I think maybe we should call it The Pragmatist Party with the slogan " working for real solutions". Our first slate will be: John McCain for President A female for vice- President with a Cabinet of: Colin Powell, Secretary of State Gen Wes Clark Secretary of Defense Howard Dean Secretary of Health and Human sevices, Elliot Spitzer head of the SEC Who else?
I started an experiment called the Middle Party, for people who do not look at politics through the spin of one party or another. It is a party that will represent the people rather than the corporations, unions, PACs, and other special interests. I have a skeleton of a platform at www.andymoon.com/middleparty if you would like to see what I have done already.
Hasn't the Terminator (however you spell Arnold's last name) thought of going into politics? Maybe he is just talking about Governor.
Why do you need a third party? Are there loads of people who don´t feel represented by the current two? Why then are there no other parties to speak of?
The reason why our system is this way (and better than that in those European states is simple)..... In Europe, there is a concept called plural representation, in which the voters vote for the party and the percentage of the vote determines the amount of seats the parties get. If your party gets 50 percent of the votes, you get 50 percent of the seats in your Parliament and so on and so forth until it is filled up. This makes third parties very important and more influential than their numbers would indicate, because the major parties must rule with them in a coalition government or face a collapse of the government and new elections. In the U.S. we have a winner take-all system where upon you vote for a candidate and if he wins a majority of the votes, he gets the seat. In our system, this largely shuts out any third parties as they lack the name recognition and the ability to get on the ballot. And as for it being a far better system: 1. It keeps fringe kooks like Communists, Nazis, Green Party and other undesirables from getting elected to the legislature. 2. It is more stable, with our elections held at the same time. Even though I vote for a third party, I much prefer our system to the chaos prevalent in European parliaments. Third parties here just exist to push the two mainstream parties in a different direction. Usually once that happens, the parties outlive their usefulness and disappear.
You´re a true democrat (not the party) Bama They are not forced to form a coalition government. In Sweden (for example) the biggest party formed a government all by itself (powerhungry bastards) although they only got about 38 % of the votes. That means they have to seek support in the parliament more than they would have had to had they formed a coalition government with the left party and the green party. I think the 2 party system makes for a strong regime and a weak democracy. Pick your priority. How large a percentage of the people actually vote in the states? More parties in parliament means more people feel like there is someone there representing them. It doesn´t have to be chaos. More stability comes at the cost of less democracy. On the other hand, if you push it to far it´s anarchy, but I can´t think of any country to exemplify this right now (maybe Albania). As I´ve been trying to say. I think letting more parties into parliament is good for democracy. Of course you have to have some sort of rule that a party must get at least a percentage (five or something) of the votes to be allowed in.
There is nothing in the United Staes Constitution that refers to a two party system. I believe more than one founding father actually spoke against the formation of any political parties. However the formation of alliances is a basic stategy in any political organization and the lowest common denominator is 2. Since there are many more than two view points on any issue the American party system is much less about ideology and much more about power brokering. It really irks me that the business of government runs on party and seniority. But once the power has been established it all but impossible to dislodge because of the power/ influence/ money cycle. People give money to people with power to gain influence, and the powerful people use the money to gain more power , be it Kings, Theocrats, Dictators, or Tom Delay. Historically the only disruption of the cycle is a revolution by the disenfranchised. Unfortunatly their efforts are usually subverted by new set of power brokers. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" I would prefer a multi-party system based on ideology where "fringe kooks" like the Greens, Socialist, Christian fundamentalist, and Libertarians have a real forum and participation in democracy rather than the American oligarchy. It would be messier but it would be richer in ideas and less corrupt.
To represent the people that don't identify with the two major parties. Obviously, given that half the people in the country don't vote. There are several including the Greens and Libertarians along with the fringe groups that really aren't organized in this country that I know of (communist, socialist, etc.).
Does the Pragmatist Party or Middle Party support racism and segregation? And does it support a war with China?
andy -- you're really relying on some hopeful assumptions: 1. just because many people don't vote right now doesn't mean they will if there's a third party...maybe they will initially (sort of like a novelty effect)...but i don't think there's any reason to necessarily believe or assume that more parties equals higher voter turnout. 2. power corrupts...i don't care how pure of heart a third party starts out as, political parties are ultimately going to be...well...political.
The middle party would strongly disagree with racists and would not support a policy of segregation, IMO. In general, the Middle Party is for limiting the use of US troops unless US interests are directly threatened. The answer to your question would be that the Middle Party would support war with China if China threatened our interests. Please give me your opinion of what you think of these issues as well because the middle party is about debate and discussion of issues to find the best way to approach said issues rather than being beholden to a particular party's ideology.
how would the Middle Party feel about abortion?? why do i have a feeling the Middle Party is just an absolute direct reflection of all of your views, andy!??
Well, Max, I am a hopeful person. You may be right, I may be blowing sunshine up my a$$ thinking that the PEOPLE need a party to represent them. My goal is to create a party that is responsive to the people rather than special interests or the leaders of the current parties. I believe that compromise and debate are the way to come up with workable policies that will last for the long term, but compromise is something that has fallen by the wayside in our current climate of partisanship. Power does corrupt, but by the time this party gets powerful enough to become corrupt, it will have become a viable third party, necessitating a coalition of at least two of the parties to get things done. I think that multiple parties and coalition building are a more effective way to see that as many interests as possible are represented rather than the whims of a powerful few.
andy -- seems to me the key issues splitting democrats and republicans have two faces...bottom line any issue and ultimately you come out with "more or less government?" conservatives seem to favor more government in social agendas right now, while liberals want less....fiscally, liberals are happier with more government intervention while conservatives want less. so far, from what I've seen from various "third parties," i've seen nothing of real value...nothing that does anything more than create confusion. you might like an individual running under a third party label...but it's generally more about the person than the party.
