How Would A Three Party System Work?

[Matty]

I think a majority of us now believe that the two party system is broken. Rife with corruption, cronyism and run by the lobbyists in DC.

How do we fix that? What would a three party election look like? What would the majority vote be to win such an election?

[Matty]

I forgot to ask, how long would it take to corrupt a third party? Is it worth changing?

[Chris]

The Republican Party came into existence as a third party 1854 against extending slavery to the territories. So it's possible if you have a cause. Another possibility would be for one or the other party to splinter, like if Trump split, then a third party, like the Libertarian Party, could rise in its place garnering some of the splintered remains. Debates would have to be opened up though from their current monopoly by the duopoly.

Not sure how long it would take for the third party to become corrupt but as power corrupts it's inevitable.


Another possibility, switching to a more parliamentary, proportional system, like Canada has, would require amending the Constitution.

[Common]

I forgot to ask, how long would it take to corrupt a third party? Is it worth changing?

Only as long as it would take a koch bros like pac lobbiest to make them an offer they cant refuse.

[Common]

Third party would trickle in one election at a time, the influence and the pressures will all be the same and many would get corrupted. Money has a way of doing that and yes in a cynic

[Green Arrow]

I don't believe it should be a three party system any more than I believe it should be a two party system. There shouldn't be a limit to the number of parties.

As to how it would work, we'd have to change Congress and our state legislatures over to a proportional representation system, like most of the European states. Basically, rather than voting for a specific candidate to that office, you'll vote for the party you want. Each party will get a number of seats in the legislature based on what percentage of the vote they got. So, say the Democratic Party gets 34% of the vote in New York, the GOP gets 30%, the Libertarian and Green parties get 10% each, the Constitution Party gets 6%, Socialist Party gets 5%, Tea Party gets 2%, Pirate PARRRty gets 2%, and the Unicorn Party gets 1%. So 34% of New York's 213 legislative seats would go to the Democrats, 30% to the GOP, so on and so forth.

[Matty]

I don't believe it should be a three party system any more than I believe it should be a two party system. There shouldn't be a limit to the number of parties.

As to how it would work, we'd have to change Congress and our state legislatures over to a proportional representation system, like most of the European states. Basically, rather than voting for a specific candidate to that office, you'll vote for the party you want. Each party will get a number of seats in the legislature based on what percentage of the vote they got. So, say the Democratic Party gets 34% of the vote in New York, the GOP gets 30%, the Libertarian and Green parties get 10% each, the Constitution Party gets 6%, Socialist Party gets 5%, Tea Party gets 2%, Pirate PARRRty gets 2%, and the Unicorn Party gets 1%. So 34% of New York's 213 legislative seats would go to the Democrats, 30% to the GOP, so on and so forth.



So the Democrats automatically rule? How is that fair?

[Peter1469]

Many states have election laws that make it impossible or nearly impossible for 3rd parties to get on ballots. There are many legal challenges which likely won't be resolved soon enough to matter for 2016.

[Dr. Who]

So the Democrats automatically rule? How is that fair?
They don't necessarily rule - you can have coalition governments, so the GOP could form a coalition with say the Libertarians and Greens and thus have a majority government.

[Bob]

I think a majority of us now believe that the two party system is broken. Rife with corruption, cronyism and run by the lobbyists in DC.

How do we fix that? What would a three party election look like? What would the majority vote be to win such an election?

The word lobby is a boon and a bane.

Boon if you are in the group being lobbied for. Bane if you are left out.

Truth be known, any of us can use a lobbyist. For instance AARP gives you a lobby and so does NRA.

Lobbyists have the ears of all congressmen. They depend on them for their counsel and ability to bring prepared law.

Were you to look up lobbyists, and no matter if there are a dozen parties, they will still deal with congress, you will learn there must be over 3000 working congress.

Good article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/21/why-more-money-is-spent-on-lobbyists-than-on-congress/

[Bob]

Only as long as it would take a koch bros like pac lobbiest to make them an offer they cant refuse.

Not long ago, the Democrats were beating up on the famous Richard Mellon Scaiffe.

Then all the blame was put on him. Democrats thrive on beating posts and today it is the fate of the Koch brothers who in real life are not even republicans.

[Bob]

Third party would trickle in one election at a time, the influence and the pressures will all be the same and many would get corrupted. Money has a way of doing that and yes in a cynic

There must be over half a dozen parties. Any voter that wants to waste a vote, can easily protest vote but it won't do him or her a lick of good.

