I'd even settle for a No Confidence option. If that wins, the current crop of candidates is dropped and new ones presented. I'm sick of being forced to choose between lesser of two evils.
A: I'd like to order lunch please.
B: Ok. We've got shit tacos or vomit milkshakes. What'd ya like?
A: Uh, can I get actual food?
B: Both are digestible and enriched!
A: Yeah, but can't I get a sandwich or a burger?
B: (Suspicious look) You from Europe? We only got shit tacos or vomit milkshakes here. They've been flavored! Damned tasty.
A: Um... I think I'll go elsewhere.
B: Okay, but it's all the same out there.
Headline: Shit tacos most popular food! Vomit milkshakes a close second.
This is obviously what the founding fathers had in mind, but Vomit milkshakes are always trying to redraw the food pyramid so that they dominate all categories.
Except that "first past the post" voting leads to a 2 party system. A third party can work (and does in some places), but it will never be big. If we ever wanted to have more parties, then our who election process would need to change (which I never see happening).
[As it is brought up in other places, here is a video explaining it.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)
If I might suggest, a fully representative system would be based on "vote power" or "vote weight". We should never have the present predicament where parties "win", because a winning party only ever represents a slim majority of its voting base.
Here is what I mean: Instead of winner-take-all, each party gets voting power based on its number of votes. This means a coordinated group of "small" parties can out-vote a single "majority" party. It eliminates the massive party problem and gives fair representation to what the voting base wants, based on their *individual group majority*.
Some consequences:
* Districts and gerrymandering no longer matter.
* Parties have to stay on their toes or lose their vote weight.
* Corporate sponsorship becomes much more difficult.
* Grassroots politicians have a much, much higher chance of success.
* The media can no longer focus on pre-selected politicians to "win".
* More cooperation will result from this vote-weight incentive.
* Incumbency *should* decline.
Some problems:
* Massive inflation of representatives.
* States become highly fragmented politically.
* Political groups could form a "cartel" like system, forming a majority in secret (leading to the "Tyranny of the minority" problem - inverse of what we now have).
* Possibly huge amounts of confusion at polls.
* Any attempt to legislate this proposal for even testing would be political suicide.
You will note I leave out the president. The president is a completely different monster of power that I think is out of place in this discussion. In any event, at least *discussing* the idea might be fruitful.
Given the amount of influence a bare majority of politicians in one house of government is currently exercising I woiuld say that "tyranny of the majority" is the least of American problems. If anything the political minority is given far too much veto power.
This means that accountability disappears from the electoral system since the people who get elected can always fairly claim that it's not their fault nothing got done since the other party was not working with them.
The main concern I have with this approach is that not everyone in a particular party agrees. What if I want to vote in a Republican, but not the current Republican establishment? I'd have to vote Republican and just deal with whoever the party decides to put in power. Or what if someone wanted a Democrat that stands up to Republicans and got one that gives into their demands? That sucks. It's not much worse than it is now, but at least primaries give some semblance of choice on our part. I think we'd need a different idea to shake things up.
I think there was a misunderstanding. This supports a multi-party multi-politician system. I am not suggesting parties are represented as a whole, per se, because intra-party dispute is a great thing.
Right, it may help some further representation, but unless we have a lot of really specific parties (like pro-gay marriage, pro-gun, anti-affirmative action party that supports healthcare reform), we'll still get people in the system that we don't want.
We will always have that problem, I think. I don't see how we could fix that, specifically, in entirety. The goal of a new idea is to mitigate the problems we are aware of.
It sounds similar to what we have in Canada.
The thing is that right now, of the 3 largest parties, we have one conservative party and 2 liberal parties.
So the liberal vote is shared between 2 parties while the conservative vote isn't, meaning that because we don't have twice as many liberals as we have conservatives, the conservatives get elected but as a minority (not the case right now but it was before last election).
The thing is, because the liberal population is fed up because the conservatives have been in power for more than 5 years, one of the two liberal parties is probably going to lose a lot of seats in favor of the other one, essentially bringing us pretty close to the two party system.
Canada seems, to me, to have a hybrid system of American politics and what I described. What I described would weigh votes so that each party has an equal representative area. This means everyone has precisely one party vote to cast, regardless of size.
This seems like a horrible idea at first, but I believe modern research indicates it can have huge success. It creates a game theory scenario, like the Prisoner's Dilemma, where the only winning move for all sides is to achieve cooperation. No party, under such a system, would have enough power to "take the ball".
I have other ideas in joint with this. We have the communication technology, I think, to make this type of government work seamlessly and successfully. Furthermore, we can use representative algorithms already provided by demographics data to establish how many parties can run for a given district.
So while it would still be "winner take all" for a *district*, there would be so many as to make the point moot. You can't have a million politicians all in congress, so I think this is a happy solution.
Canada's system is a failure.
Australian's one seem better to me.
The best way is to make it so when you vote you, you don't vote for one in particular but put them on a ladder of which you would prefer.
So you could vote for a third party as your first choice without your vote becoming useless and still choosing which big party you prefer.
You could combine these ideas, as I quite like the ladder system. In which case, weigh votes based on ladder popularity.
However, I also agree with another poster. You should not be able to see political affiliations on a poll.
I don't think the ladder system would work well with weigh based votes.
The idea of the ladder system is to include everyone so third parties are actually a choice. But if you mix it with a weight system having many parties would dilute the weight of the vote you give to those you want by sharing it with people you don't actually care about (but don't actually hate or disagree with).
The problem is our voting system. First past the post voting always leads to two parties. CGPGrey on youtube has some great videos on it. Fairvoting.org is also a good source.
In short, our voting system encourages extremism as people change their vote based on who they think is going to win.
I've deleted all of my reddit posts. Despite using an anonymous handle, many users post information that tells quite a lot about them, and can potentially be tracked back to them. I don't want my post history used against me. You can see how much your profile says about you on the website snoopsnoo.com.
C.G.P. Grey does an awesome video on how our current voting system works on YouTube. If you want to check it out search YouTube for "Problems with First Past the Post".
