• 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
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?

You still miss the point. Build a base, then, if you are not getting a fair shake, complain. Right now it's akin to a below average high school baseball player complaining that the requirement of his being 18 to play pro ball is unfair. It may be unfair, but it's not relevant to the situation.

The simple truth is not many people agree with the platforms of any of the third parties. Further, the third parties are not doing enough to attract people. Until those change, any talk about unfair competition is just silly.
 
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.

They receive tons of money because they have tons of popular support. If voters withdrew that support, so would the corporate donations be withdrawn.

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

Why do you guys support monopolies?

We don't, we just haven't found another party's platform we like better than the ones we have. Got any suggestions?

What makes you think a third party, once it becomes popular enough to be elected, will turn down corporate donations?
 
Last edited:
You still miss the point. Build a base, then, if you are not getting a fair shake, complain. Right now it's akin to a below average high school baseball player complaining that the requirement of his being 18 to play pro ball is unfair. It may be unfair, but it's not relevant to the situation.

The simple truth is not many people agree with the platforms of any of the third parties. Further, the third parties are not doing enough to attract people. Until those change, any talk about unfair competition is just silly.

I'm sorry but the unfairness is purposefully built.

The major political parties are bankrolled by the government, they are the government, they control the entire process.

To compare it to a natural disadvantage is disingenuous.

#1 rule of a political economy, capitalists hate capitalism.
They don't want the competition and neither do their supporters.
 
They receive tons of money because they have tons of popular support. If voters withdrew that support, so would the corporate donations be withdrawn.

So you support corporate welfare that helps create monopolies?


We don't, we just haven't found another party's platform we like better than the ones we have. Got any suggestions?

What makes you think a third party, once it becomes popular enough to be elected, will turn down corporate donations?

Your partisanship has been well displayed, even if I suggested any party that had a reasonable reform structure, you'd ignore it.

I didn't say they should turn down corporate donations but to say that they can build any kind of support without it is wrong.
Corporations give money to gain favor, if you're not present in government to begin with you're not going to get anything.
 
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.

Fair enough. But I do think that to get to that point, first the parties must be able to compete and get noticed. It's hard to refine your political platform while maintaining some ideology without proper feedback. And the way that it's currently constructed you can't decouple feedback which is the result of having been unfairly kept out of the system and that which comes from incompatibility of political message with the People. Since this is OUR country and not the Republocrats; I'd rather the information get out to the People in general and then we can make up our minds. I'm not so much comfortable with the government telling us which parties are cromulent [cookie to the person who knows the reference], which ones we should hear from the most, and which ones we should consider "valid".
 
Fair enough. But I do think that to get to that point, first the parties must be able to compete and get noticed. It's hard to refine your political platform while maintaining some ideology without proper feedback. And the way that it's currently constructed you can't decouple feedback which is the result of having been unfairly kept out of the system and that which comes from incompatibility of political message with the People. Since this is OUR country and not the Republocrats; I'd rather the information get out to the People in general and then we can make up our minds. I'm not so much comfortable with the government telling us which parties are cromulent [cookie to the person who knows the reference], which ones we should hear from the most, and which ones we should consider "valid".

Exactly.

All these people believe in regulations for business, making sure they don't screw minorities, take advantage of the law, etc.

When it comes to their political party(aka business), they could care less.

Edit: Freedom of Speech, except when I don't like it, Free and fair elections unless I don't want it.
 
Last edited:
So you support corporate welfare that helps create monopolies?

No, that is why I support the party that bucks corporations the most.

Your partisanship has been well displayed, even if I suggested any party that had a reasonable reform structure, you'd ignore it.

If you expect to win converts to your party, you are going to have to try harder than that. As with most people, I would imagine, I support the party who's platform and practices most closely match my own ideals. I haven't seen one that more closely fits than the Democratic party.

I didn't say they should turn down corporate donations but to say that they can build any kind of support without it is wrong.
Corporations give money to gain favor, if you're not present in government to begin with you're not going to get anything.

And..... the way you get to be present in government is to get elected for which you need popular support.

Just as with the bands that want that big record deal, it just ain't gonna happen without a strong following.
 
No, that is why I support the party that bucks corporations the most.

:lol: I seriously hope your not talking about Democrats.