[Green Arrow]

So the Democrats automatically rule? How is that fair?

They pretty much automatically rule now.

But no, they wouldn't automatically rule. To rule, they'd have to form a coalition with a strong enough party to carry them over into an absolute majority. In Israel's legislature, the Knesset, for example, there are 120 total seats. That means for any one party to rule the Knesset, they have to take at least 61 seats. The party with the current majority of seats is Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud...and they only have 30 seats. So they have to form a majority government with four other parties - Kulanu (10 seats), The Jewish Home (8 seats), Shas (7 seats), and United Torah Judaism (6 seats) - in order to reach the 61 seat threshold for a majority government. In order to form a majority government with those other parties, Likud has to agree to support their issues.

So, in essence, for the Democratic Party to rule the New York legislature under proportional representation, they would have to also support the issues of enough minority parties to form a majority government. If they can't, if the second-highest GOP can form a majority government before they do, then the GOP rules even though they have fewer seats.

[Peter1469]

There must be over half a dozen parties. Any voter that wants to waste a vote, can easily protest vote but it won't do him or her a lick of good.

That is how the Dems and GOP get people to vote for the same result regardless of which they vote for (D) or (R). Two sides, the same coin.

[Bob]

That who the Dems and GOP get people to vote for the same result regardless of which they vote for (D) or (R). Two sides, the same coin.

I realize you believe that. But you already know i do not believe that.

Think this time. Democrats and republicans fight like cats and dogs in congress. They despise each other.

[Green Arrow]

I realize you believe that. But you already know i do not believe that.

Think this time. Democrats and republicans fight like cats and dogs in congress. They despise each other.

When the cameras are rolling, sure. When the cameras shut off, they are best friends, supported by the same special interests, and supporting the same issues when we stop paying attention.

[Bob]

When the cameras are rolling, sure. When the cameras shut off, they are best friends, supported by the same special interests, and supporting the same issues when we stop paying attention.

i will give you a chance to prove that statement.

Your turn.

[Chris]

That is how the Dems and GOP get people to vote for the same result regardless of which they vote for (D) or (R). Two sides, the same coin.

Thus it is those votes that are wasted.

[Green Arrow]

i will give you a chance to prove that statement.

Your turn.

11 Shocking Ways Democrats and Republicans Have Worked Together to Increase Your Taxes (http://www.georgeflinncares.com/11-shocking-ways-democrats-and-republicans-have-worked-together-to-increase-your-taxes/)

You could also consider the fact that the politicians of both parties agree on the same foreign policy ideals, both parties support the existence and economy-destroying policies of the Federal Reserve, both parties support freedom-destroying measures like the PATRIOT Act, the 2012 NDAA, CISPA/SOPA, etc.

The GOP promoted Obamacare before anyone knew who Obama was. Were the two proposals the exact same? No, but the parts that make Obamacare so bad - the individual mandate, for example - were shared by both Obamacare and Romneycare (as well as pre-Romney GOP versions).

Both parties ultimately end up continuing our destructive immigration policies by allowing amnesty and never securing the border.

It goes on and on.

[Matty]

i will give you a chance to prove that statement.

Your turn.


I think we know now that Boehner and McConnell have worked hand in hand with the Democrats.

[Green Arrow]

Thus it is those votes that are wasted.

I prefer this take on it...

http://www.weapon-blog.com/wp-content/uplods/2011/03/cap.png

[Bob]

11 Shocking Ways Democrats and Republicans Have Worked Together to Increase Your Taxes (http://www.georgeflinncares.com/11-shocking-ways-democrats-and-republicans-have-worked-together-to-increase-your-taxes/)

You could also consider the fact that the politicians of both parties agree on the same foreign policy ideals, both parties support the existence and economy-destroying policies of the Federal Reserve, both parties support freedom-destroying measures like the PATRIOT Act, the 2012 NDAA, CISPA/SOPA, etc.

The GOP promoted Obamacare before anyone knew who Obama was. Were the two proposals the exact same? No, but the parts that make Obamacare so bad - the individual mandate, for example - were shared by both Obamacare and Romneycare (as well as pre-Romney GOP versions).

Both parties ultimately end up continuing our destructive immigration policies by allowing amnesty and never securing the border.

It goes on and on.

It is not possible in this country for the two parties to never share any agreement on some things.

