Third Parties Revisited

Yep, as long as it's not full of mouth-breathing ideological r****ds; perhaps some folks who actually have their own ideas instead of that of a group. Unfortunately, it's impossible to make a party out of independents because, well, they're independent, so I'll never get what I want.

 

I have long been a proponent of the "Middle Party," which I see as an organization that could make all of the decisions without running a single candidate.

20-25% of the country are liberal, plus 5% or so that are FAR left.
20-25% of the country are conservative, plus 5% or so that are FAR right.

That leaves at least 40% of the people in the middle, many of whom may lean right or left, but make their judgements based on who they think is a better candidate or what they think is a better policy. This 40%, if they could vote as any kind of solid block at all, could decide the outcome of every single election, every single policy change, and could marginalize the far left and far right completely.

 

Viable third parties are not realistic in our form of government.

 

I doubt you can get 40% of the population to vote on anything. People really just care about their own interests..

 

Every viable third party in our history has been consumed by one of the two major parties. Now, sometimes the major parties change to reflect the views of the third party they are appropriating, but we always end up with two.

 

Take the good from both parties: Fiscal Conservatism + Social Liberalism. Stop spending too much money and leave people alone for the most part. A party where the debt ceiling doesn't get raised. A party where one person's religious views have no bearing on someone else (i.e. gay rights or stem cell research).

 

This is a confusing statement. Where's the good from the Republican Party? You only mentioned Dem attributes.

 

The best suggestion I've seen is to increase the electoral college to a more proportional representation.

Another amendment to "save" the process is to give back the power of Senate legislatures to appoint Senators.

 

Honestly, with how big and diverse we've become, parliamentary government would be much better. The reason no viable third party can emerge on a national level and be effective is because they can't get seats at the table. Winner take all, first past the pole elections kill minority parties. To be effective in American government you have to be able to win seats and you can't do that in district elections where we elect one representative based on most votes.

 

Talk about gridlock... one of the rationales behind going to direct election of Senators was the appointment of do-nothing hacks who, surprisingly, did nothing but favors for those that put them in office. Besides, with the corporate money now about to flow, it would just cheapen the amount companies like Exxon have to pay for a Senator. A few thousand each to the rube state legislators making the appointment and that seat is yours for 6 years.

No thanks on that idea.

On the EC thing? What does increasing the EC do for you that eliminating the EC doesn't do better?

 

The republican party is the one which touts being fiscally conservative. I'm in no way implying that they actually are. Just saying it is supposedly one of their trademark attributes.

 

A third party isn't enough, imo. I'd say we need at least 5.

 

Like I said, we'd need to go to a parliamentary system or at the very least proportional election systems nation wide. It would be awesome to get 5 parties though.

 

I could get myself behind this.

 

I wouldn't mind a stronger Libertarian party and a strong democratic socialist party as well. The Democratic party itself would then lean more towards Blue Dogs and be where most moderates are now, and the Republicans would be more socially conservative than Libertarians.

With those four, different pairs of parties could work together to get certain things done without always making it a us vs. them two party brawl.

 

There are independents and third parties who run in smaller elections all the time Rocket River. They still have the same problem. It is very hard for a non Republican/Democract to get elected in any election because the majority of voters still vote for one of the big two parties. When a libertarian can get 35% of a vote and get no say in government, it makes it very hard for them to ever build any real momentum.

 

China seems to be prospering, and they only have one party. Lets see, who should we get rid of, the Republicans or the Democrats? I guess it wouldn't really matter.

 

The Tea Party is not a political party. It is a protest movement.

However, the Tea Party represents what is probably a majority of the Republican Party. So, the effect of the Tea Party will probably be to move the Republican party back towards its conservative roots.

The big change that we will see this year is that the Republican party "swells" will not be deferred to with regards to who should be supported in the primaries. Of course the Tea Partiers can be expected to enthusiastically back conservative Republicans over moderate Republicans in these races. And if the more moderate candidate wins the Republican primary, the Tea Partier's will fully support the more moderate candidate in the general election. But unless I am mistaken, the moderate candidates who manage to win in the primaries, such as Republican Senate Candidate Mark Kirk in Illinois, will be noticeably more responsive to the demands of conservatives than they might have been just a few years ago. This will be largely attributable to the influence of the Tea Party movement.