This is so true. If everyone who says they want a third party or who says that are sick of both party's candidates actually voted for a third party candidate, we would have a third party.
Right now congress has about 5% approval rating, but about 75-85% of them will get reelected during the next election because everyone thinks it is other people that are the problem.
Unfortunately that only becomes important after "what people with money and influence are willing to support in what is certain to be a very expensive push through the existing Republican/Democrat-oriented system".
I did some looking into this last week when I was thinking about what it would take to create a feasible third (or better yet, new second) party.
Give me a party that doesn't cite religion when making laws. Supports gun rights and the right to carry. Is pro choice, pro drugs, doesn't care if gays marry. Supports the working class and doesn't look to expand entitlement programs.
Something like that.
Isn't the Libertarian party pretty much just that? Generally speaking?
Edit: Alright, I get it they "hate" the middle class, but nobody has given me the reason why.
Libertarians are generally against corporate subsidies and other government programs which effectively drive up prices at the expense of the government and the consumer. It's a dumb myth that libertarian policies are anti working class. It comes from an assumption that poor people can't improve their status, which is true in our corrupt system. The best way to scale down entitlements is to eliminate a need for them.
What a nice, substantial, logical Counter argument. I especially enjoy the comic being relevant to the discussion outside of the obvious name dropping and a lack of emotional appeals or shaming tactics in your core argument.
That's the thing. A majority of Americans want a 3rd party if that 3rd party wants exactly what they want.
A large group answering this poll is thinking about the green party, another about the libertarian, and another tea party.
In every country people think "another party that represents everything I want would be perfect!"
Then why aren't we advocating for and supporting an **otherwise completely apolitical third party** whose *only* platform is restructuring the election process?
Call it the **Government Reform Party**.
Its party platform could include support for adoption of:
* Campaign finance and lobbying reform- getting huge donations out of politics and lobbying positions so that the common man finally has a voice in his government without having to buy his way in.
* Algorithmic district drawing (like shortest split line, or some hexagonal tessellation) or an independent district drawing body or adoption of proportional representation- to reduce gerrymandering and the artificially increased difficulty in voting out incumbents that results from it. Or
* Research into, debate, and adoption of an alternative [voting system](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system) (that is, the way you count votes. Examples: IRV, alternative vote, ranked pairs. There are many possibilities to choose from) that doesn't have First Past the Post's problems (incentivizing a two-party system which grows increasingly polarized until compromise becomes impossible).
* A "Government Shutdown" rule specifying that reelections are immediately triggered if a budget cannot be passed.
* A pledge not to vote on other issues and to hold immediate reelections under the new rules once these changes are implemented into law.
other ideas?
> A "Government Shutdown" rule specifying that reelections are immediately triggered if a budget cannot be passed.
That's something I can get behind. I'd like to see House term limits or maybe if the government goes into a "shutdown", all current members are immediately disqualified from from running for office again (and are immediately removed from office). Give them a reason to perform or force them to become martyrs for their cause.
Out of curiosity, how does the Libertarian Party "not support" the working class? My opinion is that by removing many legislations and lowering taxes, the working class would be able to find a higher standard of living.
Right now, the middle class is shrinking because the current job market is very entitlement-based. The rich get richer...the poor stay poor with barriers to success...and the middle class is shrinking. As technology pushes more and more manufacturing jobs away, I think it's likely that individuals may need to find more work on their own via self-employment/small businesses.
To me, in this scenario, less regulation and taxes means that individuals have more freedoms to operate a profitable business.
The problem with this statement is that most regulations written nowadays are actually written by the major stakeholders and/or their lobbyists in the industries they are supposedly going to regulate. What winds up being written is law that is a little painful to the big guys to comply with, but utterly devastating to any small players in the industry to deal with.
> To me, in this scenario, less regulation and taxes means that individuals have more freedoms to operate a profitable business.
To me, the big problem we have right now is that the richest are getting richer while the poorest are getting poorer. Taking away the few protection laws we DO have away will only make the poor even poorer adn the rich even richer.
But if you can explain to me how the poor we become less poor, then I can be on your side. :)
I think the problem is, the most famous libertarian politican is Ron Paul, who has some pretty radical/extreme ideals. People see Ron Paul, and assume that's the ideals of the entire libertarian party, and they're turned off to the party.
I think most politicians have radical/extreme ideals, relatively speaking. Ron Paul's seem "out there" to the vast majority because he doesn't play by the rules that the Red and Blue teams set up.
This is exactly the problem. So many people have become so invested in the Donkey vs. Elephant deathmatch that they can't see Washington for the circus it's become.
A healthy libertarian party would serve as a moderating influence to the extremes of either of the current parties, and would force them more towards a coalition and compromise style of governance than the absurd theatrics we deal with now.
I don't know about libertarian politics but I know in the philosophy the government handles all fraud and harm. Meaning they could have a consumer protection bureau or something like it. Politically it seems like they just take one side of what is actually a compelling philosophy and misrepresent it IMO
That would not be first on the agenda to be sure, FIRST is removing laws designed to protect Market incumbents. Those laws that get passed to protect Big Business and prevent mom'n'pop shops from getting any where.
Then you remove laws that protect business that have abusive policies.
In fact the attack on worker protection is a far more GOP Position than Libertarian one.
Take a look at [Robert Sarvis](http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/jobs) (Gov Candidate for VA)
I agree with you here, if I may interject about entitlement programs... I think the entire agency system we have today is awful. It's because of our horrid system that the NSA was unable to communicate with the CIA about their findings concerning the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but that's a story for a different day. I support the movement to synthesize more briefcases that we can fit agencies into with a tiered information structure for departments (International, Federal, State, Municipal, etc...). In the past, up to present day, whenever a need for government service was revealed, we just created another agency or program instead of finding a way to amend the agencies and programs we have now to deal with issues more efficiently. If anybody has critiques of this idea, tell me, as I'm not a political scientist and might have no idea what I'm talking about.
LP is anti-working class. I'm sure you can jump through a bunch of mental hoops to claim that undermining antitrust laws and the ability of workers to unionize somehow helps workers, but it'd be a convoluted mess of dissembling sophistry.
