PDA

View Full Version : Perceived Need for Third Party Reaches New High



patrickt
10-11-2013, 08:37 AM
"PRINCETON, NJ -- Amid the government shutdown, 60% of Americans say the Democratic and Republicans parties do such a poor job of representing the American people that a third major party is needed. That is the highest Gallup has measured in the 10-year history of this question. A new low of 26% believe the two major parties adequately represent Americans."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165392/perceived-need-third-party-reaches-new-high.aspx

Leaving polls and pollsters aside, let's assume this is true or close enough to true for government work. The problem I see with three parties is that between election fraud and buying votes the liberals would stay in power until they had successfully destroyed the country. You know, that fundamentally changed business.

I'm in a quandary. Many years ago the Democrats left me. I still believe that everyone who is bright should have a chance to go to college and I still agree with the Rev. Martin Luther King about judging a man on the color of his skin and I still think we should help those who can't help themselves but the Democrats abandoned those positions, and others I cherish, and left me hanging.

So, I became more of a Republican but then they quit being for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. They went for liberal lite. Increased government interference with health care. Increased regulations that are pointless and detrimental to the country. I was really torn in 2004. I had to pick between voting for a man who was raised with a tutor teaching him, successfully, to be a communist and another man who was a liberal lite. I didn't want either one but the racists convinced me to not vote for the communist. Racists are creepy even when they're the leftists.

So, do we make a third party and let the party of freebies and fraud have power or what?

Green Arrow
10-11-2013, 08:38 AM
More parties, more choice, more freedom! Break the two party dictatorship!

Cigar
10-11-2013, 08:47 AM
I think if both current parties flush out their old outdated thinkers ... this country could get back to Governing.

The current Party System Worked just fine ... until 2008 ... now the world is ending.

Relax ... there will only be a Black President for 3 more years.

But next comes a Woman ... and after that ... a Hispanic.

America has changed, you either change with it or get left in the dust.

patrickt
10-11-2013, 08:52 AM
More parties, more choice, more freedom! Break the two party dictatorship!

That would be cute if it made any sense at all.

patrickt
10-11-2013, 08:56 AM
I think if both current parties flush out their old outdated thinkers ... this country could get back to Governing.

The current Party System Worked just fine ... until 2008 ... now the world is ending.

Relax ... there will only be a Black President for 3 more years.

But next comes a Woman ... and after that ... a Hispanic.

America has changed, you either change with it or get left in the dust.


Wow. I don't know if it's because you're a liberal and along with no sense of shame is no sense of history or if it's because you're an adolescent and think history started with you. Yeh, the old government worked just fine in 1860. And 1929 was a grand year for the government. When we had our first socialist in the White House it was a great time for the government, too. The early twenties when the KKK was electing representatives all across the north was a great time for the racists.

But, I do understand. If both parties were socialists then we wouldn't have any conflict. Well, we should remember Trotsky. It wasn't all peaches and cream.

Alyosha
10-11-2013, 08:58 AM
More parties, more choice, more freedom! Break the two party dictatorship!

Muwahahahahahahaha

nic34
10-11-2013, 09:08 AM
Unless elections are funded with public money, you won't get too far with other parties...

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

To counter the corruption of money in elections would be free media time for all serious candidates, instant runoff voting and reversing this BS of corporate "personhood."

How about local ordinances to prohibit nonlocal corporate contributions to elections and also asserting that corporations cannot claim the First Amendment right to free speech. We should follow the lead of a number of counties that have drafted ordinances to deny corporate personhood.

Until some of that is done you'll never get enough to compete.

Mainecoons
10-11-2013, 09:13 AM
Let us know when you're also willing to end unions taking members money and giving it to Democrats.

As usual, your prescription is as one sided as your politics.

We'll wait.

Green Arrow
10-11-2013, 09:28 AM
That would be cute if it made any sense at all.

How does it not make sense? It's quite simple.

Green Arrow
10-11-2013, 09:32 AM
I think if both current parties flush out their old outdated thinkers ... this country could get back to Governing.

The current Party System Worked just fine ... until 2008 ... now the world is ending.

Relax ... there will only be a Black President for 3 more years.

But next comes a Woman ... and after that ... a Hispanic.

America has changed, you either change with it or get left in the dust.