If you expect to win converts to your party, you are going to have to try harder than that. As with most people, I would imagine, I support the party who's platform and practices most closely match my own ideals. I haven't seen one that more closely fits than the Democratic party.

Corporate welfare, deficit spending and on and on.
What didn't you just pick Republican, they do the same thing.


And..... the way you get to be present in government is to get elected for which you need popular support.

Just as with the bands that want that big record deal, it just ain't gonna happen without a strong following.

It won't happen when the people who control the process make sure you don't win.
That's the problem, you're comfortable because your crew has the power to prevent other people from entering the race.
 
Fair enough. But I do think that to get to that point, first the parties must be able to compete and get noticed. It's hard to refine your political platform while maintaining some ideology without proper feedback. And the way that it's currently constructed you can't decouple feedback which is the result of having been unfairly kept out of the system and that which comes from incompatibility of political message with the People. Since this is OUR country and not the Republocrats; I'd rather the information get out to the People in general and then we can make up our minds. I'm not so much comfortable with the government telling us which parties are cromulent [cookie to the person who knows the reference], which ones we should hear from the most, and which ones we should consider "valid".

I think the extra competition of a strong third party would be a good thing. But just looking at it pragmatically, I don't see how any group, political, musical, or whatever can expect to get attention from the press without a significant following for their positions, music or whatever.

My experience has shown that the way to succeed is to start locally, build a strong following, then move on to build a strong regional following, and then you have a shot at building a large national following.

It would be nice to think there are short cuts, but I am not aware of any.

edit: I do know of one other possible way. With the advent of the internet, it may be possible to go viral on the web without first building local and regional following. However, your message still has to have wide popular appeal.

That is the key component from my perspective.
 
I don't think we need a third party, with our current laws and the way congress is set up, having a third party wouldn't prevent anything from being done. A third party would only hurt the other two depending on what their stances were. What kind of ideology do you think this party should be?

Deadlock isnt necessarily a bad thing.
 
I think the extra competition of a strong third party would be a good thing. But just looking at it pragmatically, I don't see how any group, political, musical, or whatever can expect to get attention from the press without a significant following for their positions, music or whatever.

My experience has shown that the way to succeed is to start locally, build a strong following, then move on to build a strong regional following, and then you have a shot at building a large national following.

It would be nice to think there are short cuts, but I am not aware of any.

edit: I do know of one other possible way. With the advent of the internet, it may be possible to go viral on the web without first building local and regional following. However, your message still has to have wide popular appeal.

That is the key component from my perspective.

The biggest short cut is allowing minor parties, that have existed continually for the past 20-30, years to participate in the presidential debates.

They are sidelined because they don't get access.
 
I think the extra competition of a strong third party would be a good thing. But just looking at it pragmatically, I don't see how any group, political, musical, or whatever can expect to get attention from the press without a significant following for their positions, music or whatever.

My experience has shown that the way to succeed is to start locally, build a strong following, then move on to build a strong regional following, and then you have a shot at building a large national following.

It would be nice to think there are short cuts, but I am not aware of any.

edit: I do know of one other possible way. With the advent of the internet, it may be possible to go viral on the web without first building local and regional following. However, your message still has to have wide popular appeal.

That is the key component from my perspective.

The internet can help out a lot. However, I tend to divorce politics from reasonably free market things such as music and business. Politics is very important and it is necessary for the People to be informed in order to make the best decision they can with their vote. Since the government operates solely on our authority and sovereignty, we must have a way to reasonable control it. And one such way is through third parties. But for that to be possible, we need responsible press to do their jobs to the People and keep us informed in a non-partisan, informative manner on the actions of government.

And while yes, to replace a party a third party must have sufficient popular support, I don't see how restricting those parties and keeping them from participating helps to further that goal. It is very important that the political process remains open enough to encourage competition for ideas, platforms, and votes.
 
That's the problem, you're comfortable because your crew has the power to prevent other people from entering the race.

Then develop a platform that more people will support.

I welcome other parties to the race, that's what I've been trying to say. There is much I don't like about either of the major parties, I've just not seen a platform I like better from any of the other parties.

I like the defense only military policy of the Libertarians. Come up with more policy planks like that and you may have a convert here.
 
Then develop a platform that more people will support.

I welcome other parties to the race, that's what I've been trying to say. There is much I don't like about either of the major parties, I've just not seen a platform I like better from any of the other parties.

