest into campaigning. Which means you either come from one of the main parties with huge coffers or you're independently wealthy. That last part, they took out by restricting participation in debates. That's thanks to Ross Perot who was absolutely crazy, but rich enough to spend massive money on advertising and captured a significant portion of the vote because of it.

Click to expand...

While I agree that the cost of campaigning makes it tougher for a new party, any party can raise money all they want. Ross Perot was just self-centered and impatient.

For instance, in the Bush/Kerry debate in Arizona I believe, the Libertarian and Green party Presidential candidates were arrested outside the debates. Did you hear that on the news? Presidential candidates at a Presidential candidate debate were arrested outside the debate. Seems like maybe that's news worthy.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's a big barrier. But you can't just let anyone in - you should limit it to people who have a shot. I know, that's a catch-22 though.

I don't say that my way is the only way, there are many other opinions out there. I also know that you can't let everyone into debates because if you get 15 or so candidates the debates become unworkable (well now they're just a little puppet show for us). But that doesn't mean that we should limit it to 2. Our system is stable at 2 main parties because of the winner take all system in place. Fine. But we need to have healthy third parties waiting in the wings in case the main parties stop listening to the People. That way, they can be replaced when they no longer serve a purpose. It will continue that way because any party in power long enough will become corrupt and unresponsive to the People. So you have to have some mechanism by which one or both of the main parties can be replaced.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with that idea. I don't mind if the parties are replaced, I'm just saying there will never be more than two that dominate at a given time.

misterman said:

While I agree that the cost of campaigning makes it tougher for a new party, any party can raise money all they want. Ross Perot was just self-centered and impatient.

Click to expand...

It's very hard to start from scratch. Which may be ok if finance laws were open enough to allow those with low coffers to make the money necessary to effectively campaign.

misterman said:

Yes, that's a big barrier. But you can't just let anyone in - you should limit it to people who have a shot. I know, that's a catch-22 though.

Click to expand...

While I understand the point, I think it would carry significantly more weight if the system was not set up against third party participation.

misterman said:

I have no problem with that idea. I don't mind if the parties are replaced, I'm just saying there will never be more than two that dominate at a given time.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it will be stable at anything other than 2 major parties. Not with the winner take all electoral system we currently have. However, I do believe that to hold government more closely to the People there has to be mechanisms which can allow for the replacement of a pacified party.

VanceMack said:

Its a silly discussion...we HAVE more than a thired party. We have MULTIPLE parties. Most of their platforms make their candidates unelectable.

Click to expand...

Redress said:

I voted "other" in the poll(and thank you for putting that option there, so many don't in their polls). We have third parties in this country, the reason they are not "strong" is because they do not represent the beliefs of very many people. The Libertarian party is the largest of the third parties(note, the Tea and Coffee parties do not count, as they do not have full platforms at this time), and has a membership that is about 1 % of either of the large parties(democratic party ~70 mil, repubs ~50 mil, Libertarians 500k). Just saying we need a strong third party is meaningless until we have one that actually is supported by a large portion of the people of this country.

Click to expand...

I agree, that's why I voted other in the poll. We already have multiple parties - Libertarian, Green, Modern Whig, and a Modern Progressive parties, they are just not popular with the majority of the country.

Ikari said:

Well half the people don't vote now, and the rest of the vote is pretty much 50/50 + noise. So essentially, right now the winning candidate has about ~25% of the votes from the total population of potential voters.

Click to expand...

So you want to cut that to 15%?

pro-bipartisan said:

So you want to cut that to 15%?

Click to expand...

I'm just saying that we already have lower than your original estimate electing our leaders. And if you allowed more open and equal participation; it may be possible to start to capture some of that 50% whom do not vote.

Progressive86 said:

I think we do need a strong Third Party because it's something that'll keep the two major parties we have now honest.

Click to expand...

You need a one party system where people is involved in politics and issues instead of parties and politicians gossip and scandals and PR.

Europe needs that too.

Ikari said:

I'm just saying that we already have lower than your original estimate electing our leaders. And if you allowed more open and equal participation; it may be possible to start to capture some of that 50% whom do not vote.

Click to expand...

We have dozens of political parties for people to choose from now, and still half of the citizens are too apathetic to vote. What political flavor is it you think will make the apathetic suddenly become politically active?

For myself, I think those that don't vote are just to sorry to take the effort, and no matter how many political parties there are, we will still have people to apathetic to take the effort to vote.

Catawba said:

We have dozens of political parties for people to choose from now, and still half of the citizens are too apathetic to vote. What political flavor is it you think will make the apathetic suddenly become politically active?

Click to expand...

Well I doubt you'd ever get everyone. However, I think some are definitely not voting because they don't see it as worth their while, that their voice isn't heard. Yes, we have a lot of third parties; but they are almost always referenced either by the main parties or the press as insignificant and a "waste" of your vote. As such, it discourages people even more from trying.

Ikari said:

However, I think some are definitely not voting because they don't see it as worth their while, that their voice isn't heard.

Click to expand...

Yeah - because they don't vote.