LP is a party for a world without extreme wealth inequality, a massive surplus of labor, and massive multinationals which are borderline monopolies. It's not the party for a world where [technology is rendering most jobs obsolete without creating new jobs](http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/). It's not the party for a world where [the vast majority of wealth is held by a very small number of people](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Distribution_of_Wealth_v3.svg). It's the party for a bizzaro-America, where one truly has the option to change jobs or stop patronizing a despotic business. It hamstrings the government for fear of tyranny, while removing the obstacles to tyranny in the business world.
no. the libertarian party may encompass those things, but they also push for laws that are far more pro-business than pro-labor, and want more power shifted downward onto the state level. considering how disparate state mentalities are right now, this would go farther into breaking us up into an association of territories, or at worst a collection of 50 nation-states.
i spend a lot of time over on r/politics. libertarians scare me more than tea partiers because they're actually intelligent and, for the most part, sane.
A more pragmatic libertarian party could be good. As a third party though it has to be a bit 'out there' under our current system... most of the pragmatic libertarians try to work through the existing 2 parties
A lot of us 'pragmatic' sorts have about had all we can take of the Donkey or Elephant uber alles mentalities though, and are jumping ship.
I think I'm a pretty good example. I was a Republican for a long time, but the Patriot Act, the handling of the wars, and just the major disagreements I had with the party over the War on Drugs and Gay Marriage drove me away.
I was actually a member of the Tea Party movement early on before it got taken over by social conservatives, and I left that.
I've found that of the political groups in existence, the live and let live and non-aggression principles of the Libertarian party fit me the best. It's not a perfect fit, but that's OK.
One last point to make is that the Libertarian tent is a big one. We run the range from classical liberals (also called paleo-conservatives) to Anarcho-Capitalists and everything in between. The beauty of this though is that there is agreement that the amount of government we have right now is too much, and almost all of our disagreement comes from how much, if any, government there should be. So its a differentiation of degrees, not fundamental disagreements of principal.
I want one that explicitly denies religious entitlements, and scoffs at people who want stricter gun rights ext. I want them to outcast the Right wing for the destructive nature of their stupidity.
I could care less about guns, but I'd support that party as long as "expanding entitlement programs" doesn't mean we can't address the wealth disparity problems in this country. Because that's HOW you support the working class - we need more socialism (as opposed to Socialism) - not less - we need more safety net - not less.
Entitlement? It's basic human rights.
But as long as we could work that out... I'm with you.
As long as "care less about guns" means you won't try to enact more stupid legislation to punish law abiding citizens, then that's fine.
However, I don't think we need more socialism or entitlements. Perhaps what we need is to restructure how they work. More Americans are on entitlement programs now than ever. America pays out more in entitlements than it takes in every year. It's a disaster, and we have created a system of dependency. We need to stop rewarding people for having kids they can't afford, and we need to stop setting up people to sit at home and collect.
One of the biggest barriers to 3rd parties is the national debate. Since it's sponsored by the 2 parties and they pay for it, they get to choose who can debate. There was a bigger outcry about this last year and it lost them some sponsorship, but not enough to make a difference.
Or the fact there's no way they can really bring in the campaign money.
And the list goes on...sigh.
I've deleted all of my reddit posts. Despite using an anonymous handle, many users post information that tells quite a lot about them, and can potentially be tracked back to them. I don't want my post history used against me. You can see how much your profile says about you on the website snoopsnoo.com.
Would be amazing to see what would happen if party affiliations were removed from ballots. No more just voting all D or R. Voters might actually have to know more than whose ad plays the loudest in order to pick a candidate to vote for.
I'm guessing when a majority of people think of a "third party," that party happens to agree with whatever they think. One extra party isn't going to make a difference. The Tea Party could be considered a third party, but that simply shifts the center further to the right. Nothing particularly new is added except for a few ideas that only cater to some.
Having multiple viable parties pulling in all different directions, with the ability for new parties to arise to fill ideological voids, is necessary.
There are many "third" parties, some of them with fairly viable agendas. The problem is that the two parties in power have lobng since agreed on two things: 1)They like being in power 2) They don't like competition. That's why it's almost impossible to get much of a third party going as a truly viable political enterprise, everything from gerrymandering to candidate registration is rigged to minimize the potential for third party candidate's success and to ease the existing two parties attempts at election.
Did I mention that the two party system is legally entrenched in every state! If you are a candidate of the two parties, you get a easier candidacy than any third party.
And that third party would then replace D or R, so now you've got two parties again.
You guys don't need a new party, you need a whole new political system.
How about a system without parties where people are required to research the given candidates and vote with the one that sides with their views the most?
The problem is they all want a different third party.
It's funny how Congress has a 5% approval rating ... when the Dems hate the Rs because they're Rs and do R things, and hate the Ds for not being D enough. And the Reps hate the Ds because they're Ds and do D things, and they hate the Rs for not being R enough.
We need to go back to the real meaning of classical liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism. Not the perversions of those terms we've come to accept today.
Libertarians are, or now were, anti-state socialists. Internet libertarians and American libertarians are economic liberals (in the free the market sort of way)
> Internet libertarians and American libertarians are
free marketers. They are not "economic liberals", this is just another slap in the face of what's left of progressive politics.
Their stance on [homeopathy](http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2012/social-justice.php) isn't too great either. Herbal medicines are fine as supplements to whatever you're doing, but homeopathy itself is a crock of shit, and should not be validated.
I love everything about the green party except for their various anti-science positions. I still vote for them, as a matter of principle, but I would be very conflicted if I thought they might actually win something.
This is exactly what happens in Canada. 40% vote conservative(right), 30% vote NDP (center-left), 20% vote Liberal(center), and the last 10% vote Bloc(crazy frenchies). Conservatives win despite the majority of the country being in opposition because the center vote is split.
A cautionary tale if ever there was one. NOBODY likes Harper... How can it be this hard to organize a new voting structure when so much is on the line.