But to claim republicans agree with Democrats is to prove you don't watch Cspan. A steady diet of Cspan would quickly disabuse you of saying they are the same on foreign policy. A fast cite is on Israel. Obama despises their leader yet of course does not just say it, his acts prove it.

I truly understand the Federal Reserve and have from at least 1967. We were highly trained in it to get the professional real estate license. I hear complaining but no left winger puts their finger on what is wrong. They make claims, sure. But never show proof.

The Patriot act never was designed to harm our freedom and during Bush, NSA was commanded by law, by Bush not to spy on us citizens. I am not certain if Obama follows that mandate.

Were it to spy on us all, a lot of us would be sitting in prison. But this is not happening.

I have been in this jungle a long time but until Democrats claimed we were going to have a national health plan, I never heard of it. Matter of fact Hillary's was prevented. Romney was unique in that his plan was crafted by the ultra left wing MA so to do the states biddings, he did not veto the plan. Ask him today about it. But even so, such plans do belong handled by states and not the Feds.

As to Amnesty, certainly. This is very difficult to nail down. Do we want to kick out all 40 million by some estimates? Do we want them to lose homes or move children out of the USA back to, let's use the example of back to Mexico. Do the parents whose kids have bonded with illegals really wish them all out of the country?

I agree on this one issue but to this very day am on the fence over the entire problem. I want secure borders. I believe Obama was rapidly deporting them. But Democrats act and talk as if they are importing them, not exporting them.

But the idea they are just the same party is just not true.

[Bob]

I think we know now that Boehner and McConnell have worked hand in hand with the Democrats.

My gosh, I did not mean to imply or hint that they never agree.

Imagine you wake up today knowing what you wish to do will be stopped dead by Obama.

Republicans get blamed for stopping the democrats. But the major feat by Obama is Obama care and no republican voted for this plan. They keep voting to stop it totally.

Unless there is total and complete gridlock, to include waking up to a closed up Government, the few things done by both sides in general can be called for the general welfare. The patriot act is reviled yet none of those doing so, know how to explain it being fully informed and honest. It is misunderstood.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Twenty-Sixteen http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1287119#post1287119)
So the Democrats automatically rule? How is that fair?


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Green Arrow They pretty much automatically rule now.

This by GA counters his later argument.

[Green Arrow]

This by GA counters his later argument.

How so, Bob?

[Green Arrow]

It is not possible in this country for the two parties to never share any agreement on some things.

But to claim republicans agree with Democrats is to prove you don't watch Cspan. A steady diet of Cspan would quickly disabuse you of saying they are the same on foreign policy. A fast cite is on Israel. Obama despises their leader yet of course does not just say it, his acts prove it.

I truly understand the Federal Reserve and have from at least 1967. We were highly trained in it to get the professional real estate license. I hear complaining but no left winger puts their finger on what is wrong. They make claims, sure. But never show proof.

The Patriot act never was designed to harm our freedom and during Bush, NSA was commanded by law, by Bush not to spy on us citizens. I am not certain if Obama follows that mandate.

Were it to spy on us all, a lot of us would be sitting in prison. But this is not happening.

I have been in this jungle a long time but until Democrats claimed we were going to have a national health plan, I never heard of it. Matter of fact Hillary's was prevented. Romney was unique in that his plan was crafted by the ultra left wing MA so to do the states biddings, he did not veto the plan. Ask him today about it. But even so, such plans do belong handled by states and not the Feds.

As to Amnesty, certainly. This is very difficult to nail down. Do we want to kick out all 40 million by some estimates? Do we want them to lose homes or move children out of the USA back to, let's use the example of back to Mexico. Do the parents whose kids have bonded with illegals really wish them all out of the country?

I agree on this one issue but to this very day am on the fence over the entire problem. I want secure borders. I believe Obama was rapidly deporting them. But Democrats act and talk as if they are importing them, not exporting them.

But the idea they are just the same party is just not true.

You can disagree with me and provide whatever justifications for it you wish, it remains a fact that your position is incorrect.

[Bob]

Some of you should have actual experience at working on committees where you can have hands on expertise.

To say that both parties are the same is just not true.

Let me give you examples that happened to me.

As a Director of the then Southern Alameda County board of directors, me and maybe 5 more of us would often vote for something. The rest of the directors shot in the opposite direction. But the decision was always a collective of all 20 of we directors.

So, a person may claim the board passed this or passed that, and my presence on the board of directors then used to blame me, where I voted nay.

