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

[arnisador]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

So they couldnt possibly like what the Tory platform says?






Im just messing with you

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Steve]

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]

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]

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...