Just wondering if anyone out there believes that either the Republican or Democratic party offers them what you consider to be the best option for a set of policies. I just think that America would be so much better off with a strong third and even fourth party. Also, how do you think people would vote if 95 percent of America voted instead of 30 percent as it is now? ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
A strong 3rd/4th party would be beneficial only if they had a strong candidate. Buchanon and Nader just don't do anything for me. It would take a really long time (decades) for a 3rd/4th party to consistently bring a strong candidate to the table. If 95% of the voting population voted then I feel the Democrats would gain a large advantage of those votes. ------------------
A few things : 1) They should put None of the Above on the ballot. If 95% of eligible voters voted I think this one would win. 2) The problem with third-parties is that neither has an enigmatic, common-sense type of candidate to bring attention to his party. Nader is the closest but he doesn't have the type of personality to motivate people to vote for him. ------------------ Who would've thought Don Nelson would pass up Olumide Oyedeji not once, not twice, but thrice?
Enigmatic? I think you might mean pragmatic -- unless you actually want a puzzling, paradoxical candidate. As far as the "none of the above" option -- what do we do if that gets the majority of the vote? Who becomes the president?
Wasn't DREAMer going to run? Why not Homer Simpson for the 3rd party? I think he would have a huge following. ------------------ I am so exasperated that I could expectorate.
Are you two trying to say that Bush and Gore are strong candidates? Bush can barely talk and Gore talks like a school teacher to 5 year olds. The only reason they are "better" candidates is because they represent the only two real choices. It is so ingrained - only republican and democrats... ------------------ Talking to a dead hare about art
rimbaud : Gore and Bush are strong candidates, if only because they were nominated by their respective parties. That seems to confer an almost immediate credibility to the candidate that a third party candidate won't have. rascal : I meant a puzzling, paradoxical presidential candidate. Otherwise who'll pay attention to him? It worked for Ross Perot. That would be ideal third-party candidate type, Ross Perot, except not out of his ever-loving mind. As for None of the Above I always figures that people would keep voting until someone garnered over 50% of the votes. Or, you could say that the two major parties had to choose new candidates since it was obvious America didn't want these two. ------------------ Who would've thought Don Nelson would pass up Olumide Oyedeji not once, not twice, but thrice?
Neither the Dems or the Repubs offer anything to me in the way of a set of policies I can support. I come closer to the Dems than the Repubs, but not by much. I think they are both out of touch with most of the country. I believe that in the very near future, the voters of America will get fed up and will force the system open to third & fourth parties. I believe the issue that will send us over the edge will be Campaign Finance Reform. It will take a 3rd party to make it happen since it seems that neither of the two major parties want the river of cash to dry up. ------------------ I am the b*stard son of LHutz. Huh? Right!
The only way a third party candidate would win, in my opinion, is to have fame. They've got to have a connection with the people of this Nation. A natural born leader in their field. Bad example, but somebody like Oprah could gain suppor quickly. It has to be someone who can cross the boundaries of women, men, diversity, and such. In the past a third party was only generated for specific issues, and that is why they continue to lose, because eventually the other two parties side with the third party. And they lose power. A third part candidate has to cross the population ------------------ humble, but hungry.
Perhaps Tim Robbins, Warren Beatty, or Jesse Ventura? I believe all of them have considered running. ------------------ David Stern calls me now and says, 'I apologize for all the things I said to you in the past. Dennis is a lot worse than you are.' -- Charles Barkley
Jessie Ventura ran for governor in Minnesota on the Reform party ticket. Since then, they have asked him to leave the party, based on the fact they felt he "didn't represent the party beliefs." In a recent interview on the tonight show he made an interesting point -- He said that when he made the decision to enter politics, he was ridiculed. The reason he didn't run on one of the major party tickets was that they said a professional wrestler has no place in politics. After he won the governorship, becomming an actual success story for the Reform party, he was even asked to leave that esteemed group. He pointed out the irony that a couple of years after he decided to enter politics, who was one of the opening speakers for the Democratic National Convention -- Professional wrestler "The Rock". ------------------ Stay Cool...
There seem to be two major problems with third party tickets: 1) They tend to be based around a particular individual, not a set of ideals. As a result, the ideals change depending on the candidate, and the parties never really develop the identity they need to support a candidate, rather than the candidate supporting the party. 2) They tend to try to distance themselves from the major parties by purposely taking a differnt platform. They also tend to attract people who are mavericks -- which is why they didn't join one of the major parties. As a result, they frequently adopt ideas that are a little too radical for the average person -- and scare people away. ------------------ Stay Cool...
There are always excuses why third parties fail but the main reason tends to be that they advocate something that is further left or right of the current political spectrum and don't really offer a view that appeals to a wide range of people. In addition, third parties have a tendancy to go for the big win - the presidency - and fall short instead of working from the bottom up. They should really start at the school board elections, city and county positions, etc. and then make their way up the political ladder. The presidency represents a leap not only in strategic complexity but in funding that most third parties can't survive. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
But do you really need funding anymore? I guess that is the question I would like to ask. Ross Perot used it. No question. But somebody famous could run on little to no money. If you're somewhat famous, all you need is the debates. The news will take care of the rest. So despite the fact that everbody claims you need money, I don't really believe that you do. The world is so connected now via TV you could run on literally no money. All the talk shows would be glad to have you on. All the news channels. You could conceivably be on TV somewhere every night without leaving your home state. I have failed to figure out why the candidates don't do this. It can be done. Plus you have the power of saying I did this on no money. And that will carry some weight. I just don't see money playing a big role in the future. ------------------ humble, but hungry. [This message has been edited by PhiSlammaJamma (edited October 05, 2000).]
Yeah, if I can just talk Anna Kournikova, Brittany Spears, Jennifer Lopez and the long haired girl from Destiny's Child into heading up my campaign for the Butt Nekkid party, I think we might be able to pull it off. Hell I might even be able to steal Clinton's support from Gore! Seriously, the main reason that all third party groups never get close to taking a majority of the vote is money. Whether we all like it or not, politics comes down to money. ------------------ Too often, we lose sight of life's simple pleasures. Remember, when someone annoys you it takes 42 muscles in your face to frown, but it only takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and pimp-slap the mother****** upside the head!
This may seem like a unrelated issue but I don't think it is. I was very disappointed in the supreme court's decision knocking down open primaries. The reason? Because we have a political system that by design and practice forces representation through the two major parties, all the people should be able to get involved at that stage to help determine the realistically plausible candidates. Think of it this way: how many people would have preferred it if perhaps the election right now was Bradley versus McCain instead of Gore versus Bush. I would have preferred the former as I think both are less influenced by party loyalty and old favors than the pair of guys we know have. It is conceivable (not likely but certainly more conceivable than it played out this year) the former also could have been the candidates for office with full open primaries. In a parliamentary system the supreme court would have been right with their thinking, but not in the special interest driven two-party muck we have at the moment. They took more power away from the people and placed further into the parties' cronies with their decision. [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited October 05, 2000).]
Money is EVERYTHING in campaigns. If you don't have it, you cannot win. It is that simple. I still think third parties would be far more effective if they began small and worked their way up to larger offices. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
I know what you're saying, but I think SAVING MONEY should be everything. And I'm not alone. Eventually it will change. Mark my words. ------------------ humble, but hungry.