It was awful at times not agreeing with the rest of the directors.

A good case was over health insurance.

This long story has to be shorter so here it is.

Members never got health insurance paid for them by the association. All the association did was set up with carriers group rates.

At the time, they also encouraged officers to ask for the spouses to be covered. We could even have the office help included. But the members paid as did the office help for their own plans.

As luck would have it, some members died. The spouses, never members, were able to pay the premiums to insurance companies as if the husband was living.

Some hot shot woman on a committee came up with the idea of kicking them all off the insurance plans despite the plan was not set up to kick them off. It took a vote by we directors to kick them all off.

I fought this very hard. I knew members who had complications would no longer get insurance. I had witnesses attend the meeting to tell the rest how it was. Talk about ruthelss. The board never had to pay a dime so it was no cost to the group. But some of the kicked off members told me later that they got harmed.

Imagine the wife of a dead agent being forced off the group plan trying to get a plan if she had complications.

This is why I argue that the two parties are not the same.

On many matters to come before the full board of Realtors, i and others voted no. But the yes votes won. To say we were all the same is pure nonsense.

I won't bore you with the CEO story but I wanted that crook gone. But as long as I was there, he stayed and stayed until he took off one day. But he stole money. I urged the board to prosecute him but got nowhere at all.

[Matty]

My gosh, I did not mean to imply or hint that they never agree.

Imagine you wake up today knowing what you wish to do will be stopped dead by Obama.

Republicans get blamed for stopping the democrats. But the major feat by Obama is Obama care and no republican voted for this plan. They keep voting to stop it totally.

Unless there is total and complete gridlock, to include waking up to a closed up Government, the few things done by both sides in general can be called for the general welfare. The patriot act is reviled yet none of those doing so, know how to explain it being fully informed and honest. It is misunderstood.
All the Republicans have to do to stop Obamacare is to defund it. What have the done? They voted to fund it. That's why there is a revolt in progress.

[Bob]

You can disagree with me and provide whatever justifications for it you wish, it remains a fact that your position is incorrect.

I am not denying perhaps all 11 points are correct but just as OBama got health care with no vote by republicans, it doesn't mean they are equal to the other.

As I once told you, you would shit the bed before admitting ever, you are wrong.

[Bob]

All the Republicans have to do to stop Obamacare is to defund it. What have the done? They voted to fund it. That's why there is a revolt in progress.

Correct but why? Because the republicans agree with the democrats?

Not at all, The Senate is the place to study if you want to know why Obama still gets his way. But there never has been an approval allowed by Democrats so the care can be defunded. Then there is the matter of the us supreme court ruling. If you think the ruling can simply be ignored, check again.

[Bob]

I think we know now that Boehner and McConnell have worked hand in hand with the Democrats.

There is no such thing as stopping all of what Obama wants done.

[Chris]

Both parties are the same. That is why we need a viable third party, or system that allows for it.

[Bob]

All the Republicans have to do to stop Obamacare is to defund it. What have the done? They voted to fund it. That's why there is a revolt in progress.


Question for you, keeping in mind I trash Obama care and think it sucks.... but

What impact has it had on your personal life yet?

[Bob]

The two parties are not the same. And to suppose if you toss both out you will get some improvement is a myth.

[Green Arrow]

Regardless, the topic is how would a three (or more) party system work, Bob. I answered that question. Would you care to?

[Chris]

http://i.snag.gy/fWri8.jpg

[Bob]

How so, Bob?

You admit the Democrats are the rulers now. This ruins your claim they are both the same party.

[Bob]

Regardless, the topic is how would a three (or more) party system work, @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013). I answered that question. Would you care to?

It works like the parties work right now. We have the 3 party system in operation.

[Green Arrow]

It works like the parties work right now. We have the 3 party system in operation.

No, we don't. Two parties control our government at all levels.

[Bob]

No, we don't. Two parties control our government at all levels.

Well you don't know congress. We have a socialist Senator and an independent as well and then check the house. We have a 4 party system.

One is Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who generally "caucuses" — or cooperates — with Democrats but says he might switch to the Republicans. The other is Greg Orman of Kansas, an independent candidate trying to oust Republican Sen. Pat Roberts.Oct 30, 2014

[Green Arrow]

Well you don't know congress. We have a socialist Senator and an independent as well and then check the house. We have a 4 party system.

