# Would Having a Third Major U.S. Polituical Party Help?



## arnisador (Oct 12, 2013)

[h=1]In U.S., Perceived Need for Third Party Reaches New High
[/h] [h=2]Twenty-six percent believe Democratic and Republican parties do adequate job[/h]


> Amid the government shutdown, 60% of Americans say the Democratic and  Republicans parties do such a poor job of representing the American  people that a third major party is needed. That is the highest Gallup  has measured in the 10-year history of this question. A new low of 26%  believe the two major parties adequately represent Americans.
> 
> The results are consistent with Gallup's finding of more negative opinions  of both parties since the shutdown began, including a new low favorable  rating for the Republican Party, and Americans' widespread  dissatisfaction with the way the nation is being governed.



This would help for a while--but then polarization would set in again. It always does. Still, if we could get a few good elections out of a change, I'm all for it!


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 12, 2013)

It might be a good move for a stop gap shake-up of the status quo :nods:.  

What is really needed tho' is a move away from the very notion of a 'political class' whose ambition is the exercise of power and whose love is of authority rather than for the people or their country.

I'm with Douglas Adams of this one:  It is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2013)

Honestly, my opinion is that we need like 10 viable parties, where no one party would have the numbers necessary to form a sole majority in Congress.  That way, they would have to work together and could only push through any legislation by working together and forming coalitions.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 12, 2013)

I'm with Steve.  We need more then 3 we need at least 5 or 6.  2 def isn't working.  No party should ever be able to pass a law with zero support from the other party.  It removes the checks system out when that happens.


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2013)

We actually have parties that more accurately represent many peoples' political beliefs, but because prevailing wisdom is that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote, most bite the bullet and vote for a candidate they don't really believe in.  

People could vote their consciences and in candidates who actually represent them.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 12, 2013)

Aye, that's what I do.  I am a Liberal voter because that parties stated platform most closely resembles what I want out of government - sadly far too many vote Labour or Tory because their grandfathers did :rolls eyes:.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 12, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> sadly far too many vote Labour or Tory because their grandfathers did :rolls eyes:.


So they couldnt possibly like what the Tory platform says?






Im just messing with you


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 12, 2013)

Politics in the US would get a lot more interesting if the Republicans shed their membership into the Libertarian party and the Democrats did the same with the Greens. A lot more voices would be heard.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 12, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Politics in the US would get a lot more interesting if the Republicans shed their membership into the Libertarian party and the Democrats did the same with the Greens. A lot more voices would be heard.



Most voters don't care about politics.  They vote Republican or democrat because that what they always do. They don't know what either party even stands for. 

Its Howard Stern so the Language is not the best or work friendly but it shows what Im talking about and its kinda funny and sad all at the same time


----------



## arnisador (Oct 12, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> What is really needed tho' is a move away from the very notion of a 'political class' whose ambition is the exercise of power and whose love is of authority rather than for the people or their country.
> 
> I'm with Douglas Adams of this one:  It is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.



Indeed--but we can hardly draft a president.



Steve said:


> We actually have parties that more accurately  represent many peoples' political beliefs, but because prevailing wisdom  is that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote, most bite the bullet  and vote for a candidate they don't really believe in.



I wrestle with this often--and it's a classic case of a situation where if everyone voted for their best person it wouldn't be "wasted" but since I know most won't I sometimes don't either, ensuring the problem continues.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I'm with Steve.  We need more then 3 we need at least 5 or 6.  2 def isn't working.  No party should ever be able to pass a law with zero support from the other party.  It removes the checks system out when that happens.



Full agreement in principle--in practice I expect that parties A through F would quickly become effectively superparties A-B-D and C-E-F and you'd get very nearly the same effect. It's different here than in a parliamentary system as in Europe.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So they couldnt possibly like what the Tory platform says?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ROFLKLITA!  That was good timing!  I can report without a shadow of a doubt that snorting with laughter, whilst you have a mouthful of vindaloo, hurts .


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Most voters don't care about politics.  They vote Republican or democrat because that what they always do. They don't know what either party even stands for.
> 
> Its Howard Stern so the Language is not the best or work friendly but it shows what Im talking about and its kinda funny and sad all at the same time



Unfortunately, this has been my experience. I teach a couple of science and health classes at a local university and when we talk about policy, almost no one actually knows what any party's policy actually is. Very few people, in my experience, are actually informed, but a lot more than that number say they vote.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Full agreement in principle--in practice I expect that parties A through F would quickly become effectively superparties A-B-D and C-E-F and you'd get very nearly the same effect. It's different here than in a parliamentary system as in Europe.


What other choice is there?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What other choice is there?



You could always not vote and try to live your life with as minimal interaction with the government as possible?


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 12, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> You could always not vote and try to live your life with as minimal interaction with the government as possible?


IF I dont vote and you do then you get what you want without any feedback.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 12, 2013)

I vote Libertarian, except when they're too liberal for my tastes.