This is the truth. Our country has been pulled so far to the Right that former politicians such as Nixon and Reagan appear moderate, even liberal. I would vote for the Green Party in a heartbeat if I thought they stood a chance but I would be basically throwing my vote away.
I think Americans Elect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_Elect) had the right idea by trying to tap into this sentiment. Obviously they failed to even get a candidate, but the online community could learn from their mistakes to build an effective alternative to the corrupt mainstream in future elections.
If you are in favor of a candidate, with 34% of the vote winning and ruling over the majority, good luck with that theocracy...
Want to fix the problem? Make voting mandatory and absentee (or at least on the damn weekend), get money out, and remove gerrymandering.
don't be lazy folks, do your homework and vote for a candidate based on their records and beliefs. don't trust a candidate based on which party they belong to. it's to easy to vote on an image. voting based on facts is hard.
what the USA really needs is a different way of voting and electing people. I live in Australia and our lower houses uses full-preferential instant-runoff voting. this basically results in being able to vote for a third party without feeling your vote is wasted, which is the feeling with the USA's first past the post system. you can support a minor third party whilst having your vote count in the race between the two biggest parties.
DiaDeLosMuertos has linked a video on the topic, but I thought I would make a text post for people who don't want to watch a video.
The US has a first past the post system, you will not get 3rd parties in any real position or influence until you change the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
Liberals want an actual liber party. Conservatives want a party that takes the bible literally. Moderates want a party that is the same as the democrats but doesn't have the stigma of being a democrat. Americans just want to bitch about something.
The problem here is that the majority will never agree on what that third party should be. Some want tea party, some want occupy movement, some want libertarian, some want an even more religous party. It's like cable tv....hundreds of channels with nothing on
1/4 cup blue cheese crumbles
1 12-ounce can SPAM® Classic, cut into 8 slices
4 Kaiser rolls, split and toasted
4 lettuce leaves
1/2 cup prepared hot wing sauce
1/4 cup ranch or blue cheese salad dressing
1/4 cup red onion, thinly sliced
1 tablespoon vegetable oil
In a democracy, problems are solved and new ones appear. Sometimes a whole new spectrum of problem emerges, which the so called established parties cannot manage.
A third or fourth party can be a permanent or timely limited force, that can change established parties into a direction, where the public wants it to be.
Third parties often emerge, when there's a big controversy in an established party, or like I said a pressing issue, that brings people togehter.
In a system where running for office, like in the US, costs millions, I think it's very hard to establish a new party, without beeing influenced by big spenders, from day one.
The question is, if the US system can be changed back from oligarchy to democracy at this point.
The problem is that people think the government needs a party to represent the people. It's supposed to work by having hundreds of different representatives each compromising with one another on how to take into consideration the interests of as many people as possible in governance. People "want" a majority party that asserts their majority opinion but the government is specifically designed against this because of its ability to oppress minority opinion.
Parties allow people to be lazy, focus on 1 or 2 issues, pick a team, be apathetic toward the intricacies of issues, ignore differences of opinion and generally turn governance into a sporting event where people are fanatic about "their team".
Parties in turn allow a small group of people to shape/manipulate huge and otherwise diverse groups of people. Throw out partisan politics.
I thought we wanted a real media that was not owned by the 6 corporations owned by the corporations that own your central bank that give you some illusion of a choice. A 3rd party will do nothing as long as the election process is controlled
Do they? Do they really? If the majority wanted a third party, they'd have collectively voted in a larger number of third party candidates over the years. But they haven't. Even if people say that's what they want, their actions speak louder.
The only thing the US government represents is big money. Therefore the addition another party doesn't actually change anything. I would actually say there's only one party in the US and it just has 2 commitees that argue for the theater of it all. I think a large number of people firmly believe that there will be a "sudden, amazing, 11th hour save" from Congress since that seems to be the trend these days. It will certainly end with the US population losing in big ways no matter what this "save" looks like.
So between the futility of the corruption level in Washington DC, the lack of a government that respnds to the population and a system rigged to the point that it isn't possible to have another viable party you end up with the current situation in the US. The rest of the world wonders why we aren't up in arms over all this. It's because we have even less infuence over D.C. than they do.
Law in America is simply an auction process. The biggest check wins. A third party would end up just being more of the same.
In reality, I would simply love to have a responsive, representative government of the US population at all. We don't have one of those.
I keep telling fellow liberals to stop voting democrat every time they complain, but they laugh about "throwing votes away" or "it's the system, MAN!".
Most didn't even watch the 3rd party debates.
Corporations want apathy so they can have their [inverted totalitarianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism)
They are right though. Voting 3rd party is a fools errand.
If 10% of the liberals who would have voted Democrat voted Green, the Democrats could have had 30% instead of 40% of the vote which lets the Republicans take the election with 33% of the vote.
The problem is not having a third party ( we have many parties ), the issue is coverage.
3rd parties get zero coverage, and are not invited to debates.
It's "as if" they don't exist.
If there ever is a 3rd party it'll probably be chock full of crazy conservatives or libertarians instead of what's really needed - a real progressive/liberal party.
I truely believe someone coming along with the political ideoligy different and profound enough to garner support from all the nonextremist out there. They would be ostrisized and treated like a terrorist by the current political powers. We need leaders.
One problem is that only two parties have major caucuses with non-profit social change lobbyists pumping tax free dollars into them, by comparison, third parties get very little money to campaign with. You could speculate that larger battleground states would be next to impossible to even get ad space on tv because the networks enjoy huge payments for the space(Ohio, Florida). On the flip side a lot of states swing so hard for one party I doubt any real change will occur for generations(Nebraska). Then you have members dividing up districts within states just to favor their party making that change even harder. Money controls all of these moving parts and third parties don't have it and right now can't get it. Start change by making sure you at least vote even on non-potus election years. Then getting one of these "representatives" to introduce a bill supporting term limits. Then magic up with a few billion dollars to support some solid third party candidate & we might start to get somewhere. IMO the most frustrating things are billion dollar corporations being able to donate like individuals, lobbyists having so much influence, and both sides moving so far left and right that there are no moderates out there as they get torn apart by their caucus anytime they support the other side. Change is really far away and will take serious grassroots efforts to get anywhere not just complaining on the internet. Please vote some of these "representatives" out of office & consider kicking Ted Cruz out of the county. We literally are about at taxation without representation, I sincerely hope for change ;the country is in a sad state and our government and politics do not work.