Sure, you want that...unless the woman or Hispanic President is a Republican. You say you want a woman President, but would you ever vote for, say, Susanna Martinez? I doubt it. You say you want a Hispanic President, but would you ever vote for Ted Cruz? I doubt it.

C'mon, Cigar. Let's be real. Just say you want a line of Democrats, regardless of race or gender, and be done with it.

Mainecoons
10-11-2013, 09:59 AM
It's not a party problem, it is an incumbency and money problem. Get rid of the careerists and take the money out of it the problem goes away.

The Founders just didn't anticipate either problem, that the government would be dominated by careerists who would take huge sums to stay in power.

Agravan
10-11-2013, 10:05 AM
two words: Term Limits

Green Arrow
10-11-2013, 10:06 AM
It's not a party problem, it is an incumbency and money problem. Get rid of the careerists and take the money out of it the problem goes away.

The Founders just didn't anticipate either problem, that the government would be dominated by careerists who would take huge sums to stay in power.

It is a party problem, though, unless you think all Americans fall under only two ideological umbrellas.

Chris
10-11-2013, 10:17 AM
I think if both current parties flush out their old outdated thinkers ... this country could get back to Governing.

The current Party System Worked just fine ... until 2008 ... now the world is ending.

Relax ... there will only be a Black President for 3 more years.

But next comes a Woman ... and after that ... a Hispanic.

America has changed, you either change with it or get left in the dust.




For once I agree with you, cigar. The GOP should throw out its old establishment types and let the Tea Partiers take over. Once we have defeated the GOP old guard, we can go after Democrats.

Chris
10-11-2013, 10:22 AM
"PRINCETON, NJ -- Amid the government shutdown, 60% of Americans say the Democratic and Republicans parties do such a poor job of representing the American people that a third major party is needed. That is the highest Gallup has measured in the 10-year history of this question. A new low of 26% believe the two major parties adequately represent Americans."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165392/perceived-need-third-party-reaches-new-high.aspx

Leaving polls and pollsters aside, let's assume this is true or close enough to true for government work. The problem I see with three parties is that between election fraud and buying votes the liberals would stay in power until they had successfully destroyed the country. You know, that fundamentally changed business.

I'm in a quandary. Many years ago the Democrats left me. I still believe that everyone who is bright should have a chance to go to college and I still agree with the Rev. Martin Luther King about judging a man on the color of his skin and I still think we should help those who can't help themselves but the Democrats abandoned those positions, and others I cherish, and left me hanging.

So, I became more of a Republican but then they quit being for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. They went for liberal lite. Increased government interference with health care. Increased regulations that are pointless and detrimental to the country. I was really torn in 2004. I had to pick between voting for a man who was raised with a tutor teaching him, successfully, to be a communist and another man who was a liberal lite. I didn't want either one but the racists convinced me to not vote for the communist. Racists are creepy even when they're the leftists.

So, do we make a third party and let the party of freebies and fraud have power or what?


I hear you but can things get any worse than now? --OK, bad question.

There are third parties now, plenty, but the only way one could rise, other than populist Ross Perot style, would be if one of the duopoly collapsed. Yes, that would give government to a monopoly party, but only for a time, for in complete control, they would be blamed for all the evils befell the country and people would turn to other parties.

Keep time preference low, look further out into the future.

Green Arrow
10-11-2013, 10:29 AM
For once I agree with you, cigar. The GOP should throw out its old establishment types and let the Tea Partiers take over. Once we have defeated the GOP old guard, we can go after Democrats.

I go back and forth on this. On the one hand, I'd love to join the Democratic Party and help Democrats like Ron Wyden and Mark Udall change the party back to what it used to be, the JFK Democrats. On the other hand...can it be saved?

Chris
10-11-2013, 10:37 AM
I go back and forth on this. On the one hand, I'd love to join the Democratic Party and help Democrats like Ron Wyden and Mark Udall change the party back to what it used to be, the JFK Democrats. On the other hand...can it be saved?

To me the duopoly had reached a Nash Equilibrium* and the Tea Parties were exactly what was needed to shake things up for the Reps. What's needed is similar for the Dems, so you could be the start of that.


