• 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!

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

Do you think we need a Third Party in America?


  • Total voters
    37
I think we need a strong third, fourth, fifth, and sixth party in the U.S. Unfortunately, nothing is ever going to change until we change our voting system. Plurality voting systems naturally tend to a two-party system (Duverger's Law). Change our system to something like Instant Run-off Voting and the chances for other parties to get elected increase dramatically.

But, then again, there's another problem with our government system. Only one politician can be elected to one congressional district, despite both Democrats, Republicans, and any other third-party members living there. So if a Green congressman gets elected he'll also have to represent the Republicans and Democrats who are constituents in his district. This is the problem with having single-member districts instead of a national proportional system.

Then again, I rather like districts since it allows local areas to have a say in national politics. It keeps national politics from being controlled by urban areas.

However, I think instituting IRV would be a great step forward in the right direction.

I like this idea. It unfortunately makes too much sense to ever be implemented.
 
More to add...

I consider myself to be moderate because I personally have conservative and liberal views. It all depends on the issue we're talking about.


For instance...

I am personally against abortion, but I believe it should be up to the mother to decide what to do with her body.

I am in favor of Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and welfare... but I am against people surviving on these programs and am also against the way these programs are currently structured.

I am in favor of gay marriage but I think a solution that could make everyone happy would be for homosexual couples to call gay "marriage" something else.

I am in favor of Space Exploration but there are more important things we need to be focusing on right now. There is little out there for us to care about at this point.

I am in favor of homosexuals in the military and any caught having sexual relations should be treated the same way as a hetero couple would be if they were caught having sexual relations.

I am in favor of closing off our borders and moving in a direction of integrating the illegal immigrant population into our society, so long as they pay taxes like the rest of us. Mass deportation is simply inhumane.

I am in favor of health care insurance, but I am also in favor of a public option to force insurance companies to take less of a profit margin.

WE NEED MORE NUCLEAR ENERGY! Enough said.

Religion should be a private matter. But religions should be allowed to publicly display their religion. However no religion should be allowed to mock other religions on public property (i.e. Atheists mocking God believers in Washington around Christmas... those people were in my mind just trying to be dicks and get people riled up)

Stem cell research should be allowed. Anyone who believes Stem cell research only means using aborted fetuses knows nothing about the subject.

Whether climate change is real or not, we still need to work our way off of oil. The leader in the future automotive industry will be the one to perfect the electric car. And making technology where homes that can run off of their own solar panels will create jobs, increase the GDP and reduce pollution. I don't know about you but I like being able to see the sky during the day.
 
Its a silly discussion...we HAVE more than a thired party. We have MULTIPLE parties. Most of their platforms make their candidates unelectable.
 
I think we need a strong third, fourth, fifth, and sixth party in the U.S. Unfortunately, nothing is ever going to change until we change our voting system. Plurality voting systems naturally tend to a two-party system (Duverger's Law). Change our system to something like Instant Run-off Voting and the chances for other parties to get elected increase dramatically.

But, then again, there's another problem with our government system. Only one politician can be elected to one congressional district, despite both Democrats, Republicans, and any other third-party members living there. So if a Green congressman gets elected he'll also have to represent the Republicans and Democrats who are constituents in his district. This is the problem with having single-member districts instead of a national proportional system.

Then again, I rather like districts since it allows local areas to have a say in national politics. It keeps national politics from being controlled by urban areas.

However, I think instituting IRV would be a great step forward in the right direction.

Great idea... unfortunately the only way for every side in every county to have a say would be for there to be much larger government... and we all know how conservatives feel about that.
 
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.
 
I think we do need a strong Third Party because it's something that'll keep the two major parties we have now honest.

I think that the current system is set up well to exclude as much as possible the third parties so that they may perpetually be insignificant.
 
Canada and the UK have more three or more main political parties (with two major ones each)

We have a voting system similar to the US ( the person with the most votes wins the district or seat)

There really is no reason for only two political parties in the US rather then three.

Other then the fact Americans dont like losing. People in the UK will vote for the Liberal Democrats despite that party having no chance of forming the government. The same occurs in Canada with the New Democrats, they will never likely form the government, but the do get some seats in government

Don't use the UK as a model for a pluralistic democracy when 35% of the vote wins you 356 seats and 22% of the vote wins you 62. Now argue that this is a just representation of the will of the people.
 
It would depend on what the 3rd party was. I think we need a moderate, centrist alternative to the democrats and republicans. I don't think we need more tea partiers.
 
We have a ****load of political parties in the US

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States]List of political parties in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


But, we have to very strong ones, and a couple of up and comers. Libertarian is making strong moves. I'd like to see them with more power
 
It would depend on what the 3rd party was. I think we need a moderate, centrist alternative to the democrats and republicans. I don't think we need more tea partiers.

I think "moderate, centrist" is what we have with the Republocrats. Neither really push hard one way or the other. They support the status quo. We need something to shake the status quo, that will remove it so that we can push government in the proper direction...smaller and more constrained.
 
I think "moderate, centrist" is what we have with the Republocrats. Neither really push hard one way or the other. They support the status quo. We need something to shake the status quo, that will remove it so that we can push government in the proper direction...smaller and more constrained.

In other words, with what you perceive to be correct. The rest of the posts indicate they also want another party so as to support what is most like themselves, but then say that the other person is wrong for advocating a third party platform that supports a different set of principles.
 
I think that the current system is set up well to exclude as much as possible the third parties so that they may perpetually be insignificant.

You dont think third parties sending up candidates like Smoky McPot for senator has anything to do with their own marginalization do you?