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Full agreement in principle--in practice I expect that parties A through F would quickly become effectively superparties A-B-D and C-E-F and you'd get very nearly the same effect. It's different here than in a parliamentary system as in Europe.


Look at the current situation in the GOP.  You have effectively several different kinds (for lack ofa  better word) of conservative.  You have libertarians who vote GOP, who are only marginally represented, but don't want to waste their votes.  You have religious/social conservatives.  There are moderate conservatives, who have much in common with moderate liberals (and would likely get along pretty well).  There are also fiscal conservatives.

These are all very different things, and while they all fall under the giant umbrella of the GOP/Conservative label, none truly have a voice in government.  

Think about the situation we have now with the Tea Party and the GOP.  There is a struggle for the future of the party going on right now between moderate conservatives and the tea party.  If the tea party was forced to work WITH the republican party (and likely other parties, as well) to form a coalition within the government in order to effect change, a couple things would happen.  First, compromise would be critical because no one party would have a majority voice.  And two, because of this, if a party wants to further its agenda, it would have to gain the cooperation of others outside their party.  This would cause the government to function more slowly, sure.  But it would also keep things like a debt ceiling debacle or shutting down the government from happening because it would eliminate any real possibility for a single party to have a stranglehold on any one of the branches of government.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What other choice is there?



Not much--I think that it will always come down to effectively two parties as coalitions form. Two is a magic number here.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 12, 2013)

Steve said:


> We actually have parties that more accurately represent many peoples' political beliefs, but because prevailing wisdom is that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote, most bite the bullet and vote for a candidate they don't really believe in.
> 
> People could vote their consciences and in candidates who actually represent them.



And the two dominant parties have locked the electoral process up, and make it damned hard for any of the other parties to get a seat at the table.  At best, they end up at the equivalent of the kid's table...


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 12, 2013)

I just don't think most people are really tired of this yet.  They won't vote 3rd party because they just are not bothered enough yet.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 12, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> And the two dominant parties have locked the electoral process up, and make it damned hard for any of the other parties to get a seat at the table.  At best, they end up at the equivalent of the kid's table...



Perhaps we should be more specific, the special interest groups have locked the two party system into place. The major players in our democracy have ossified their system of accessing power.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 12, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> And the two dominant parties have locked the electoral process up, and make it damned hard for any of the other parties to get a seat at the table.



Very true. I'd like to see some of those laws challenged in court by third parties.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I just don't think most people are really tired of this yet.  They won't vote 3rd party because they just are not bothered enough yet.



There's truth to this too--habit and not feeling enough that it affects them, or that they can affect it.


----------



## Takai (Oct 12, 2013)

The US used to have 3 major parties. But the Federalists lost their power after some ill conceived gun control laws. My how times have changed.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 12, 2013)

There's quit a list of past parties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._political_parties

In an odd coincidence I was reading earlier today about the fact that ex-president Martin van Buren later ran for re-election on the Free Soil Party ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Soil_Party


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 12, 2013)

Both the Libertarian and Green parties have repeatedly sued for inclusion in the Infomercials, err I mean the "debates".  
In 2004 Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik were arrested seeking entry to the debates.
In 2012 Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala, the Green presidential and vice-presidential nominees were likewise arrested for attempting to gain access to the debates.

Until these farces are ended and legitimate 3rd parties such as the Libertarian and Green parties are allowed to participate, most people will continue to believe they must continue to vote for evil.


----------



## K-man (Oct 13, 2013)

Steve said:


> Honestly, my opinion is that we need like 10 viable parties, where no one party would have the numbers necessary to form a sole majority in Congress.  That way, they would have to work together and could only push through any legislation by working together and forming coalitions.


Although diversity is good, too much can lead to total instability. Look at the post war political history of Italy. They had 61 changes of government between 1946 and 1994. It hasn't been much better since then either.
:asian:


----------



## DennisBreene (Oct 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Most voters don't care about politics.  They vote Republican or democrat because that what they always do. They don't know what either party even stands for.



I don't think that is coincidental.  The obfuscation of every candidates agenda has been a primary goal of the marketing of candidates for decades.  As long as the majority of us are willing to settle for infomercials (As alluded to by Bob) and nebulous "feel good" talking points we will never pin down the core agendas of any party.  As it currently stands; alternative parties provide talking points and more focused platforms in some cases but don't seem to grab the attention of enough of the rank and file vote to get elected in numbers that are meaningful in the legislature. So is it that campaigning with a transparent platform turns off too many potential supporters or big budget advertising allows the major parties to marginalize the message of alternative parties, or a combination of those factors and others?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 17, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Both the Libertarian and Green parties have repeatedly sued for inclusion in the Infomercials, err I mean the "debates".
> In 2004 Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik were arrested seeking entry to the debates.
> In 2012 Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala, the Green presidential and vice-presidential nominees were likewise arrested for attempting to gain access to the debates.
> 
> Until these farces are ended and legitimate 3rd parties such as the Libertarian and Green parties are allowed to participate, most people will continue to believe they must continue to vote for evil.



