Can this party be fully restored to help with the non-existant bipartisanship that has plagued our government? I understand it eventually was broken up, but this point in history I believe we could use this more than a third party system. It would help promote a environment to have equal ground on both sides. And give more input in other area's of government to clean up the bickering and fighting that is slowing things down. Good idea, or no?
There would be more grid lock because the third party would just hold one of the parties hostage. There will be gridlock until we starting holding specific politicians accountable.
One person posts a thread suggesting a new prominent 3rd party (libertarian), next day someone makes a thread suggesting we need Dems and Repubs to come to a consensus. Can't we just come to a bipartisan agreement on how many parties are needed? Personally I find the demand for bipartisanship silly. I don't vote people into office so they can fight for half of what they believe at the expense of the other half. It is suppose to be difficult to get things done in Congress, it limits government's ability to over extend.
Our nation will not vote in a third party that is not democrat or republican. And at the time it was created is very similar to the situation this nation is in right now concerning our economic policies. A libertarian party for election will never be taken serious in this nation... But a new version of the Democratic-Republican party very well could. I didn't want to step on the toes of the libertarian hopefuls in that thread. And wanted to discuss the possibility of a new version of this appearing. Which is could rightfully thrive, and succeed. Given the situation is very similar, just didn't people doing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party
It's not a solution. This wish for a third party is common amongst people who are horrified by the political knife-fighting that goes on in Washington, and it's perfectly understandable. Still, it's a fallacy. This is a perfect example of fundamental attribution error. The myth goes something like this: All the Democrats and Republicans seem to do is say terrible things about each other on TV and bargain in bad faith on legislation, and they must be doing it because they're mean, contrary people who are lost in the fog of partisanship and have forgotten that their true purpose is to serve the country. If we could only boot these mean and contrary people and replace them with people who CARE about the country, maybe our leaders would work together. Our politicians don't behave badly because they're bad people. They're doing it because they're really, really well attuned to what the people in the polity they represent want to see. It may seem obvious to you that we need to reduce Medicare expenditures for the good of the country, but the seniors who get those benefits don't see why the cuts should come from a program THEY like, and any politician who thinks differently will be ceding all those voters to his challengers. It may seem obvious to you that Obama is a decent guy with whom you have policy disagreements, but if a third of the people in your district think he's the literal Antichrist, you're going to pay a price for cooperating with him the next time you're up. Our system rewards politicians who really, really make their voters happy, even if it's bad for the country. Until that ecosystem changes, you'll get the same behavior no matter what party your politicians come from.
I don't understand any of this. These were Anti-Federalists who were just one half of the first two-party system. Electoral incidents and factional rivalries metastasized to the point that they split up and made way for the ascendant third party to become the established second one. This was a 30-year party with platforms and issues that haven't been relevant for two centuries. Do you think because they have both parties' names in them they'll cause bipartisanship?
Well said, repped. This is why I don't like democracy (although I have yet to find a palatable alternative).
