Lets Start a Third Party

Good points Andy.

I'm biased because of the situation in Canada, where a strong showing by 'alternative' parties all but wiped out the primary opposition party. Leaving no national alternative in its wake.

I'm also wary of vote splitting where two parties of similar philosophies split their support leaving the party with possibly less support winning the ballot. I brought up Nader as many suggested that Nader voters would have voted Democrat before Republican -- but as they voted Nader -- the Republican candidate won.

The 30/30/40 split example was meant to be on a seat by seat basis. Where I live, British Columbia, we had an election in which the party with the second most votes won a substantial majority. The party with the most votes lost many seats because many voters in those ridings voted for another party with a similar platform.

In another election, two parties with similar platforms (many candidates 'crossed over' after being frustrated by internal politics of one) collectively drew 57% of the vote -- together, they won 30% of the seats. A different party with a very different platform received 40% of the vote and won 68% of the seats.

Just pointing out the pitfalls of a third party. And some of the odd results that may (and do) occur.

You points about the third party having an effect on policy, and your frustrations with a two party system (especially when each party seems weighted down with baggage and dogma) are very valid and I agree with them wholly.

 

The way I see it, the solutions are not A or B, they have shades of grey that make it where the solution could be AAAAB, ABBBBB, AAABBBBB, AAAAABBB, etc. That is what the middle party is about, finding practical solutions to the problems facing our country rather than this A or B, black or white, left or right mentality. When you are talking about most issues facing us, there are more than just two solutions and it is up to us to find the right mix of solutions to take America forward.


Of course there are - I used two solutions to make it simple. You create 5 solutions and you have even more possibilities and no party you create is going to even represent a tiny fraction of people's views any more than the Democrats or Republicans.

I agree that both parties have reasonable positions on some issues, but neither party seems willing or able to take the best ideas from all sides of the political spectrum to craft a solution that meets more than the needs of the powerful few. I don't want this party to fit MY vision, I want it to fit the vision of real Americans who don't have a voice since the Dems and Reps are beholden to their respective special interests.


Real Americans don't have one single vision. 50% think one way on most issues, and 50% think the other. No party you create is going to represent everyone's views any more closely than the current parties do. That's ultimately the problem with the idea of a 3rd party and why they never catch on.

 

I respectfully disagree and would like to clarify a point. This is not a party that I want to create by myself. If this party is to grow, it will need to be created by the people who do not see themselves as either Democrats or Republicans (the 40% who identify as independant). It is the input of these people that will create the platform for the party and it is the participation of these people that will drive this project. I do not see this as MY party (as in that it belongs to me), I see it as a party that could possibly be created by and for the people who feel disenfranchised by the current system of government.

At least if we had one party that represented the people's views over those of Enron, Boeing, Halliburton, the AFL-CIO, the NRA and the myriad of other special interests maybe the people would feel like they have a voice in government.

You seem to be under the assumption that this country is split down the middle on either the right or left side of the spectrum and that the people identify only with the ideology on one side or the other. I believe that most people are in the middle on most issues because that is the way nature works. If you graph anything in nature, whether it is the size of trees in a forest, the sizes of a particular species of bird, or the political leanings of people, you come out with a bell curve with the majority in the middle and only a few on the extreme edges.

The Democrats and Republicans should be fringe groups, representing the extremes of left and right like the Libertarians and Greens. The majority of people, IMO, would fall in the middle of the spectrum and would make up the mainstream views common to most people. The Dems and Reps already represent the extremes of left and right and, as we have seen lately, once one or the other party is in power, they try to pull the country to the right or left as hard and as fast as possible.

I believe there is a better way.

 

Great idea! That is very close to what I had in mind. We CAN move towards eliminating abortion throught the use of education and available contraception.

No offense, but...NOT!!!

 

I respectfully disagree and would like to clarify a point. This is not a party that I want to create by myself. If this party is to grow, it will need to be created by the people who do not see themselves as either Democrats or Republicans (the 40% who identify as independant). It is the input of these people that will create the platform for the party and it is the participation of these people that will drive this project. I do not see this as MY party (as in that it belongs to me), I see it as a party that could possibly be created by and for the people who feel disenfranchised by the current system of government.


But here's my point -- that 40% of Independents don't have this one view that you can create a party out of. Their views are scattered all over the place. It would be one thing if they more-or-less agreed on everything and then you could build a platform out of it - but they range from crazy extremists to moderates on some issues to down-the-middle moderates. Once you nail down a specific platform, the majority of those 40% will not agree with it, no matter what it is.

