3rd Political party Needed in USA
From my reading of american politics, the Democrats & Republicans have a "gentleman's agreement " where by they alternately share turns at running ( ruining ) the country..This is really unhealthy for democracy..This is Psuedo-Democracy and it doesn't allow for new voices & new visions to rise up through the ranks...
Everyone is more or less forced to go through one or the other sluice gate....
Come on USA, you NEED a 3rd political party to break-up this little comfy agreement.....
Even if only .. " To keep the bastards honest " *
America where is your Green party ?...Your Minute-man Party... ?
* Quote from Don Chip..Leader Australian Democrats..3rd political party in OZ
Ps Now we also have Greens pushing the envelope..Yeah....
Everyone is more or less forced to go through one or the other sluice gate....
Come on USA, you NEED a 3rd political party to break-up this little comfy agreement.....
Even if only .. " To keep the bastards honest " *
America where is your Green party ?...Your Minute-man Party... ?
* Quote from Don Chip..Leader Australian Democrats..3rd political party in OZ
Ps Now we also have Greens pushing the envelope..Yeah....
Comments
The environnemental question should belong to all, you canno't manage a whole countrie with just environnemental thoughts.
Originally posted by bunge
A third party won't really help. They would be ineffectual in my opinion. What would they be able to do that the current parties couldn't do? What platform would they have?
In the upper house, such parties could hold the balance of power...making sure that legislation isn't just bulldozed through, by sheer dint of numbers....
The bigger parties often talk about being a friend of the " little guy " but more often than not, both side with big money contributors ( slush funds )..
Big companies & their lobby groups effectively end up buying the government...
Originally posted by aquafire
In the upper house, such parties could hold the balance of power...making sure that legislation isn't just bulldozed through, by sheer dint of numbers....
The bigger parties often talk about being a friend of the " little guy " but more often than not, both side with big money contributors ( slush funds )..
Big companies & their lobby groups effectively end up buying the government...
Great points... What I would submit however is that all governments the world over are involved with companies and lobby groups "effectively buying the government" Not unique to the US.
Do I like that? NO... Is it something here to stay? Most likely.
Sad but true.
Fellowship
Of course, that will form one of two things:
1) The 'Abortion Is A Woman's Right Environmental Let The Gays Have A Choice Think Globally Act Locally' Party.
2) The 'Right To Kill Any Baby-Killing Tree-Hugging Unpatriotic Faggot We Want' Party.
I, for one, fear for the future of America.
having been in ontario for the last five years, i can say that too many parties can cause serious problems, too. for instance, the premeir (sp?) of ontario for the past five years wasn't continuously relected because people thought he was a good candidate. hell, there were practically weekly demonstrations against the guy and his administration. BUT he was the only conservative in the elections, whereas there's like 6 liberal-esque parties. so each election, he can win just by getting, you know, 33% of the vote, so long as none of the other half-dozen candidate do better than 20%.
me, i am in favor of a no-party system.
maybe american idol 4 can just be the 2004 election, with debates, song competitions, and the like, and then whoever the last 5 candidates are get to live together for 3 months, and we get to vote them out one at a time.
by the way, i wonder how the voting turnout for american idol 2 compared to the registered voter turnout of 2000. actually, never mind, i don't want to know.
Originally posted by rok
maybe american idol 4 can just be the 2004 election, with debates, song competitions, and the like, and then whoever the last 5 candidates are get to live together for 3 months, and we get to vote them out one at a time.
I know that was a joke, but given the state of the American nowadays, it wouldn't suprise me if our next 'leader' was elected on Fox.
Originally posted by rok
having been in ontario for the last five years, i can say that too many parties can cause serious problems, too. for instance, the premeir (sp?) of ontario for the past five years wasn't continuously relected because people thought he was a good candidate. hell, there were practically weekly demonstrations against the guy and his administration. BUT he was the only conservative in the elections, whereas there's like 6 liberal-esque parties. so each election, he can win just by getting, you know, 33% of the vote, so long as none of the other half-dozen candidate do better than 20%.
The answer for that mess is the parlamentary system (which is so natural for me that its the only "true" democratic system. Culture sticks, I know). Each of those liberal parties would recieve, say, 10% of the votes. They stick their heads together and elect one of the leaders for mayor. Normally the one who got the most votes among the parties or the one that represent the middle of them.
The way things are right now in America re elections is a charade of democracy. Both major political parties are at the beck and call of multinational businesses...routinely bypassing the will of the people...Presidential campaigns are so lengthy, approaching *two years*, that the only people who can compete are those with bottomless pockets, or men from dynasties, or both. The most qualified people for the job are discouraged from running or unable to raise the funds necessary to buy the media airtime to run.
*slightly off topic*.....now we have these Diebold (and other) "electronic voting machines"...which are going to be tried out in California's upcoming recall election...votes are "counted" electronically, the software is privately owned, secret and unavailable for public scrutiny, These machines allow no hard copy of each elector's vote..there is no way of conducting recounts in a closely contested ballots..and nobody is complaining, apart from a legion of computer scientists who specialize in such matters. These machines are easily targets for election fraudsters.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/index.asp
Originally posted by sammi jo
Alternative political parties do exist...the Greens, the Libertarians, the Reform Parties, Natural Law etc etc. Because there is no proportional representation in the American electoral system, most people, apart from devoted fringe party loyalists, know that a vote for anyone other than the Dems or Repubs is a waste of a vote because it won't be translated into any representative at local, state or federal levels. A classic example of this was in the 1992 election: Ross Perot's reform party polled nearly 20% of all votes cast...and failed to gain a single seat in the Senate or House of Representatives. Proportional representation would have, in theory, given Perot's party some 20% of the seats in the Houses, but the "winner take all" system, which neither Dems nor Repubs will *ever* change, ensured that Ross came away empty handed.
But Perot ran as an individual for President only - he didn't have people running for House or Senate (there may have been a few, but it wasn't widespread). How would Perot himself be able to get seats in the House or Senate?
Just in general, I'm skeptical of any "plan" that looks to the political system itself to change things when the real source of power is already in the voters themselves. Unfortunately, half of them are too apathetic to vote, and then blame the political parties for not doing enough to get their vote.
And since the Libertarians already nominate people for almost every congressional seat, he might even be able to have some coattails that pull some L's into Congress or state-level offices.
Given the widespread nature of libertarian beliefs, I'm surprised that the Libertarian Party has never tried to recruit a well known, rich, libertarian-leaning celebrity. Hell, even if it were Jesse Ventura, it might raise their profile enough to let them begin building some real political traction.
Kirk
Too much emphasis is placed on having a charismatic leader ( like a king ) carrying the weight of policy forward to election time..too much razzamataz..& the whole system costs an absolute bucket of money to sustain.
Both Upper & lower legislatures should be forced to hold elections at the same time..this would save tax payers a lot of money...
In our system, a third or alternate party must be able to get 15% of the overall vote in order to recieve any federal electoral funding.
It is a tough haul..but two parties have done just that..
The Australian Democrats & the Australian Greens..
In consequence they carry enough political clout to force whatever government is in office to ammend legislation so that it is more representative of All australians..not just those who voted for the winning party..
Originally posted by der Kopf
There is this party over here, of people who's agenda is saving the world by meditation. I'ma vote for them.
Yes, they're a global conciousness raising group..
They put up over 400 nominees here in Australia's Federal election...
I think they called themselves the Natural Law Party
They Flopped...
Too much navel gazing was their downfall