• 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!

Political Party

One1

New member
Joined
May 8, 2019
Messages
16
Reaction score
2
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Would anyone think creating a new political party to be a good idea, in today's society? Why or why not
 
Would anyone think creating a new political party to be a good idea, in today's society? Why or why not

Good idea. Highly unlikely to succeed.
 
Why wouldn't it succeed
 
Why wouldn't it succeed

An unintended consequence of single member districts is that they result in a two party system.
Single-member district - Wikipedia
Fewer minority parties

It has been argued that single-member districts tend to promote two-party systems (with some regional parties). Called Duverger's law, this principle has also been empirically supported by the cube rule, which shows how the winning party in a first-past-the-post system is mathematically over-represented in the final chamber of representatives.

Supporters view this effect as beneficial, as parliamentary governments are typically more stable in two-party systems, and minorities do not have undue power to break a coalition. First-past-the-post minimizes the influence of third parties and thus arguably keeps out extremists. Critics of two-party systems believe that two-party systems offer less choice to voters, create an exaggerated emphasis on issues that dominate more marginal seats, and does not completely remove the possibility of a balanced chamber (or hung parliament), which can also give undue power to independents and lead to even greater instability.[citation needed]
 
Would anyone think creating a new political party to be a good idea, in today's society?

We have;
Democratic Party, Republican Party, Libertarian Party, Green Party, & Constitutional Party.

Would a new one be a good idea?

No, in my opinion. We have plenty of political parties already. One more will not help anything.
 
What if it was trying to change everything. Laws, separation of powers, who could become gov. officials
 
As evident by our existing 3rd parties.

Libertarians hold no meaningful power in the US, nor does any other supposed alternative party.
 
Libertarians hold no meaningful power in the US, nor does any other supposed alternative party.

No **** Sherlock. The OP was about whether or not it is reasonable to make a new Political Party in today's environment. You said it's highly unlikely to succeed, and I said as evident by our current 3rd parties.

Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick.
 
Would anyone think creating a new political party to be a good idea, in today's society? Why or why not

Yes, a Moderate Party for everyone sick and tired of the Big 2. Start at the grass roots and it will catch in like wild fire.
 
i'd rather see parties banned, which would be incredibly difficult to do.
 
Do you think you would know how to set it up(partly)
 
Would anyone think creating a new political party to be a good idea, in today's society? Why or why not
The American system is not a parliamentary system in which a coalition is formed to create a government, by having an agreement from a majority of the parties elected. The American system bakes the coalition's into a single party, and when there is a faction that breaks off, it weakens their chances of defeating the other party.

America cannot have parties that demand ideological purity, this is why Libertarians and the DSA will likely never attain a higher status. It is also why so much of the Democratic establishment is so reviled by many on the Left, because historically (not now) people have wanted not just compromise within the factions of the Left, but also compromise across the aisles.

It doesn't make sense that we just set ourselves utterly and forever against the Republicans. I think the Democrats need to run on a very wide base so that the country can move forward and not in a way which is as polarized as we are potentially headed. What good is getting all the progressive policies you want, if the country fractures or it gets voted out by another Republican backlash? I think if you want meaningful progress, you aren't going to find that in one ideology, it will have to emerge from a restoration of sane politics of people working together with the same facts.

I'm presently cynical that we will achieve these ideals, and expect much more polarization, conspiracy and violence to come. Which means in this polarized atmosphere I pick anyone who wins the Democratic Primary. Any other party emerging unless it was Right Wing, would help Trump. If Progressives break off from Center-Left Democrats then Trump will win the election.
 
Why wouldn't it succeed

Because it would not be possible to obtain 25,000 candidates for a new party for local, county, state, and federal elections, which would have to be done or straight party voting would not be possible. Without straight party voting as an option having a new political party is impossible. In addition, people vote for incumbents. Even if they hate Congress, they will vote for their member of Congress. Even if they hate both party's candidate for president, they will vote for one of those two.

Many people tend to think the only election is the presidency because that is all the MSM and press talks about. But actually every election season there are 10s of thousands of candidates and elections going on.

What stands in the way? Reality.
 
Yes, a Moderate Party for everyone sick and tired of the Big 2. Start at the grass roots and it will catch in like wild fire.