I like the defense only military policy of the Libertarians. Come up with more policy planks like that and you may have a convert here.

It's not just about Libertarians have access, I want the Marxists, Prohibitionists, etc parties to have the same access.

Some may have nutter beliefs but they should get the same chance to find converts on the popular stage.
 
The biggest short cut is allowing minor parties, that have existed continually for the past 20-30, years to participate in the presidential debates.

They are sidelined because they don't get access.

Start winning state elections if you want to participate. You don't get to be a rock star if your music is not popular! Sorry, that is just the reality of the world.
 
It's not just about Libertarians have access, I want the Marxists, Prohibitionists, etc parties to have the same access.

Some may have nutter beliefs but they should get the same chance to find converts on the popular stage.

Access has to be earned by having others support your positions. Afraid I don't seen anyway around it.
 
The internet can help out a lot. However, I tend to divorce politics from reasonably free market things such as music and business. Politics is very important and it is necessary for the People to be informed in order to make the best decision they can with their vote. Since the government operates solely on our authority and sovereignty, we must have a way to reasonable control it. And one such way is through third parties.

As I said, I'm all for third parties that have substantial public support.

But for that to be possible, we need responsible press to do their jobs to the People and keep us informed in a non-partisan, informative manner on the actions of government.

Than you will need to build a following larger than a fraction of 1% of the public, otherwise the press is not going to give more than a fraction of 1% of the news coverage.

And while yes, to replace a party a third party must have sufficient popular support, I don't see how restricting those parties and keeping them from participating helps to further that goal. It is very important that the political process remains open enough to encourage competition for ideas, platforms, and votes.

It might be helpful to look at how new parties have emerged and changed in the past. I don't know of a single one that did it without substantial public support. The more public support the greater the accessibility to the press.
 
It might be helpful to look at how new parties have emerged and changed in the past. I don't know of a single one that did it without substantial public support. The more public support the greater the accessibility to the press.

But you're really just setting up the Catch-22. The more public support the greater the accessibility to the press, but without the greater accessibility to the press it becomes all but impossible to build the greater public support. Listen, I'm not 100% unsympathetic to your arguments. I'm not looking for some law to force Libertarians into office. However, open and fair participation in the political process is an absolute must to the success and longevity of the Republic. It's not proper for the government to dictate which parties we can hear and see and consider valid. The process must remain open to allow for competition and participation so that pressure can continually be exerted on the two main parties. It's a must.
 
But you're really just setting up the Catch-22. The more public support the greater the accessibility to the press, but without the greater accessibility to the press it becomes all but impossible to build the greater public support. Listen, I'm not 100% unsympathetic to your arguments. I'm not looking for some law to force Libertarians into office. However, open and fair participation in the political process is an absolute must to the success and longevity of the Republic. It's not proper for the government to dictate which parties we can hear and see and consider valid. The process must remain open to allow for competition and participation so that pressure can continually be exerted on the two main parties. It's a must.

I'm all for that. I just don't see that many hurdles that are not self-made.
 
Last edited:
But you're really just setting up the Catch-22. The more public support the greater the accessibility to the press, but without the greater accessibility to the press it becomes all but impossible to build the greater public support.

You don't have to have just the press. You build up slowly. You can't expect to be a national, winning party in just a few years. It takes time and work - as it should.
 
You don't have to have just the press. You build up slowly. You can't expect to be a national, winning party in just a few years. It takes time and work - as it should.

I'm not trying to set the situation so that is true. I understand that parties need to be able to prove themselves and increase membership and votes in order to win national elections. I just want the system open enough so that parties can have the opportunity to prove themselves.
 
I'm not trying to set the situation so that is true. I understand that parties need to be able to prove themselves and increase membership and votes in order to win national elections. I just want the system open enough so that parties can have the opportunity to prove themselves.

So, how would you do that?
 
Start winning state elections if you want to participate. You don't get to be a rock star if your music is not popular! Sorry, that is just the reality of the world.

Heck, just start winning local elections. "All politics are local." It's good to run national candidates, but it's city elections that make the laws that most directly affect people. Get voted to the school boards and get voted to the city councils and that's how third-party politicians can get elected and make names for themselves for higher levels of office.
 
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.

Hell no! A SOCIALIST! I hear the pillars of the Republic starting to fall.
 
Back
Top Bottom