We already do have third parties in the U.S., they just don't happen to appeal to a majority of voters which is one of the reasons they don't win many elections. What I'd like to see is not just a third party, but a third party that has a significant chance of spoiling elections for the big two.

Cephus said:

We already do have third parties in the U.S., they just don't happen to appeal to a majority of voters which is one of the reasons they don't win many elections. What I'd like to see is not just a third party, but a third party that has a significant chance of spoiling elections for the big two.

Click to expand...

It's easy to spoil the elections. All they have to do is get a small percentage of the vote taken away from primarily one party. Since our votes are all pretty much 50/50+noise, all you have to do to influence outcome is to affect the noise.

Ikari said:

Well I doubt you'd ever get everyone. However, I think some are definitely not voting because they don't see it as worth their while, that their voice isn't heard. Yes, we have a lot of third parties; but they are almost always referenced either by the main parties or the press as insignificant and a "waste" of your vote. As such, it discourages people even more from trying.

Click to expand...

I relate this to bands that expect to get a record deal without first having a large following.

How can a political party demand equity within the press without a large following? That seems to be the critical component missing in all the third parties out there.

It seems the sad, or good, news, depending on one's perspective, is we have the government we deserve. As my government teacher led us to discover, our government is as good or bad as we let it become.

Redress said:

So are the rest who have no chance of winning. When you have the support in the 1 to 2 % range, you are just in the way of real candidates.

The Libertarians need to stop whining about how unfair the system is and start actually trying to get people to support their platform. Until they do that, they have no room to cry about the system.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with you. If there is going to be change there needs to be some hard and honest discussion. People need to be convinced to throw the republicans under the bus...its not like they actually support 'the people' anyway. They also need to go after the majority of registered democrats...because to be honest...there isnt all that much difference between ALL common hard working folk in this country, regardless of who they pull the lever for in the election booth.

Catawba said:

I relate this to bands that expect to get a record deal without first having a large following.

How can a political party demand equity within the press without a large following? That seems to be the critical component missing in all the third parties out there.

It seems the sad, or good, news, depending on one's perspective, is we have the government we deserve. As my government teacher led us to discover, our government is as good or bad as we make it.

Click to expand...

I think it's a bit different. It's as if you have two schools, one well funded and one rather poor. The well funded one can afford very good teachers, materials, books, lab space, etc. As a result, they produce top notch students. The poor one struggles with overcrowded class rooms, lack of supplies, etc. and thus produces students of much lower quality. The poor school petitions to receive more funding on the level that the good school gets. They are told that as soon as they start producing students near the numbers and quality of the good school, that they will then receive an increase in funding.

Ikari said:

It's easy to spoil the elections. All they have to do is get a small percentage of the vote taken away from primarily one party. Since our votes are all pretty much 50/50+noise, all you have to do to influence outcome is to affect the noise.

Click to expand...

The libertarian party had a decent shot at actually building momentum following the 08 election. Bob Barr was actually a decent candidate. But they shouldnt have been campaigning to win the 2008 presidential election, they should have been campaigning to put win just 5 seats in the 2010 congressional election...and they should have been starting 2 years ago. And then add 2 more...then 5 more...etc.

Ikari said:

I think it's a bit different. It's as if you have two schools, one well funded and one rather poor. The well funded one can afford very good teachers, materials, books, lab space, etc. As a result, they produce top notch students. The poor one struggles with overcrowded class rooms, lack of supplies, etc. and thus produces students of much lower quality. The poor school petitions to receive more funding on the level that the good school gets. They are told that as soon as they start producing students near the numbers and quality of the good school, that they will then receive an increase in funding.

Click to expand...

Going with your analogy then, why would anyone wish to fund a school that hardly anybody wished to attend due to their extreme curriculum?

As with third parties there has to be a platform that attracts a significant segment of the population.

That is what has been lacking with the third parties.

The Modern Whig approach is focussed on the states. In Virginia, I want to run candidates in the 2012 election for state representatives. If we get some traction, we'll go from there.

misterman said:

How? (I don't necessarily disagree with you).

Click to expand...

Don't forget that the 2 major parties receive a form of corporate welfare from the government.

The parties control the presidential debate as well.
It needs to be managed by an unbiased third party(not a political party).

reefedjib said:

The Modern Whig approach is focussed on the states. In Virginia, I want to run candidates in the 2012 election for state representatives. If we get some traction, we'll go from there.

Click to expand...

I would never have expected you to be pro-choice and for reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

You learn something new everyday! Kudo's on those positions!

Harry Guerrilla said:

Don't forget that the 2 major parties receive a form of corporate welfare from the government.

The parties control the presidential debate as well.
It needs to be managed by an unbiased third party(not a political party).

Click to expand...

That will come once a party has a significant segment of public support.

Catawba said:

That will come once a party has a significant segment of public support.

Click to expand...

Well that's the rub, the 2 major political parties review tons of money from corporate donors, not only that but they control all election laws.

It's institutional that they prevent others from participating, they want to hold their monopoly.

Why do you guys support monopolies?