Believe me...thats the source of my frustration with the Libertarian party.

If you ask MOST people, they espouse libertarian ideals and values. So why cant the libertarians get people elected? Hell...we even have one avowed socialist in congress that caucuses with the democrats.

The reason is simply...the libertarians hitch their ponies to idiotic and fringe ideals like legalization of drugs as a primary party platform.
 
I don't buy into that notion.

Anyhow,

I subscribe to the belief that some competition is good, but if one demands a great amount of competition from numerous entities, the political pool would be far too influenced by one minority player, whom the others do not agree with. Consensus would be a key problem, and unity would also be a problem.
 
I think "moderate, centrist" is what we have with the Republocrats. Neither really push hard one way or the other. They support the status quo. We need something to shake the status quo, that will remove it so that we can push government in the proper direction...smaller and more constrained.

Your perception is absoLUTEly correct...at their core there isnt a dimes difference between the two. They are big government, big spending party politicians who value party and power over people and country.
 
If you ask MOST people, they espouse libertarian ideals and values.

Really?

Does that have anything to do with the fact that you are a libertarian?

For myself, I think far more of the American people espouse rhetoric that is to the political right to me, including social policy, but at the same time, they like the Welfare state a la New Deal and some/most of the Great Society-or at least do little in regards to desire it being removed.

I think it is far more complicated, and perhaps indecisive, as maybe public opinion just shifts around from year to year month to month.
 
Last edited:
Really?

Does that have anything to do with the fact that you are a libertarian?

For myself, I think far more of the American people espouse rhetoric that is to the political right to me, including social policy, but at the same time, they like the Welfare state a la New Deal and some/most of the Great Society-or at least do little in regards to desire it being removed.

I think it is far more complicated, and perhaps indecisive, as maybe public opinion just shifts around from year to year month to month.

Ah...you are one of those Contrarians...I see...that explains a lot.

MOST people believe in individual rights first, state rights second, and federal last. MOST people believe in necessary but smaller federal government with responsible spending.

Yes...MOST people. Oh...I know we have a pretty large crop of crippled and dependent pets that have been cultivated to keep the left in power...the welfare state. but even THOSE people give at least lip service to individual rights...they just want it both ways.
 
You dont think third parties sending up candidates like Smoky McPot for senator has anything to do with their own marginalization do you?

Believe me...thats the source of my frustration with the Libertarian party.

If you ask MOST people, they espouse libertarian ideals and values. So why cant the libertarians get people elected? Hell...we even have one avowed socialist in congress that caucuses with the democrats.

The reason is simply...the libertarians hitch their ponies to idiotic and fringe ideals like legalization of drugs as a primary party platform.

No, people opposed to the platform try their damnedest to make it look that way. Yes, drug legalization is definitely in the libertarian platform as we'd remove the federal government from the position and let the states deal with it themselves. However, it's not the only thing which revolves around libertarian political philosophy. In fact, it is nothing more than a consequence of our overall philosophy. One built upon the minimization of government and maximization of freedom.
 
I think we do need a strong Third Party because it's something that'll keep the two major parties we have now honest.

It won't happen.

A third party cannot win. It can only steal votes from the other parties, making one lose. If it wins, it can only do so by replacing one of the other two parties, and you have a two-party system again. That's because we have a winner-take-all election system.

What is more likely is that one of the two parties will transform itself, as they often do.
 
No, people opposed to the platform try their damnedest to make it look that way. Yes, drug legalization is definitely in the libertarian platform as we'd remove the federal government from the position and let the states deal with it themselves. However, it's not the only thing which revolves around libertarian political philosophy. In fact, it is nothing more than a consequence of our overall philosophy. One built upon the minimization of government and maximization of freedom.

Sorry...been there...and recommending they drop the plank and focus on things that are actually rlevant will get you a shower of "no Libertarians could think that" and an invitation to not come back.

Look around...you dont see too many libertarians challenging...ANYWHERE. Change or die.
 
Sorry...been there...and recommending they drop the plank and focus on things that are actually rlevant will get you a shower of "no Libertarians could think that" and an invitation to not come back.

Ok, well that's your personal experience and I think that it's unfortunate that you encountered that sort of ideology. I know there are some who maybe only focus on that; but there are plenty who are definitely into the higher order terms of the philosophy as well. I'll talk about drug legalization if it comes up; but nominally when I'm talking of libertarian philosophy and idealism it's on the level of overall government control, proper government size and action, and devolving the system to concentrate power at smaller levels of government.

Look around...you dont see too many libertarians challenging...ANYWHERE. Change or die.

I see a lot of libertarian names on ballots. But they are specifically kept from things such as debates and are not treated equally or fairly in the press which definitely has significant negative effect on the ability to campaign on that party ticket.
 
I see a lot of libertarian names on ballots. But they are specifically kept from things such as debates and are not treated equally or fairly in the press which definitely has significant negative effect on the ability to campaign on that party ticket.

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.
 
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.

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.

And I have plenty of room to "cry" about the system. When the system is set up to isolate the parties from the will of the People, there is certainly room to complain. Sorry if you don't like the complaining, but I ain't making you listen or read. But I damned well have the right to complain about it, so piss off if you think I shouldn't exercise my rights.
 
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.

And I have plenty of room to "cry" about the system. When the system is set up to isolate the parties from the will of the People, there is certainly room to complain. Sorry if you don't like the complaining, but I ain't making you listen or read. But I damned well have the right to complain about it, so piss off if you think I shouldn't exercise my rights.

500k members nationwide just screams "will of the people"...
 
Back
Top Bottom