I would assert that three parties would not be any more "fractious" than the morass we have now. It would require the cooperation of two to get things done, but having more voices involved in the process would be a good thing, IMO.
Except, Hayes, when you have a President who panders to the extreme... in Bush's case, the extreme right and the extreme Fundamentalist Christians. Where your checks and balances go out the window is when the same President appoints very large numbers of lifetime Federal judges to the bench, not only to the Supreme Court, who may very well promote that extreme idealogy decades after that President is out of office, and even dead and buried. That's one of the main reasons that it drives me crazy when people say, "Hell, Bush will be out of office 4 years after he's elected, and the country will move on. What's the big deal?" That's the big deal. His extreme influence will keep promoting that agenda in our courts decades after he's left office. If you like Bush's pandering to the extreme right, and extreme Christian fundamentalists, and want that policy to continue after Bush is out of office, then vote for him. That is the right of those who bother to vote. (not nearly enough Americans do) But don't think that Bush is just "four more years and he's gone." His judges on the Federal bench and the Supreme Court will be there long after he's gone. And that scares the hell out of me.
I think he panders to more of the middle than you think, which is how he got elected in the first place. The religious right by themselves couldn't get him elected. My concern with more third parties is that you give more voice to the fringes without drawing more of the middle into the process. If most americans voted then bush never would have gotten elected. Allowing more third parties doesn't fix the voting problem it just disproportionately gives radicals power.
I don't understand why this happens. If the Republican candidate starts modifying his campaign/proposals to try and get the "swing" fringe voters, then that candidate also losses his power base, no? I don't understand the disproportionate part?
But the fringes still have to have enough votes to get their party representative elected. If they don't have enough votes then they don't get a share of power. If they do get enough votes then maybe they aren't such a fringe.
ok, i'll give it a try. lets say the senate has 49 republicans, 49 democrats, and 2 green party senators. to get deadlocked legislation passed, each of the two big parties will have to give their support to legislation the greens want, but could NEVER get the support for, in order to get the position passed/defeated. Now we have legislation that has a super minority support passed because the small contingent from a third party essentially serve as kingmakers.
Or, the people in the major parties could create legislation that will be supported by the other major if they don't want to kowtow to the "kingmakers." I still think that this type of system would be better as the majors would be forced to work WITH people in other parties instead of just being anti-whatever.
A legitmate 3rd (or 4th or 5th ...) party would be disastrous to our political system. Think about it. Multiple candidates with similiar beliefs splitting the majority vote while united minority extremests always win. If you have 5 candidates, then, theoretically, only 21% of the vote is required to win. Technically, there would be a runoff unless the winner gets the majority of the electoral vote. However, it would be likely to have two candidates in the runoff that the majority didnt support.
Andy, compromise between the 2 parties, and their various factions, is how legislation gets passed now. A third party, with an almost miniscule chance of getting a senator elected anyway. (not so, in the House), is only going to have influence when the 2 major parties are as close in numbers, in the Senate, as they are now. In short, the chance of your scenario happening in the Senate is practically nil. What you, and many others, no doubt, really desire is a parliamentary system, and it just ain't what we've got, folks. When our system really starts to break down, in my opinion, is when one party has very large majorities in the House and the Senate, and also holds the Presidency. For an example of what I'm talking about, assuming the current balance of power on the Federal level isn't as good (or bad) an example already, is the state government of Texas. When one of the branches of the Legislature was held by one party, and the other, along with the Governor, and/or the more powerful Lt. Governor, was held by another, it had to compromise and move towards moderation to get things done. That was the case when Bush was Governor. That is why he was able, in 2000, to point at a relatively moderate record as Governor, because he had to be relatively moderate to get anything done that he could sign and run on for re-election, and for his run at the Presidency. When Bush was given effective majorities in the U.S. House, and a near majority of the Senate, he immediately moved far to the right, astonishing millions of his 2000 supporters, who began to wonder where that "compassionate conservative" had gone. Well, he never existed. Bush was more towards the center as Texas Governor because he had to be, not because he wanted to be. Today, you see the real Bush... a shining example of the Peter Principle, to the Nth degree.
Even I have no illusions. I may be a libertarian, but why? I'd like to see the GOP pulled in more of that direction (more likely) or the libertarians replace them as the true party of liberty and smaller govt (much less likely). I think the GOP pulled away from the Bible thumpers and pulled in a more libertarian direction (REAL limited govt, etc) would be unbeatable. I think that the kind of democracy they have in Europe would be awful here. The kook fringe on either side scares me far too much. As far as I'm concerned, we don't need them in any sort of position of power. I don't want Nazis and the KKK with seats in Congress any more than I would want the Communists and their brothers in arms the Greens. A two party system moderates both and while not perfect, is better than the chaos of Europe's democracies.
Again the nuance of policy is debated within the parties but when it comes to national elections it is boiled down to a bianary choice. Having more than two choices means your probably not going to get a consesus which means a run-off between only two choices anyway. Maybe we should be lamenting the old power brokering that used to go on at the national conventions when single issue sentiment could influence the party platform. Now I guess the pollsters hold more sway. You might have gotten a stronger democratic stance on enviromental issues but you might have ended up with a stonger anti-gay or tax relief for the rich etc. out of the republicans (something resembling the Texas Republican platform). Both parties tend to promote a centrist national agenda without any bold initiatives or new ideas.