Never gonna happen and wouldn't work if tried (again). Every attempt at a new major political party fails badly and then it disappears or is irrelevant.

Another reason? The OPer gives it. In fact there are not just 2 political parties in the USA. There are well over 50 political parties in the United States. That the OPer, claiming to be so interested in a new political party, doesn't know this shows just how little interest in alternative political parties there is. Even the OPer while advocating for it doesn't really have any interest in 3rd parties himself.
 
I totally despise independent and 3rd party candidates.

3rd party and independent candidates are just spoilers who, in fact, help the major party candidate they MOST disagree with. That has happened repeatedly.

For example, the liberal Ralph Nadar caused the Republican to win, while businessman Ross Perot got Bill Clinton elected. Probably Jill Stein is why Trump became president rather than Hillary Clinton.

Simply put, 3rd party and independent candidates suck because they are just spoilers with the real effect of leading to results exactly opposite who their supporters would have voted for without the 3rd party or independent candidate.

Want the liberal to lose? Put up a "dark horse" 3rd Party or independent candidate who is to the left of that liberal. The dark horse only sucks votes from the liberal, meaning helping the conservative. Beat a major party Republican by running a strong more conservative independent or 3rd party candidate - as the only effect is helping the Democrat.

That is the REALITY of how it works.
 
Last edited:
Never gonna happen and wouldn't work if tried (again). Every attempt at a new major political party fails badly and then it disappears or is irrelevant.

Another reason? The OPer gives it. In fact there are not just 2 political parties in the USA. There are well over 50 political parties in the United States. That the OPer, claiming to be so interested in a new political party, doesn't know this shows just how little interest in alternative political parties there is. Even the OPer while advocating for it doesn't really have any interest in 3rd parties himself.

Then you will have no interest in a new Party. Noted.
 
The majority of the media is too invested in being Democrat or Republican " lap dogs " for a viable 3rd party to win a presidential election.

Isn't a shame that the one industry in America that so heavily relies on the 1st Amendment is the one to abuse it to no end with lies & intentional omission of facts?

People around the country aught to be shaming the media at every opportunity instead of going logger heads with each other. The same goes for every blogger if they are caught lying.
 
Would anyone think creating a new political party to be a good idea, in today's society? Why or why not

Political parties are popping into and out of existence all the time. Third parties play an important role in US politics, despite being dismissed by many as ineffective.

Whenever there are issues not being addressed by either of the two major political parties, a third party will spring into existence. As the third party becomes more and more popular, one or both or the major parties will begin adopting changes and addressing the issue that caused the third party to be created. Once that happens then the reason for the existence of the third party ceases and they fade into oblivion. So even though the third party no longer exists, the issues they raised were successfully adopted.

The most recent example was the Reform Party that sprang into existence in 1992. After obtaining 19% of the popular vote in 1992 the Republican Party began paying attention to the issues being raised by Ross Perot and the Reform Party. When the GOP gained control of Congress in 1994 they began making changes. As a result, by the 1996 General Election the Reform Party had dropped to only 8% of the popular vote. By the time Trump ran for President on the Reform Party ticket in 2000 virtually all the issues the Reform Party had raised in 1992 had been addressed by the GOP. The Reform Party would not field another presidential candidate after Trump. After the 2000 General Election the Reform Party effectively disappeared.

This has happened numerous times throughout US history. The Progressive Party, for example, formed in 1890 by former Republicans, began a series of changes that would be adopted by both Republicans and Democrats and become our 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th Amendments in the span of just 30 years. In American history this period between 1890 and 1930 is known as "The Age of Reform." The most well-known presidential candidate presented by the Progressive Party was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. However, by 1920 all the issues the Progressive Party had raised since the 1890s had been adopted by mostly the Republican Party and by the 1930s the Progressive Party faded into oblivion.

Should another issue arise, that is not being addressed by either the Republican or Democratic parties, then I have absolutely no doubt that yet another third party will spring into existence. This is usually enough to shock one of the two major parties out of their complacency and into taking action. If for no other reason to recapture the lost votes.
 
Last edited:
i'd rather see parties banned, which would be incredibly difficult to do.

Not only difficult, but also unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects our right to freely associate with whomever we please.
 