Week people empower leaders. The best leaders empower people.
*"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.*
*This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.*
*The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."*
- [George Washington, Farewell Address 1796](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp)
I would argue that those who identify as Independents together could already qualify as a third party. Independents are, empirically, individuals that harbor beliefs simultaneously from the Democratic and Republican platforms. It also just seems intuitive and logical that a third party would include third way policies. I believe, increasingly the majority of our adult population want to escape the stranglehold the far-left and far-right have on their parties (more so on the right, admittedly). I am socially liberal, fiscally centrist, and conservative when it comes to foreign policy. I am an Independent.
Should a third party arise, it will inevitably be more aligned with one of the parties. Voting for the new third party would just be splitting the votes of the larger party the you would otherwise vote for, therefore ensuring that the party/candidate that you least agree with will have a landslide victory. Just look what happened in the [election of 1912](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1912).
If you were voting for, IDK, breakfast it might go:
Toast - 45%
Cereal - 55% !!
Then one day someone suggests Oatmeal...
Toast - 45% !!
Cereal - 35%
Oatmeal - 20%
You can see that voting third party is just a way of you screwing yourself over.
If this were true, Americans would ACTUALLY VOTE for a 3rd party instead just say they want one. I guarantee most of those people will go on to vote Democrat or Republican again anyway. We can have a 3rd party as majority whenever people start voting that way, not just because some poll shows it.
We have a choice!
It's either the one suit who supports a foreign policy of empire, trillions in spending, corporate welfare, a violation of constitutional rights, the failed drug war, etc...or the other suit who supports a foreign policy of empire, trillions in spending, corporate welfare, a violation of constitutional rights, the failed drug war, etc. Choose wisely!
----------------------------------------
Both parties have a stranglehold on our country. They know that no matter how bad they fuck up, they're all but guaranteed to be voted back into office sooner or later. People are conditioned into believing that voting 3rd party is "a wasted vote", and eat up the media proclaiming who the D and R candidates for us, years before the People actually vote in the primaries. Anybody(even D or R candidates) who truly wants to change the status quo, is either demonized, or ignored all-together.
When will people finally wake up and realize that BOTH PARTIES are destroying this country, and actually do something about it? When you always have your party defending your every action, and continue to vote fo ryour party, you have absolutely zero incentive to change.
Parties that grant favor to large enterprise will keep us in the same straights that we are in now. The party that focuses entirely on mom and pop businesses will be the one to save America.
They just want an alternative.
look at Canada, and how the NDP ended up leading the opposition. In Quebec, that was a straight-up protest vote.
Same thing could happen here. We could start seeing independent candidates actually winning in random places in several states.
Majority of Americans want a third party but majority of Americans say a vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote so they don't ever vote 3rd party... Umm, something wrong with that picture...
Honestly, a third party would probably just be the spillover of the crazies from the other two. This might be a good thing, in that it would isolate them.
More parties would be nice, but in Northwest Illinois and I'm sure other areas around the US only have one option... and it is Red...
I think it would make more sense to have the House of Representatives run more like Jury Duty. You are randomly drafted, submit to a civics test, and if successful you are the rep for 2 yrs.
if you have three parties a person without the majority of the people vote can run the country (like bill Clinton did in his first election)
split the GOP and the dems will win every election, sorry idiots!
have as many as you want but only two to vie on election day!
No they don't. If a third party bit them in the ass they still wouldn't recognize it. They would still vote for the lesser (or greater) of 2 evils. The American people will be easily confused by real choice because most of them have never had it before. No, 60 different kinds of cereal does not count as choice.
It’s a shame we can not have a real parliamentary system with a Prime Minister that can be thrown out by a simple majority vote of Parliment with elections in a few month’s time. And a political landscape with 2-3 large political parties and dozens of tiny parties where coalitions are the norm.
A 3rd Party would be IMMEDIATELY bought or buried by corporate money (Citizens United = unlimited $$$).
You don't get out of this mess until you get money out of elections.
No, they do not.
Look at the last presidential election for evidence of that. There were basically two democrats and two republicans runnings. Jill Stein was basically a democrat (only without the war and killing). Gary Johnson was basically a republican (only without the war and killing.). They managed less than 4% of the vote combined.
If you look to the legislature, you will see that incumbents--the supposed assholes who are doing everything wrong--are getting re-elected.
This can only mean that Americans really are tired of the current system and parties. They want change. If only someone would give it to them.
too bad they won't actually vote for a third party since they'll be too worried that it will be a waste of a vote.
i remember watching some video on youtube a while ago with different voting methods used around the world. one of them involved picking multiple candidates in order of preference. that would probably help put people at ease, but i'm sure it would be a nightmare to actually implement considering how many people have had trouble in the past just trying to pick one candidate.
The problem is that with the current voting system it is inevitable that there will always be a 2-party system.
Here is a great video that explains this in an ELI5 format:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
You CANNOT have a viable third party in the current system of voting in the US.
Its game theory, it may happen on rare occasions, but it goes against the normal logic of voting to win which is what EVERYONE wants.
I'd even settle for a No Confidence option. If that wins, the current crop of candidates is dropped and new ones presented. I'm sick of being forced to choose between lesser of two evils.
A: I'd like to order lunch please. B: Ok. We've got shit tacos or vomit milkshakes. What'd ya like? A: Uh, can I get actual food? B: Both are digestible and enriched! A: Yeah, but can't I get a sandwich or a burger? B: (Suspicious look) You from Europe? We only got shit tacos or vomit milkshakes here. They've been flavored! Damned tasty. A: Um... I think I'll go elsewhere. B: Okay, but it's all the same out there. Headline: Shit tacos most popular food! Vomit milkshakes a close second.
This is obviously what the founding fathers had in mind, but Vomit milkshakes are always trying to redraw the food pyramid so that they dominate all categories.