(*Nash Equilibrium has been on my mind since yesterday when someone mentioned Survivor in Chloe's thread. Forget the math, see for what I mean, for example, Nash Equilibrium (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nash-equilibrium.asp). It's similar to hill-climbing models of evolution where the search up has reached the top of a low-lying hill and the environment needs shaking to resume the evolutionary search.)

nic34
10-11-2013, 10:42 AM
It is a party problem, though, unless you think all Americans fall under only two ideological umbrellas.

The money in politics begat the two party problem...

Green Arrow
10-11-2013, 11:06 AM
The money in politics begat the two party problem...

Not really. It's a symptom, not a cause.

TheDictator
10-11-2013, 12:25 PM
Not really. It's a symptom, not a cause.

No, wrong. The two party system started over a fight for who was going to control the money. ( Bank of the US ) Federalist and Democratic-Republican Parties.

hanger4
10-11-2013, 12:30 PM
No, wrong. The two party system started over a fight for who was going to control the money. ( Bank of the US ) Federalist and Democratic-Republican Parties.

Two different moneys TD,

they're speaking of moneys IN politics,

and you're speaking of moneys IN the US treasury.

Chloe
10-11-2013, 01:43 PM
It's not a party problem, it is an incumbency and money problem. Get rid of the careerists and take the money out of it the problem goes away.

The Founders just didn't anticipate either problem, that the government would be dominated by careerists who would take huge sums to stay in power.

It's both in my opinion. Having more variety of parties represented in addition to term limits would be a big deal in my opinion. There are other parties already but they are typically locked out of the room. I think all of those TV debates and things like that should have at least three to five parties represented in the room.

TheDictator
10-11-2013, 03:12 PM
Two different moneys TD,

they're speaking of moneys IN politics,

and you're speaking of moneys IN the US treasury.

No, I was just commenting on how the two party system came about.

Chris
10-11-2013, 03:13 PM
It's both in my opinion. Having more variety of parties represented in addition to term limits would be a big deal in my opinion. There are other parties already but they are typically locked out of the room. I think all of those TV debates and things like that should have at least three to five parties represented in the room.



I think for what you're thinking we'd need more of a parliamentary or proportional representation in Congress.

Chloe
10-11-2013, 04:13 PM
I think for what you're thinking we'd need more of a parliamentary or proportional representation in Congress.

Proportional wouldn't be too bad I wouldn't think, then again I also think that local and state governments should have a lot more direct participation, major national laws should be voted on by all of us like we do for an election, and that a career in national politics should be on par with having a career as a snow ski instructor (seasonal).

Green Arrow
10-11-2013, 04:42 PM
I think for what you're thinking we'd need more of a parliamentary or proportional representation in Congress.

We absolutely would, and I advocate for a transition to that sort of system. I'd prefer to disband the government altogether, but if we're going to have one, it at least needs to be done right.

Chris
10-11-2013, 04:58 PM
Proportional wouldn't be too bad I wouldn't think, then again I also think that local and state governments should have a lot more direct participation, major national laws should be voted on by all of us like we do for an election, and that a career in national politics should be on par with having a career as a snow ski instructor (seasonal).


The more local the government the better I would think.

Switzerland is a direct democracy that votes on national laws I believe. Not too sure that's good. For a small homogenous nation, OK, but for the US, don't think so.

We could always break up the US. :-)

Green Arrow
10-11-2013, 05:07 PM
The more local the government the better I would think.

Switzerland is a direct democracy that votes on national laws I believe. Not too sure that's good. For a small homogenous nation, OK, but for the US, don't think so.

We could always break up the US. :-)

I think at the state level it could work, but not the national level. Unless, of course, each individual representative went back to their districts and whatever their district voted is how they would vote.

Chris
10-11-2013, 05:17 PM
I think at the state level it could work, but not the national level. Unless, of course, each individual representative went back to their districts and whatever their district voted is how they would vote.

Maybe at state level provided you could leave the state freely.

patrickt
10-12-2013, 07:47 AM
Actually, we need a second party. Liberals and can be Democrats since liberals don't want people to know they're liberals. Conservatives can be conservatives. The liberal lite folks can simply change parties. McCain and Feinstein can publicly announce their union so they don't have to sneak of to Guantanamo for the weekend. It would be nice to have an election that didn't have a closet communist running against a liberal lite.