This is why 3rd parties traditionally are mostly one-issue parties (Green Party, etc) - they can get a good chunk the people who agree that the environment is a major concern. However, when they then try to add a 2nd issue or 3rd issue to the platform, it all falls apart because their already small base fractures even more.

You seem to be under the assumption that this country is split down the middle on either the right or left side of the spectrum and that the people identify only with the ideology on one side or the other. I believe that most people are in the middle on most issues because that is the way nature works. If you graph anything in nature, whether it is the size of trees in a forest, the sizes of a particular species of bird, or the political leanings of people, you come out with a bell curve with the majority in the middle and only a few on the extreme edges.

The bell curve thing is true if you look at a single issue - but you can't. Once you graph a bell curve for each issue, people don't agree on anything. If there was a mass of people who agreed on a number of issues, one of the two major parties would have already co-opted that position - and that's exactly what has happened. The two major party views no longer fit the traditional roles of the two parties - they have co-opted the most popular overall positions on any number of issues. They already represent the closest possible reality to what you're suggesting be created, in my opinion.

 

Great idea! That is very close to what I had in mind. We CAN move towards eliminating abortion throught the use of education and available contraception.


Except that on some issues, like abortion, compromise isn't acceptable in many cases. If you truly believe abortion is murder, then there's no way you would or should compromise on that. Ultimately, that's going to go against everything you ethically believe in. This is one of those types of issues that you may not find a "middle ground". The issue will ultimately be divided by swaying a mass majority of public opinion one way or the other.

 

I don't think people are as all over the map as you seem to think. Most of the true kooks either affiliate themselves with a party or don't participate at all. My target would be the people that are mostly middle of the road, which I belive to be at least a strong plurality in our society.

My main goal for another party would be to give a voice to the people that currently feel disenfranchised, to include both the people that see themselves as independant and the people that just don't participate in the political process at all. I think that many people don't care because they don't feel as if their voices mean anything.

Besides, who says that we have to have hard line positions on every issue. Instead, a set of general guidelines based on what the party members think. We would encourage individual members to vote in the best interest of their constituents regardless of what the party guidelines or any other party member says.

I believe that the bell curve describes the way that most people feel on most issues. Each individual has their own pet issues that they feel strongly about (prohibition for me, abortion for MadMax) and, if everyone is willing to give a little on their pet issues, we can come up with reasonable compromises for most if not all of them.

BTW, I have thought about it and I kind of like Pragmatist Party. Any other ideas for names? (let the ribbing begin).

 

Again, you are not grasping the solution being proposed here. What is being offered for consideration is a system where we deliberately and painstakingly educate our people in order to ultimately end the practice of abortion in this country. We can do it if we create a goal, come up with a plan, and work hard to get there.

We are not talking about a magical prohibition law or court ruling that will ban abortion on the surface but ultimately not stop abortions from being performed here.

For the people that identify themselves as pro-life, a question. Would you rather have:

A society where abortion is technically legal, but is not performed except under extreme circumstances.

A society where abortion is illegal, but occurs in the black market anyway.

If y'all would rather that we start a new thread with that one, we can. My point is that if you work hard enough, you CAN come up with compromises for darn near any issue. You just have to talk about it with an open mind and be prepared to embrace ideas that you may not initially believe to find their strengths and weaknesses.

For those that are so issue oriented that they cannot compromise at all, please find the party that is right for you. That is your right in our system and the important thing is that you participate, not which side you are on.

 

I don't think people are as all over the map as you seem to think. Most of the true kooks either affiliate themselves with a party or don't participate at all. My target would be the people that are mostly middle of the road, which I belive to be at least a strong plurality in our society.


These people are already targetted by the two major parties, which are VERY centrist as-is. Note that Clinton basically co-opted much of the Republican agenda in the 90's and now the Republicans have co-opted Democratic issues like prescription drugs. The two current parties are already "idea whores" in that they essentially try to find a platform that encompasses as many people as possible, regardless of their true beliefs. That's one reason so many liberals are excited about a Howard Dean who doesn't necessarily expouse the DLC centrist views.

We are not talking about a magical prohibition law or court ruling that will ban abortion on the surface but ultimately not stop abortions from being performed here.