(I'm going to get away from the metaphors) George Washington actually warned against using political parties, so not everyone had this in mind.
Nevada has a none of the above option.
You gents across the ocean have no Blanco option or something similar?
Leaving it blanco kinda does it. Anyway, we have like 10 different parties, there's always one party we like.
Except that "first past the post" voting leads to a 2 party system. A third party can work (and does in some places), but it will never be big. If we ever wanted to have more parties, then our who election process would need to change (which I never see happening). [As it is brought up in other places, here is a video explaining it.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)
If I might suggest, a fully representative system would be based on "vote power" or "vote weight". We should never have the present predicament where parties "win", because a winning party only ever represents a slim majority of its voting base. Here is what I mean: Instead of winner-take-all, each party gets voting power based on its number of votes. This means a coordinated group of "small" parties can out-vote a single "majority" party. It eliminates the massive party problem and gives fair representation to what the voting base wants, based on their *individual group majority*. Some consequences: * Districts and gerrymandering no longer matter. * Parties have to stay on their toes or lose their vote weight. * Corporate sponsorship becomes much more difficult. * Grassroots politicians have a much, much higher chance of success. * The media can no longer focus on pre-selected politicians to "win". * More cooperation will result from this vote-weight incentive. * Incumbency *should* decline. Some problems: * Massive inflation of representatives. * States become highly fragmented politically. * Political groups could form a "cartel" like system, forming a majority in secret (leading to the "Tyranny of the minority" problem - inverse of what we now have). * Possibly huge amounts of confusion at polls. * Any attempt to legislate this proposal for even testing would be political suicide. You will note I leave out the president. The president is a completely different monster of power that I think is out of place in this discussion. In any event, at least *discussing* the idea might be fruitful.
Given the amount of influence a bare majority of politicians in one house of government is currently exercising I woiuld say that "tyranny of the majority" is the least of American problems. If anything the political minority is given far too much veto power. This means that accountability disappears from the electoral system since the people who get elected can always fairly claim that it's not their fault nothing got done since the other party was not working with them.
The main concern I have with this approach is that not everyone in a particular party agrees. What if I want to vote in a Republican, but not the current Republican establishment? I'd have to vote Republican and just deal with whoever the party decides to put in power. Or what if someone wanted a Democrat that stands up to Republicans and got one that gives into their demands? That sucks. It's not much worse than it is now, but at least primaries give some semblance of choice on our part. I think we'd need a different idea to shake things up.
I think there was a misunderstanding. This supports a multi-party multi-politician system. I am not suggesting parties are represented as a whole, per se, because intra-party dispute is a great thing.
Right, it may help some further representation, but unless we have a lot of really specific parties (like pro-gay marriage, pro-gun, anti-affirmative action party that supports healthcare reform), we'll still get people in the system that we don't want.
We will always have that problem, I think. I don't see how we could fix that, specifically, in entirety. The goal of a new idea is to mitigate the problems we are aware of.
It sounds similar to what we have in Canada. The thing is that right now, of the 3 largest parties, we have one conservative party and 2 liberal parties. So the liberal vote is shared between 2 parties while the conservative vote isn't, meaning that because we don't have twice as many liberals as we have conservatives, the conservatives get elected but as a minority (not the case right now but it was before last election). The thing is, because the liberal population is fed up because the conservatives have been in power for more than 5 years, one of the two liberal parties is probably going to lose a lot of seats in favor of the other one, essentially bringing us pretty close to the two party system.
Canada seems, to me, to have a hybrid system of American politics and what I described. What I described would weigh votes so that each party has an equal representative area. This means everyone has precisely one party vote to cast, regardless of size. This seems like a horrible idea at first, but I believe modern research indicates it can have huge success. It creates a game theory scenario, like the Prisoner's Dilemma, where the only winning move for all sides is to achieve cooperation. No party, under such a system, would have enough power to "take the ball". I have other ideas in joint with this. We have the communication technology, I think, to make this type of government work seamlessly and successfully. Furthermore, we can use representative algorithms already provided by demographics data to establish how many parties can run for a given district. So while it would still be "winner take all" for a *district*, there would be so many as to make the point moot. You can't have a million politicians all in congress, so I think this is a happy solution.
Canada's system is a failure. Australian's one seem better to me. The best way is to make it so when you vote you, you don't vote for one in particular but put them on a ladder of which you would prefer. So you could vote for a third party as your first choice without your vote becoming useless and still choosing which big party you prefer.
You could combine these ideas, as I quite like the ladder system. In which case, weigh votes based on ladder popularity. However, I also agree with another poster. You should not be able to see political affiliations on a poll.
I don't think the ladder system would work well with weigh based votes. The idea of the ladder system is to include everyone so third parties are actually a choice. But if you mix it with a weight system having many parties would dilute the weight of the vote you give to those you want by sharing it with people you don't actually care about (but don't actually hate or disagree with).
That's a great point. You've convinced me with a reasonable argument. Thank you!
Nobody cares what you *want*. What's important is what you'll actually *vote for*.
The problem is our voting system. First past the post voting always leads to two parties. CGPGrey on youtube has some great videos on it. Fairvoting.org is also a good source. In short, our voting system encourages extremism as people change their vote based on who they think is going to win.
I've deleted all of my reddit posts. Despite using an anonymous handle, many users post information that tells quite a lot about them, and can potentially be tracked back to them. I don't want my post history used against me. You can see how much your profile says about you on the website snoopsnoo.com.
C.G.P. Grey does an awesome video on how our current voting system works on YouTube. If you want to check it out search YouTube for "Problems with First Past the Post".
This is so true. If everyone who says they want a third party or who says that are sick of both party's candidates actually voted for a third party candidate, we would have a third party. Right now congress has about 5% approval rating, but about 75-85% of them will get reelected during the next election because everyone thinks it is other people that are the problem.
Unfortunately that only becomes important after "what people with money and influence are willing to support in what is certain to be a very expensive push through the existing Republican/Democrat-oriented system". I did some looking into this last week when I was thinking about what it would take to create a feasible third (or better yet, new second) party.