One is Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who generally "caucuses" — or cooperates — with Democrats but says he might switch to the Republicans. The other is Greg Orman of Kansas, an independent candidate trying to oust Republican Sen. Pat Roberts.Oct 30, 2014

They are independents. By definition, that means they don't have a party. Additionally, they caucus with Democrats - that makes them functionally Democrats.

There are only two parties in Congress: Republican and Democrat.

[Tahuyaman]

Many states have election laws that make it impossible or nearly impossible for 3rd parties to get on ballots. There are many legal challenges which likely won't be resolved soon enough to matter for 2016.


We already have at least fifty political parties out there. You name the cause or philosophy and there's a place for them. Other than the two major parties, we have the Libertarian and Green parties which attract those who feel betrayed by the two majors.

How many political parties do you need?

[Captain Obvious]

^^void of clues

[Matty]

They are independents. By definition, that means they don't have a party. Additionally, they caucus with Democrats - that makes them functionally Democrats.

There are only two parties in Congress: Republican and Democrat.


Dosen't Bernie Sanders call himself an Independent? He's running as a Democrat. And crazy Trump? God knows what he really is, is running on the Republican ticket.

[Chris]

The duopoly shares monopolistic control.

[Green Arrow]

Dosen't Bernie Sanders call himself an Independent? He's running as a Democrat. And crazy Trump? God knows what he really is, is running on the Republican ticket.

Bernie is an independent, but the fact that he has to run as a Democrat to get elected President pretty well illustrates the fact that we live in a two party system, where anyone outside the two parties is left outside of the power structure.

[Green Arrow]

We already have at least fifty political parties out there. You name the cause or philosophy and there's a place for them. Other than the two major parties, we have the Libertarian and Green parties which attract those who feel betrayed by the two majors.

How many political parties do you need?

It's not about the number of parties, it's about their ability to get elected.

[Matty]

Bernie is an independent, but the fact that he has to run as a Democrat to get elected President pretty well illustrates the fact that we live in a two party system, where anyone outside the two parties is left outside of the power structure.


This year might end all of that. If Trump is not nominated he will split the Republicans. He will run as an independent and A bunch of pissed off people will follow right after him.

[Green Arrow]

This year might end all of that. If Trump is not nominated he will split the Republicans. He will run as an independent and A bunch of pissed off people will follow right after him.

I don't think it will be this year. This year will certainly help the cause, but it won't be the solution. Not yet.

[Bob]

They are independents. By definition, that means they don't have a party. Additionally, they caucus with Democrats - that makes them functionally Democrats.

There are only two parties in Congress: Republican and Democrat.

You have been proven wrong. Admit it. You won't be hurt.

[Bob]

This year might end all of that. If Trump is not nominated he will split the Republicans. He will run as an independent and A bunch of pissed off people will follow right after him.

If Trump can't pull it off, as I believe will happen, he will sit it out.

BTW, don't allow GA to mislead you.

[Peter1469]

Due to a state level election laws it is impossible for 3rd parties to get on the ballots of every state. There are lawsuits ongoing to correct this state by state.


We already have at least fifty political parties out there. You name the cause or philosophy and there's a place for them. Other than the two major parties, we have the Libertarian and Green parties which attract those who feel betrayed by the two majors.

How many political parties do you need?

[Newpublius]

The key for more diverse political representation is the elimination of winner take all. Look at Ross Perot's Reform Party which attracted a significant percentage of the electorate. Even if running in congressional districts, the result would've still be a strong third party showing grabbing 0% of the available political power.

[Chris]

You have been proven wrong. Admit it. You won't be hurt.

Proven? OK, then put your proof in syllogistic form. Expose your premises.

[Green Arrow]

You have been proven wrong. Admit it. You won't be hurt.

I have not been proven wrong by you, Bob. Certainly not you, who claimed Greg Orman was an independent serving in Congress.

[Tahuyaman]

It's not about the number of parties, it's about their ability to get elected.

what makes you think one more party would make a difference?

[Tahuyaman]

Due to a state level election laws it is impossible for 3rd parties to get on the ballots of every state. There are lawsuits ongoing to correct this state by state.

if one of the 50 or so remaining parties put a viable candidate on their ticket they would make the ballot. We don't need to invent a new political party. We need quality candidates.

The number of parties isn't the problem. It's about who the candidates are, or are not.

[Carlsen]

If Trump can't pull it off, as I believe will happen, he will sit it out.