The American system is not a parliamentary system in which a coalition is formed to create a government, by having an agreement from a majority of the parties elected. The American system bakes the coalition's into a single party, and when there is a faction that breaks off, it weakens their chances of defeating the other party.

America cannot have parties that demand ideological purity, this is why Libertarians and the DSA will likely never attain a higher status. It is also why so much of the Democratic establishment is so reviled by many on the Left, because historically (not now) people have wanted not just compromise within the factions of the Left, but also compromise across the aisles.

It doesn't make sense that we just set ourselves utterly and forever against the Republicans. I think the Democrats need to run on a very wide base so that the country can move forward and not in a way which is as polarized as we are potentially headed. What good is getting all the progressive policies you want, if the country fractures or it gets voted out by another Republican backlash? I think if you want meaningful progress, you aren't going to find that in one ideology, it will have to emerge from a restoration of sane politics of people working together with the same facts.

I'm presently cynical that we will achieve these ideals, and expect much more polarization, conspiracy and violence to come. Which means in this polarized atmosphere I pick anyone who wins the Democratic Primary. Any other party emerging unless it was Right Wing, would help Trump. If Progressives break off from Center-Left Democrats then Trump will win the election.

The US doesn't need to be a parliamentary system in order to have different coalitions. That is why third parties exist in the US. If one or both of the two major parties are not addressing issues that a large segment of society wants addressed, then a third party will pop into existence in order to specifically address those issues. They never get enough votes to be a serious threat to either of the two political parties, but depending on the popularity of the issue, they do steal votes from those major parties.

The Democratic Party popped into existence after Andrew Jackson did not become President in 1824, despite winning both the popular and Electoral College votes. At the time Jackson founded the Democratic Party there were Federalists and Democratic-Republicans (a.k.a. "The Party of Jefferson"). The overwhelming majority of the federalists joined Jackson's party and became Democrats, while the remainder became Whigs and would later become Republicans by 1856. They originally called themselves "Whigs" in mockery of Jackson's "Kingly" style of rule, because they felt he ran the US government as his monarchy.

So that polarization between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party has existed since the inception of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party was never created based upon a difference of ideas or ideology. It was created out of sheer spite, and it continues exists in that context to this day. That deep seated hatred for the US ultimately culminated in the 1861 Civil War, started by Democrats.
 
The majority of the media is too invested in being Democrat or Republican " lap dogs " for a viable 3rd party to win a presidential election.

Isn't a shame that the one industry in America that so heavily relies on the 1st Amendment is the one to abuse it to no end with lies & intentional omission of facts?

People around the country aught to be shaming the media at every opportunity instead of going logger heads with each other. The same goes for every blogger if they are caught lying.

The purpose of third parties is not to win elections. The purpose of third parties is to address issues and take away votes from one or both of the two major parties for not addressing those issues. If one or both of the two major parties begins addressing the issues being raised by the third party, then the third party's reason for being ceases and they disappear.

When Ross Perot created the Reform Party in 1992 he had absolutely no hope of being elected President. He received zero Electoral College votes. However, Perot did receive 19% of the popular vote. That was enough to give Republicans a way of capturing the issues being raised by Perot and adopt them into the mid-term election. Which resulted in the Republicans taking control of Congress for the first time in 40 years in 1994. By the 1996 General Election the Republican Party had so well adopted the issues raised by the Reform Party that the Reform Party only got 8% of the popular vote. After the 2000 General Election the Reform Party would effectively cease to be because all of their issues were adopted by the GOP. The Reform Party served its purpose and was successful, despite never receiving a single Electoral College vote in all three General Elections they fielded a candidate.

Also, the only reason our constitutional protection of the free speech exists is to protect the speech with which we disagree. If we agreed with what was said then no protection would be necessary.
 
i'd rather see parties banned, which would be incredibly difficult to do.

In every democracy political parties have evolved, starting out as groups coming together to pursue common goals. Nothing wrong with this and there is reason to believe that democracy cannot function without them.

Oh and 'banning' things is seldom a good idea. Certainly no parties if one favours freedom of assembly.
 
Not only difficult, but also unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects our right to freely associate with whomever we please.

Helix said:
i'd rather see parties banned, which would be incredibly difficult to do.

.....
 
Back
Top Bottom