This country needs a 3rd party
 

That people will actually vote for instead being brainwashed by those in power that they only have 2 choices.

Unfortunately, I don't think the general public will ever be able to reach this conclusion on their own.

EDIT: Sorry, please move to the politics forum if this is in the wrong forum.

Re: This country needs a 3rd party
 

The way are government is set up makes it virtually impossible to have anything besides a two party system.

If you want an explantation why this occurs talk to a political scientist, but I assure you it is correct.

Re: This country needs a 3rd party
 

Libertarian Party - Smaller Government, Less Taxes, Less Laws.


Platform:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

Re: This country needs a 3rd party
 

To find out if you might be a Libertarian, take the worlds smallest political quiz - http://www.theadvocates.org/

Re: This country needs a 3rd party
 

Ok, maybe I'm thinking in too simplistic terms b/c I'm ignorant of polysci schemantics.

BUT, I would really like to see a strong 3rd party, but not more than THREE as I think that would detract from the whole political process and become too 'special interest' oriented and that would in effect create even more divisiveness. Right now, I don't see much difference in the 2 major parties except in the extereme outer fringes. Both parties are willing to sell out America and strive for government with a capital G.

Why couldn't we have a ballot limited to THREE parties with voters putting a weighting factor to bring it as close to a majority vote as possible. I would love to see a Libertarian candidate be given a really opportunity to educate the American public by giving it a platform. A new voting process would help to facilitate this.

For example [voting]: If I really want a libertarian candidate, that person would get my #1 vote, with a #2 choice noted as well. In this way, we would not have a 'Ross Perot' factor and we would probably get closer to what we want as a majority in a democratic society. Too often people feel like telling off their party and offer the 3rd unlikely party their vote. If they could temper that a little, it is possible to get a truer sense of what the public wants versus a situation where an opposition party feels they have received a 'public mandate'instead of receiving their results due to an anti vote.

3rd party politicing as it stands now seems to be an avenue for the 'other' candidate to gain leverage against a better opponent because the noise created becomes a welcome diversion from real issues.

Three choices on the ballot would force people to consider an alternative choice in the process giving them some peace of mind in how and why they voted. I may feel more compelled to vote for a libertarian if I felt it wouldn't hurt a candidate and bring me something worse knowing I could cast a '2nd' vote for my second choice and have it factored into the equation.

Re: This country needs a 3rd party
 

The Libertarian Party has made great strides with getting their candidates on many ballots but that is the easy part.

Too many people will not vote for a third party candidate because they feel there is no chance of the third party candidate winning and they do not want their vote to be "wasted".

The Libertarian party leadership is isolationist and totally anti-war which will never satisfy the American people.

Re: This country needs a 3rd party
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Libertarian party leadership is isolationist and totally anti-war which will never satisfy the American people.

[/ QUOTE ]

With Bush's handling of Iraq and his non-stop "patriotism" brainwashing people are beginning to feel different.

The problem is that our current system of government is structured to support only two parties. An easy example of this is the electoral college (awarding whole states despite if state is 90% Rep or 51% rep) and national debates (bipartisan committee controls who gets to go on).

I line voted libertarian during this year's mid-term elections (except for governor).

Re: This country needs a 3rd party
 

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kotos."

Re: This country needs a 3rd party
 

[ QUOTE ]

Too many people will not vote for a third party candidate because they feel there is no chance of the third party candidate winning and they do not want their vote to be "wasted".


[/ QUOTE ]

instant-runoff voting fixes this problem perfectly. Amazing that no one in the US has heard of it [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

wikipedia explanation

cheers,
-highland

Re: This country needs a 3rd party
 

exactly true highland, the lack of this makes a 3rd party have almost no chance at all in an election.

Re: This country needs a 3rd party
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Too many people will not vote for a third party candidate because they feel there is no chance of the third party candidate winning and they do not want their vote to be "wasted".


[/ QUOTE ]

instant-runoff voting fixes this problem perfectly. Amazing that no one in the US has heard of it [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

wikipedia explanation

cheers,
-highland

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah we have. It's called the primary system.

The reason we don't have 3rd parties in this country is because entrenchment is good to a certain extent. You don't want random 3rd parties springing up, taking over [censored], messing it up, and then leaving.

Random examples include: Nazis, and Populists (the ones in the 1910-20 era).

More recently, a few years ago Le Pen actually managed to get past the first round in France. Yeah, a crazy, nut, racist type actually had kind of a shot at winning position of serious power. In this country we try to prevent that nonsense by making sure that only those that have proven themselves can get anywhere.

Making it hard to break into the system has it's advantages too.

A party has to prove itself worthy by slowly winning in the long run.

Re: This country needs a 3rd party
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Too many people will not vote for a third party candidate because they feel there is no chance of the third party candidate winning and they do not want their vote to be "wasted".


[/ QUOTE ]

instant-runoff voting fixes this problem perfectly. Amazing that no one in the US has heard of it [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

wikipedia explanation

cheers,
-highland

[/ QUOTE ]

But IRV creates other problems, as does every method of voting, as Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel Prize for proving.

I think there's been some analysis on how in representative democracy like the U.S. (as opposed to a Parliamentary democracy) a two party system is inherently stable, whereas more parties are not. Thus you'll see things like Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura every once in awhile, but the two major parties end up absorbing any popular ideas the 3rd party candidates espouse, reinforcing their own duopoly over American politics.

Re: This country needs a 3rd party
 

[ QUOTE ]
whereas more parties are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, it's just like celestial bodies of similar mass?

In the short-term case, IRV sure seems to allow people to vote for their candidate of choice, thus aiding in the development of a 3rd and further parties. You're saying that things go south once there are more than 2 viable parties. I've tried thinking through that a few times, but my brain started to hurt.

The Weimar Republic sure had a lot of parties, and that worked out arguably as bad as anything in history [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

cheers,
-highland

Re: This country needs a 3rd party
 

After Ross Perot proved that a third candidate was viable (or at least could alter the outcome of an election), the two major parties will make damn sure that they never let it happen again.

Re: This country needs a 3rd party
 

The notion that more than 3 parties would lead to more divisiveness is really ridiculous. Right now, in the 2 party system, there is divisiveness between the parties because there is little difference between the two parties, not inspite of the lack of difference. When one party accuses another of being "partisan" it is typically a true statement. Why else would there be so much venom directed towards George W. Bush durring the '04 campaign when the whole crew of Democratic challengers (excepting Al Sharpton, Denise Kucinich and Carol Mosely-Braun) were running on 95% the same platform?

Howard Dean had a whole lot of rhetoric that resonated with progressives, but when it came down to issues he was not for an immediate pull-out from Iraq, his record demonstarted that he favored allowing industrial leaders write their own regulations and that he was neither environmentally friendly or in favor of a fairer tax code, all of which he criticized George W. Bush for, all of which got him his early support.

Kerry was really no different. All that was left to campaign on was partisanship. I mean, why would Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the pundits as well as the Republicans in Congress hate Clinton so much? Because he was for balancing the budget, don't ask don't tell, welfare reform, tax cuts for wealthier Americans and against gay marriage? NO, it was pure partisanism. Clinton endorsed most of the Republican party's platform.

When there's no difference between the two parties, all that's left is partisan attacks. If there were substantial differences, and issues discussed and those issues were represented by multiple parties than the debate would be substantial.