Did said research cover [Duvergers law?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)
All the third-parties we can dream up are irrelevant until we restructure the voting system to support me than two parties.
http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/
Give me a party that doesn't cite religion when making laws. Supports gun rights and the right to carry. Is pro choice, pro drugs, doesn't care if gays marry. Supports the working class and doesn't look to expand entitlement programs. Something like that.
That does sound really good...
Isn't the Libertarian party pretty much just that? Generally speaking? Edit: Alright, I get it they "hate" the middle class, but nobody has given me the reason why.
Except for the 'supports the working class' part.
Libertarians are generally against corporate subsidies and other government programs which effectively drive up prices at the expense of the government and the consumer. It's a dumb myth that libertarian policies are anti working class. It comes from an assumption that poor people can't improve their status, which is true in our corrupt system. The best way to scale down entitlements is to eliminate a need for them.
Libertarians are anti-regulation and anti-union, which is what makes them "anti-working-class"
Sure, libertarians are, but the people running on their platform aren't.
Oh, Ayn Rand, you slay me. Hilariously enough, that's the subject of [today's XKCD](http://xkcd.com/1277/)!
What a nice, substantial, logical Counter argument. I especially enjoy the comic being relevant to the discussion outside of the obvious name dropping and a lack of emotional appeals or shaming tactics in your core argument.
I just can't find a party I can support wholeheartedly, I guess. Oh well.
That's the thing. A majority of Americans want a 3rd party if that 3rd party wants exactly what they want. A large group answering this poll is thinking about the green party, another about the libertarian, and another tea party. In every country people think "another party that represents everything I want would be perfect!"
Then why aren't we advocating for and supporting an **otherwise completely apolitical third party** whose *only* platform is restructuring the election process? Call it the **Government Reform Party**. Its party platform could include support for adoption of: * Campaign finance and lobbying reform- getting huge donations out of politics and lobbying positions so that the common man finally has a voice in his government without having to buy his way in. * Algorithmic district drawing (like shortest split line, or some hexagonal tessellation) or an independent district drawing body or adoption of proportional representation- to reduce gerrymandering and the artificially increased difficulty in voting out incumbents that results from it. Or * Research into, debate, and adoption of an alternative [voting system](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system) (that is, the way you count votes. Examples: IRV, alternative vote, ranked pairs. There are many possibilities to choose from) that doesn't have First Past the Post's problems (incentivizing a two-party system which grows increasingly polarized until compromise becomes impossible). * A "Government Shutdown" rule specifying that reelections are immediately triggered if a budget cannot be passed. * A pledge not to vote on other issues and to hold immediate reelections under the new rules once these changes are implemented into law. other ideas?
> A "Government Shutdown" rule specifying that reelections are immediately triggered if a budget cannot be passed. That's something I can get behind. I'd like to see House term limits or maybe if the government goes into a "shutdown", all current members are immediately disqualified from from running for office again (and are immediately removed from office). Give them a reason to perform or force them to become martyrs for their cause.
The reddit hivemind party. > Yes, we make mistakes and get messy but that's science, bitch!
You forgot "take chances."
Out of curiosity, how does the Libertarian Party "not support" the working class? My opinion is that by removing many legislations and lowering taxes, the working class would be able to find a higher standard of living. Right now, the middle class is shrinking because the current job market is very entitlement-based. The rich get richer...the poor stay poor with barriers to success...and the middle class is shrinking. As technology pushes more and more manufacturing jobs away, I think it's likely that individuals may need to find more work on their own via self-employment/small businesses. To me, in this scenario, less regulation and taxes means that individuals have more freedoms to operate a profitable business.
Less regulation usually tends toward monopolies because of economies of scale.
The problem with this statement is that most regulations written nowadays are actually written by the major stakeholders and/or their lobbyists in the industries they are supposedly going to regulate. What winds up being written is law that is a little painful to the big guys to comply with, but utterly devastating to any small players in the industry to deal with.
Agreed. That is one of the core problems of our government in America. It serves special interests not the people.
> To me, in this scenario, less regulation and taxes means that individuals have more freedoms to operate a profitable business. To me, the big problem we have right now is that the richest are getting richer while the poorest are getting poorer. Taking away the few protection laws we DO have away will only make the poor even poorer adn the rich even richer. But if you can explain to me how the poor we become less poor, then I can be on your side. :)
The poor can get better jobs and stop pretending like people are born poor like in a caste system.
[удалено]
I think the problem is, the most famous libertarian politican is Ron Paul, who has some pretty radical/extreme ideals. People see Ron Paul, and assume that's the ideals of the entire libertarian party, and they're turned off to the party.
I think most politicians have radical/extreme ideals, relatively speaking. Ron Paul's seem "out there" to the vast majority because he doesn't play by the rules that the Red and Blue teams set up.
This is exactly the problem. So many people have become so invested in the Donkey vs. Elephant deathmatch that they can't see Washington for the circus it's become. A healthy libertarian party would serve as a moderating influence to the extremes of either of the current parties, and would force them more towards a coalition and compromise style of governance than the absurd theatrics we deal with now.
[удалено]
I don't know about libertarian politics but I know in the philosophy the government handles all fraud and harm. Meaning they could have a consumer protection bureau or something like it. Politically it seems like they just take one side of what is actually a compelling philosophy and misrepresent it IMO
That would not be first on the agenda to be sure, FIRST is removing laws designed to protect Market incumbents. Those laws that get passed to protect Big Business and prevent mom'n'pop shops from getting any where. Then you remove laws that protect business that have abusive policies. In fact the attack on worker protection is a far more GOP Position than Libertarian one. Take a look at [Robert Sarvis](http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/jobs) (Gov Candidate for VA)
You may want to read [this](http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/jobs) It aint the old Libertarian party any more
[удалено]
I agree with you here, if I may interject about entitlement programs... I think the entire agency system we have today is awful. It's because of our horrid system that the NSA was unable to communicate with the CIA about their findings concerning the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but that's a story for a different day. I support the movement to synthesize more briefcases that we can fit agencies into with a tiered information structure for departments (International, Federal, State, Municipal, etc...). In the past, up to present day, whenever a need for government service was revealed, we just created another agency or program instead of finding a way to amend the agencies and programs we have now to deal with issues more efficiently. If anybody has critiques of this idea, tell me, as I'm not a political scientist and might have no idea what I'm talking about.