For the people that identify themselves as pro-life, a question. Would you rather have:

A society where abortion is technically legal, but is not performed except under extreme circumstances.

A society where abortion is illegal, but occurs in the black market anyway.


If you believe it's possible through education and such to dramatically reduce the number of abortions, then there's no reason you can't do that AND make it illegal and thus punish people who commit murder from their perspective. It's not like education only works if abortion is legal.

To someone who believes abortion is murder, this is no different than arguing that we since can't stop murder entirely, perhaps we should make it legal and educate people that murder is bad and solve the problem that way.

 

Thank you for the compliment, if that is what that was.

If I believed in this, then the Green Party would have been for me, but I think that the system you describe is much too socialist for my taste. I do think that the system of taxation in this country needs an overhaul, and I see two really viable alternatives.

1. No frills flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage and everyone is able to do their own taxes in less than an hour each year. Set a limit on the tax code (250 pages should be enough to line out a reasonable flat tax).

2. Consumption tax. This one is my personal favorite. I personally believe that taxing people on what they make is wrong. I believe that we should tax what we consume. We could exempt or discount appropriate items (food, medicine, etc.) but otherwise, it would basically be a nationwide sales tax. That makes it easy for everyone to decide what they are taxed on.

While I do support ending prohibition, I hope that this is a joke.

 

So Andy, you're for both a flat income tax and a consumption tax? Why not just have one or the other? Personally, I'd prefer the consumption tax myself. It would allow me to invest more of my money without losing my shirt in taxes.

 

Obviously they are targeted badly if 40% identified themselves as independant rather than affiliated with the party that targeted them best.

Actually, if you ban abortion, you are following the model of alcohol and drug prohibition, and we have seen what happens to educational efforts under a prohibitionist system. If you actually want to change the behavior of a society, you have to allow for the people that don't initially believe what you are trying to teach. Therefore, you have to do the education under a regulated system in order to make the changes you want in society.

If we want to talk about abortion, we should probably start a new thread, but suffice to say that compromise epitomizes the goal of the party that I personally would like to be associated with. People who are absolutely unwilling to compromise AT ALL about an issue (just about any issue) probably wouldn't fit in to that kind of group.

 

No, I do mean that it should be one or the other. I would prefer the consumption tax, too.

 

OK....I agree, the consumption tax would be great. Now if I was founding a third party......I guess the Constitutional party would be as good a name as any...... The platform would consist of:

1. Eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a consumption based tax

2. Eliminate all other forms of Federal taxation.

3. Pay for essential services (highways, etc.) with user fees. If you don't need something, you don't have to pay for it.

4. Eliminate all entitlement programs, period.

5. Eliminate U.S. foreign aid completely.

6. Slash the defense budget by closing unneccessary bases, privatizing much of the maintennance and services of the remaining bases and cutting our nuclear stockpiles while developing less-expensive nukes more in keeping with the limited nature of future conflicts (i.e. nuclear bunker busters). We would then realign the military to have a more global reach capability not requiring weeks of sealifted equipment to sustain our forces. (in other words, the Marines would have six divisions rather than just four.)

7. Withdraw us from the U.N. and send their butts packing to the Hague.

8. Legalize pot and prostitution. Make the national drinking age 18. Decriminalize the possession of the hard drugs.

9. Have the Nature Conservancy or some other like-minded group take over the management of our national parks.

10. Curb illegal immigration by putting the military on the border and make English the national language. End all billingual education programs and remove all signs that are not in English.

11. Have Justin Timberlake, J-Lo, Brittney and the countless other non-talent hacks who populate pop music today executed for crimes against music.....just kidding!

 

It is almost scary how much of this I agree with.

 

On the military thing, we need to reorient our forces toward a leaner, meaner fighting force capable of project power without requiring weeks to deploy. For example......
A conventional M-1A2 tank weighs a ungodly 67 tons, sucks gas at the rate of 2 gallons per mile (and you thought SUVs were gas hogs!) and is only transportable in large numbers via sealift.

On the other hand.... there is this new Army vehicle called LAV III, similar to the LAVs we used in the Corps. It can be equipped with a 105 autoloading gun while weighing in at over 36 tons, almost half the weight with a similar amount of firepower. With those kind of vehicles, we make the 101st Airborne basically a mechanized airborne infantry outfit, which would go a long way to helping us defuses crises. With the ability to drop armor supported 101st troopers on your head, the deterrence value would be outstanding and worth any investment.