WizardofOz
New member
It was weird though, a few of us voted on who should run to the store to buy food and somehow Ralph Nadar made his way on the ballot.
He didn't win that election either. Poor guy just can't catch a break.
toldailytopic: Third party candidates.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
It was weird though, a few of us voted on who should run to the store to buy food and somehow Ralph Nadar made his way on the ballot.
He didn't win that election either. Poor guy just can't catch a break.
How would you go about banning parties? I'm necessarily against it since I think our system does have some major negatives, I just don't know how it would be done. In our political system, it seems like parties are almost a natural consequence. The founding fathers didn't intend there to be parties but it didn't take long for them to form.
WizardofOz
New member
I agree. If parties were indeed banned, they would just be "affiliations" or "groups of like-minded individuals". There are ways around it.
I would like to start with tax funded election campaigns. This would eliminate the favor buying and an over-dependency on party fund raising. Elections would then be more about the individual running and his or her ability to attract voters, rather than relying on the ability to create a well-oiled campaign machine, which we have been seeing in recent elections.
Fair Elections Now Act
^ Might be a starting point
The Berean
Well-known member
And they were right. Political parties are a hinderance. How to ban them? Make then illegal. If Mob bosses can be jailed so can political bosses.
The Graphite
New member
Constitutional monarchy FTW!
As for dealing with our current statehowever, it can be useful to remember that the Republican Party began with people "wasting" their votes on them as a third-party choice, to begin with. They WERE the third-party candidates alongside the "only two choices" of the Democrats and the Whigs.
As for dealing with our current statehowever, it can be useful to remember that the Republican Party began with people "wasting" their votes on them as a third-party choice, to begin with. They WERE the third-party candidates alongside the "only two choices" of the Democrats and the Whigs.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Seriously?
That's quite true. Actually most of the Whigs of the day migrated to that party.
I have talked about this in past posts without much reaction. A fiscal liberal social conservative party would have a chance to win. My post on the culture war would have brought this out. The Republican party makes too many false promises, they are the business management and owner party, not the socially conservative party. They placate to the Christian conservative, but act on behalf of wealthy people and corporations. A party that would stand for Christian values and put a break on some forms of self-expression would help America, as a nation, reclaim its identity, for this is a traditional culture that has been hijacked by those who want to make us in the image of Sweden.
The Graphite
New member
Yup, so the only thing that got "wasted" was the Whig Party, itself, thanks to their rampant moral compromise on human rights, particularly slavery and their support of the Missouri Compromise. Abolitionists jumped ship and went Republican.
And yes, seriously. Please see my signature for the most eloquent indictment of the republican form of government I have ever had the pleasure to read. (Thank you, Ambrose Bierce!) The man had a mastery of English, and an almost superhuman economy of language. In just three sentences, he makes 6 subtle criticisms plus 1 veiled compliment to monarchy. Gotta love it.
Four O'Clock
New member
As I've said before, 35% of the country will vote Democrat if a literal donkey was the candidate and 35% of the country will vote Republican if a literal elephant was on the ticket. Its the other 30% of voters that decide EVERY election...
WizardofOz
New member
What's wrong with the Constitution we already have?
FTW in this case can't stand for what it usually does.......do you mean Freedom To Wait? First To War? Maybe Find The Waiter? :idunno:
The Graphite
New member
Prolifeguyswife
New member
I just don't think it would work to ban the parties. I think that the Republican party is the biggest problem of the 2-party system. They seem to think nominating a more "Moderate" candidate is what the people really want - yet those moderates keep losing. When the Republican party actually nominates someone who is the polar opposite of the Democratic candidate, the elections will improve.
WizardofOz
New member
Do you mind if I ask who you voted for or supported in the last election?
I agree in part with your post. However, just being opposite of the Dem platform is not really a coherent platform of it's own, rather a reactionary one. But, Republicans had better get back to their roots (FISCAL CONSERVATISM!!!!!!!) if they hope to be relevant going forward.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Alan Keyes!
WizardofOz
New member
Ron Paul!!!!!
I'll call your abortion and raise you relevancy
Alan Keyes on the issues
He's opposed to imperialism except when he's for it.
I'm surprised you support a quasi-federalist.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Ron Paul!!!!!
I'll call your abortion and raise you relevancy
Alan Keyes on the issues
He's opposed to imperialism except when he's for it.
I'm surprised you support a quasi-federalist.
I didnt say i supported Alan keyes. To me Keyes is a neo con imperalist. Good riddance to him i say. I supported Ron paul in the primaries as he was the only conserative of the bunch, then Chuck Baldwin in the genearl election.
WandererInFog
New member
Not exactly. In the parts of the country where either the Republican Party or the America/Know-Nothing Party (the latter of which would ultimately be absorbed by the former) they were running as one of the top two parties due to either support in that particular area for Abolitionism or Nativism respectively. District by district you still had what amounted to a two party system, in some districts one of those parties replaced the Whigs and in others the Democrats. (It's often forgotten that both the Democrats and the Whigs were divided over the slavery issue, the Democrats base of support in the South as well as their support from Irish and German immigrants allowed them to survive that division somewhat intact.)
It's virtually impossible in a system which uses "first past the post" voting to maintain more than two viable parties for more than election cycle or two. Almost inevitably, those supporting the candidates coming 2nd and 3rd will be closer in their position than the candidate which emerges as the winner and will choose to compromise rather than continuing to lose. In the US system this extends out even further though because we have unitary executives at both the state and national level which extends this inability to maintain more than 2 parties past the individual district out to the state and ultimately the national level.
Basically, in the US system, similar to what happened in the 1850s to break the present two party system would require there to be a major issue which, despite being supported by a large portion of the population to the point where they will vote on it as a single issue, isn't supported by either major party. At the present time there simply exists no such issue. The major parties have simply proven since that time to be too adept at co-opting whatever issue is being brought forward by a third party once it gains that level of support from an even remotely sizable portion of the American public.
Which actually gets to what the real function of the 3rd parties and independent candidates has been for the past 150 years or so, and that's to push a particular issue to the point where it gets adopted by one or the other of the major parties. The most recent example of this would be Ross Perot's run in 1992 which led to, for at least a brief period of time, both parties working towards reducing the federal deficit.
At the present though, there don't exist any third parties which are actually doing this. The largest of the 3rd parties (Libertarian, Green, and Constitution) have broad agendas supported by only a tiny fraction of the US public. Which is essentially the polar opposite of what is actually effective.
Not quite. You have to listen to both sides of their mouth. When Perot says cut spending, and then a minute later talks of all his government expansion, you have to realize he isn't truthful.
And Congress has only cut spending under Newt Gingrich. Since they spend the money. And he was not influenced by Perot, but the Libertarian party.
did I mention how voting for third party candidates helps to re-elect democrats?
I can't see why it wouldn't be. There's not a single downside to opening the national legislature (and national mentality, for that matter) to a multitude of parties that I can think of. Not one.
Well now that you've knocked the great Carlin the quote definitely stays.:devil:
- Status