I'm unfamiliar with this story, so what does "attempting to gain access" mean?  Were they arrested for putting their names on ballots or trying to sneak onto the podiums?


----------



## crushing (Oct 17, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Perhaps we should be more specific, the special interest groups have locked the *appearance of a* two party system into place. The major players in our democracy have ossified their system of accessing power.



There.  I think that is now a more accurate statement.


----------



## Steve (Oct 17, 2013)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I'm unfamiliar with this story, so what does "attempting to gain access" mean?  Were they arrested for putting their names on ballots or trying to sneak onto the podiums?


Almost. Rand Paul and Gary Johnson were notably excluded from many national debates in 2012, regardless of whether they had met the requirements for an invitation.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 17, 2013)

Gary Johnson had some things to say that would've helped the national conversation.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 17, 2013)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I'm unfamiliar with this story, so what does "attempting to gain access" mean?  Were they arrested for putting their names on ballots or trying to sneak onto the podiums?



The special interest group that runs the Presidential Infomercials want nothing to do with a real debate, so have made an agreement with the GOP and DNC to exclude all 3rd parties.

http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=8360


> The first report from St. Louis is in - and presidential candidates  Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green Party) were just  arrested. Badnarik was carrying an Order to Show Cause, which he  intended to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Earlier  today, Libertarians attempted to serve these same papers at the  Washington, D.C. headquarters of the CPD - but were stopped from  approaching the CPD office by security guards.
> 
> Fred Collins reported to me from the ground that Badnarik and Cobb are in great physical condition and great spirit.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 17, 2013)

The debate things kinda tricky since you have to draw the line some where you cant have 30 people trying to debate you won't get enough time to talk.  But I do think more then just the big two should be involved.  I also would like to see more debates then two or three.  Hell they start campaigning 2 years before the election it seems like so they can add a few more debates in the mix.


----------



## DennisBreene (Oct 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The debate things kinda tricky since you have to draw the line some where you cant have 30 people trying to debate you won't get enough time to talk.  But I do think more then just the big two should be involved.  I also would like to see more debates then two or three.  Hell they start campaigning 2 years before the election it seems like so they can add a few more debates in the mix.



They fear debates. Saying anything that goes off script risks turning off voters.  Having additional debaters increases the odds that they will be drawn off script. IMHO John McCain actually had this fear hurt him in the debates.  He has always been known as a maverick and his tenacious focus on staying on message made him appear like  a Republican Party lackey.  The politicians seem so intent on keeping their offices that they are no longer willing to stand on principles and ideas that may actually define them.  The voter is left with what amounts to a blind choice among media sound bites and programmed messages.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 18, 2013)

Any candidate who can have a chance of winning the electorial college should be allowed in the debates.  The GOP and DNC are locked in, and even when they miss legal deadlines for filing (as they did in TX in 2004 resulting in both of their candidates being on the ticket illegally), they get a pass for admission.  The other 2 parties who have consistently shown they can enough signatures to have a chance at winning are the Libertarian and Green parties.  Both deserve the same chance to advertise.   And who knows, making it a 4 way dance might make it an actual debate.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The debate things kinda tricky since you have to draw the line some where you cant have 30 people trying to debate you won't get enough time to talk.  But I do think more then just the big two should be involved.  I also would like to see more debates then two or three.  Hell they start campaigning 2 years before the election it seems like so they can add a few more debates in the mix.



I would like to see some ACTUAL debating, not being asked questions and given opportunities to present speeches.  Ain't gonna happen anytime soon, though.  We're stuck in the soundbite/opinion poll approach, and I think it's only going to get worse.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 18, 2013)

Yeah, it's theater not debate.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 18, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> I would like to see some ACTUAL debating, not being asked questions and given opportunities to present speeches.  Ain't gonna happen anytime soon, though.  We're stuck in the soundbite/opinion poll approach, and I think it's only going to get worse.



Another thing i would like to see is more candidates telling me why i should vote for them rather than why i should not vote for their opposition.




arnisador said:


> Yeah, it's theater not debate.





Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## DennisBreene (Oct 18, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Another thing i would like to see is more candidates telling me why i should vote for them rather than why i should not vote for their opposition.
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk



Change in this as in most aspects of life is painful.  I think we got where we are because listening to overly packaged messages is easier than sorting through meaningful dialogue.  As citizens, we are going to have to be willing to do our homework and then be extremely vocal about our insistence on being properly informed, both from the candidates and the media.  I admit I'm a little pessimistic that the majority of citizens will be inspired to get that involved.  I guess a practical question becomes; how many (what percentage of voters) have to raise a stink before the process begins to shift toward a more open and substantive level of communication from congress?


----------