But if 21% of the people would support a candidate other than one of the big two parties, that means that 21% of our population aren't having their political needs met. Actually it would mean that the majority of our population wasn't having it's needs met since the parties would also be getting 19-20% of the vote. So I would rather have a party that can gain 21% win than to have such a huge portion of the population having their views represented. I do think it would be hard to have five candidates pull mostly equal percentage of the population but it is possible. It might encourage parties to reach out beyond their special interest groups to encompass more of the population. That would in-turn get more people taking an active role in elections, and their government. The fringe groups would have a tough time coming to power, becuase there aren't that many people who support them. Maybe they would gain the odd state rep position, but probably not any more than they do now.
2-party systems aren't the best way but when you think about it, it's the only option that becomes available after time. In most European countries you have it where you vote for a party and not a candidate. If the party gets 30% of the vote, they get 30% of the representation, but those reps are chosen by party leaders. Those that are chosen have to follow the party line for fear of dismissal which doesn't really serve that well at all. If we were to have 3 to 5 parties what would happen anyways is that it would come down to 2 parties in a runoff. The election would be the same as it is now, but with only a one month campaign time for the 2 candidates. So while it has its flaws, I tend to think that its one of the best possible options in a democracy. With regards to voting, the problem is the electoral college, but I don't know if doing away with it is the best idea. The majority of states are already pretty much decided. For example, many Kerry supporters in Texas and Bush supporters in California figure it is hopeless because since the voting is done by state and not popular vote they wont have any effect on the election. However, doing away with the electoral college could force us into a place where LA, Chicago and NY decide our president, so there are many problems with any type of democracy. I think ours is one of the better options available, IMHO.
Again, I think that the beginnings of the third party would not be in running candidates themselves, but deciding on a platform and endorsing the candidate who does the most to further the goals of the party. It would be a place for the people who now feel that they literally have NO voice to have a voice and feel counted. Even an organization that only appealed to the independants in the middle along with the people who don't even vote now could draw enough people to have an impact on the candidates. Even if such an organization never ran a candidate, it could have an impact on races nationwide. There are a LOT of people out there who feel disenfranchised, heck, I am one of them. I am not thrilled that I feel compelled to vote for a Democrat, but I have no other real choice. If all the people who feel like me were to get together and organize, we might not run a candidate for President in the next few decades, but we would end up having an impact. I actually see it starting as something like an expanded D&D. There would be areas for discussions about the various topics that are interesting to the members. We would debate and discuss for the purpose of coming to agreements about the way policy should work. These discussions could be used to write the platform for the organization and over time as more people join and more people present their ideas, the platform could shift and change with the composition of the members. It would be a constructive place to learn about and involve yourself in politics without the vitriol and mudslinging of the major parties. I think it could work.
Slashdot has a fascinating Q+A with Michael Badnarik , the Libertarian Presidential Candidate. He discusses quite a few of the issues that are being discussed in this thread, such as majority vote. The section on ballots is quite interesting . . .
yeah, i remember reading those for my beginning US Government class years ago with Dr. Bob Eubanks (eccentric but brilliant man). We had some heated discussions about the Federalist papers and what the Federalists were trying to do. While at the time Madison may have had a valid point, in todays America there are sooo many different idealogies that getting stuck with two parties seems more problematic than advantageous, IMO. If you aren't extremely conservative or extremely liberal on every issue, you (me) are being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils more often than not. that's not the way it should be. there are more than two ways to run a healthy democracy. unfortunately the system in place today makes getting a strong 3rd voice in damn-near impossible. special interests have virtually taken over, with nearly every politician looking out for a single group here or a single group there. it's frustrating to say the least.... and there are a lot of people just like me who feel the same way. i'm in no way advocating a multi-party system with any one of 5 or 6 parties in the running every time. but adding a solid moderate 3rd party would help facilitate those who feel left out with the current far-winged parties of today. like i mentioned earlier, there are a lot of people who have the same sentiments i do (.... like andy). EDIT: or maybe the 2 parties we currently have can stop looking at politics with an "us vs. them" mentality and get lean a little closer to the middle.
Third Parties kind of miss some points to me When was the last time a Third Party Candidate ran for Mayor of Houston Councilman state Rep from our Area Third parties IMO too busy trying to hit the HOME RUN [presidency] and not a few bunts and Base Hits they HAVE to build up an infrastructure of their parties and they have to PROTECTED [look how Bucanon basically took over everything Perot built] Biggest hit on Nader was his lack of political experience same with Perot . . .. . Third parties have build long term . . not for next Pres Elections they need to build a track record Honestly. . If Perot Runs for GOVERNOR OF TEXAS with as much Zeal as he did President .. . . HE WOULD HAVE WON!!! then in 4 or 8 years he could have ran for President and actually had a chance. . . . esp if his policies were effective in Texas Rocket River
The main rule, if I were setting it up, would be civility. Anyone who cannot be civil and constructive would not be welcome.
Democratic party extremely liberal? Not hardly. Heck even Hugo Chavez is making compromises with the country's oligarchs. Extremely liberal, let's see: nationalize the oil and power industry national health insurance or a socialized medical system decriminalization of drug possession laws Transfer all the DEA agents to the EPA and the SEC Repeal all the recent FCC "reforms" encourage the formation of labor unions Recognize all civil unions Reorganize the tax code to reduce consumption An actual livable minimum wage ($15Hr.?) Support Israel, but only within the borders of the 'Green Line' Support democracies everywhere, encourage reform in authoritarian regimes (even if they have oil). Require a 2 year public service commitmant from all citizens I could go on....