BTW, don't allow GA to mislead you.

If USA had the Parliament system for government this will work better then President system for government


.

[Green Arrow]

what makes you think one more party would make a difference?

Read that post you quoted again.

[Tahuyaman]

Read that post you quoted again.

ok, what makes you think another party added to the mix will increase their electability?

Its not not about the party. It's about the candidates themselves.

[Tahuyaman]

Why do so many people talk about the need for a viable third party when we have fifty or so " third parties"?

[Bob]

If USA had the Parliament system for government this will work better then President system for government.

I see how well it works for Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Bob]

I have not been proven wrong by you, Bob. Certainly not you, who claimed Greg Orman was an independent serving in Congress.

Yes you were proven wrong. My my my. As I told you, no matter what, you never make errors according to you. The deal was if we are a two party government or are there more parties. It was proven to you that there are more than two.

Just admit your error. no big deal.

By the way, I showed a screen shot that mentioned Greg Orman so if you need to blame others, blame that author, not me.

[Chris]

Yes you were proven wrong. My my my. As I told you, no matter what, you never make errors according to you. The deal was if we are a two party government or are there more parties. It was proven to you that there are more than two.

Just admit your error. no big deal.


The argument wasn't over whether there are factually more than two parties but that actually only two parties share control of the government.

[Bob]

The argument wasn't over whether there are factually more than two parties but that actually only two parties share control of the government.


Bernie Sanders certainly exercises control. And he admits he is a socialist.

[Chris]

Bernie Sanders certainly exercises control. And he admits he is a socialist.

One person, Representative, Senator, even President and Justice doesn't control. Parties control, namely Dems and Reps, the Donkephant.

(Sanders says he's a democratic socialist, ot a socialist, get facts right.)

[Bob]

One person, Representative, Senator, even President and Justice doesn't control. Parties control, namely Dems and Reps, the Donkephant.

(Sanders says he's a democratic socialist, ot a socialist, get facts right.)


You show up to bark orders I see. Still up to your same tricks.

Fact is, Sanders is not a Democrat. And he sure is not a republican. He has control over his vote.

[Chris]

You show up to bark orders I see. Still up to your same tricks.

Fact is, Sanders is not a Democrat. And he sure is not a republican. He has control over his vote.


One person, Representative, Senator, even President and Justice doesn't control. Parties control, namely Dems and Reps, the Donkephant.

(Don't go off topic.)

[Bob]

One person, Representative, Senator, even President and Justice doesn't control. Parties control, namely Dems and Reps, the Donkephant.

(Don't go off topic.)

You are off topic. I told you Sanders is not either a republican nor a registered Democrat.

[Chris]

Bernie Sanders certainly exercises control. And he admits he is a socialist.

One person, Representative, Senator, even President and Justice doesn't control. Parties control, namely Dems and Reps, the Donkephant.

[gamewell45]

I think a majority of us now believe that the two party system is broken. Rife with corruption, cronyism and run by the lobbyists in DC.

How do we fix that? What would a three party election look like? What would the majority vote be to win such an election?

I think a three party system would still have to get a majority electoral votes to win, if not, would congress not decide it??? Either way it would make for an interesting sight to see.

[Green Arrow]

ok, what makes you think another party added to the mix will increase their electability?

Its not not about the party. It's about the candidates themselves.

Clearly you still haven't read the post.

Read it again, this time with comprehension.

[Green Arrow]

Yes you were proven wrong. My my my. As I told you, no matter what, you never make errors according to you. The deal was if we are a two party government or are there more parties. It was proven to you that there are more than two.

Just admit your error. no big deal.

By the way, I showed a screen shot that mentioned Greg Orman so if you need to blame others, blame that author, not me.

When you prove me wrong, I'll admit I'm wrong. Until then, saying you're right doesn't make you right.

[Tahuyaman]

Clearly you still haven't read the post.

Read it again, this time with comprehension.

now you're just being hard headed.

[Tahuyaman]

A third party would be nothing but a fringe party. We already have 40+ other parties which represent every element in American politics.

This third party talk is just an echo chamber for the idiots who like to hear the sound of their own voice.

[Green Arrow]

now you're just being hard headed.

I'm being hard-headed for expecting grown adults trying to engage in intelligent discussion to actually read and comprehend what is being posted?

[Tahuyaman]

The talk about a third party is just fodder for the perpetually angry idiots who find comfort in shouting into an echo chamber.