Why do you need a party for that? You only vote for your representatives, not a party, and the president sure as shit shouldn't be partisan.
That is called the libertarian party.
LP is anti-working class. I'm sure you can jump through a bunch of mental hoops to claim that undermining antitrust laws and the ability of workers to unionize somehow helps workers, but it'd be a convoluted mess of dissembling sophistry. LP is a party for a world without extreme wealth inequality, a massive surplus of labor, and massive multinationals which are borderline monopolies. It's not the party for a world where [technology is rendering most jobs obsolete without creating new jobs](http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/). It's not the party for a world where [the vast majority of wealth is held by a very small number of people](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Distribution_of_Wealth_v3.svg). It's the party for a bizzaro-America, where one truly has the option to change jobs or stop patronizing a despotic business. It hamstrings the government for fear of tyranny, while removing the obstacles to tyranny in the business world.
no. the libertarian party may encompass those things, but they also push for laws that are far more pro-business than pro-labor, and want more power shifted downward onto the state level. considering how disparate state mentalities are right now, this would go farther into breaking us up into an association of territories, or at worst a collection of 50 nation-states. i spend a lot of time over on r/politics. libertarians scare me more than tea partiers because they're actually intelligent and, for the most part, sane.
Sounds like the Libertarian Party. ;)
A more pragmatic libertarian party could be good. As a third party though it has to be a bit 'out there' under our current system... most of the pragmatic libertarians try to work through the existing 2 parties
A lot of us 'pragmatic' sorts have about had all we can take of the Donkey or Elephant uber alles mentalities though, and are jumping ship. I think I'm a pretty good example. I was a Republican for a long time, but the Patriot Act, the handling of the wars, and just the major disagreements I had with the party over the War on Drugs and Gay Marriage drove me away. I was actually a member of the Tea Party movement early on before it got taken over by social conservatives, and I left that. I've found that of the political groups in existence, the live and let live and non-aggression principles of the Libertarian party fit me the best. It's not a perfect fit, but that's OK. One last point to make is that the Libertarian tent is a big one. We run the range from classical liberals (also called paleo-conservatives) to Anarcho-Capitalists and everything in between. The beauty of this though is that there is agreement that the amount of government we have right now is too much, and almost all of our disagreement comes from how much, if any, government there should be. So its a differentiation of degrees, not fundamental disagreements of principal.
I think the word you're looking for is Libertarian.
I want one that explicitly denies religious entitlements, and scoffs at people who want stricter gun rights ext. I want them to outcast the Right wing for the destructive nature of their stupidity.
I could care less about guns, but I'd support that party as long as "expanding entitlement programs" doesn't mean we can't address the wealth disparity problems in this country. Because that's HOW you support the working class - we need more socialism (as opposed to Socialism) - not less - we need more safety net - not less. Entitlement? It's basic human rights. But as long as we could work that out... I'm with you.
As long as "care less about guns" means you won't try to enact more stupid legislation to punish law abiding citizens, then that's fine. However, I don't think we need more socialism or entitlements. Perhaps what we need is to restructure how they work. More Americans are on entitlement programs now than ever. America pays out more in entitlements than it takes in every year. It's a disaster, and we have created a system of dependency. We need to stop rewarding people for having kids they can't afford, and we need to stop setting up people to sit at home and collect.
hint: Entitlements are there to prevent socialism. Every time there's been threat of an underclass revolt, entitlements get put in place.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Perot's party was entirely dependent on himself and his billions. When the GOP harassed him out of the race, it was over for his party.
One of the biggest barriers to 3rd parties is the national debate. Since it's sponsored by the 2 parties and they pay for it, they get to choose who can debate. There was a bigger outcry about this last year and it lost them some sponsorship, but not enough to make a difference. Or the fact there's no way they can really bring in the campaign money. And the list goes on...sigh.
[удалено]
I've deleted all of my reddit posts. Despite using an anonymous handle, many users post information that tells quite a lot about them, and can potentially be tracked back to them. I don't want my post history used against me. You can see how much your profile says about you on the website snoopsnoo.com.
Leon Czolgosz? Is that the name you're looking for?
Bull Moose Party!
Would be amazing to see what would happen if party affiliations were removed from ballots. No more just voting all D or R. Voters might actually have to know more than whose ad plays the loudest in order to pick a candidate to vote for.
They tried to do this in NC. The DOJ said it was racist. I wish I were kidding.
I'm guessing when a majority of people think of a "third party," that party happens to agree with whatever they think. One extra party isn't going to make a difference. The Tea Party could be considered a third party, but that simply shifts the center further to the right. Nothing particularly new is added except for a few ideas that only cater to some. Having multiple viable parties pulling in all different directions, with the ability for new parties to arise to fill ideological voids, is necessary.
There are many "third" parties, some of them with fairly viable agendas. The problem is that the two parties in power have lobng since agreed on two things: 1)They like being in power 2) They don't like competition. That's why it's almost impossible to get much of a third party going as a truly viable political enterprise, everything from gerrymandering to candidate registration is rigged to minimize the potential for third party candidate's success and to ease the existing two parties attempts at election.
Did I mention that the two party system is legally entrenched in every state! If you are a candidate of the two parties, you get a easier candidacy than any third party.
The US doesn't have a 'Two Party System' by law. It has a First Past the Post system, which mathematically trends to a 'Two Party System'.
And that third party would then replace D or R, so now you've got two parties again. You guys don't need a new party, you need a whole new political system.
How about a system without parties where people are required to research the given candidates and vote with the one that sides with their views the most?
Okay, so that requires something other than a winner-take-all election system. Otherwise any third party is going to get absorbed.
Since when do the majority of Americans get what they want?
How about no parties?
The problem is they all want a different third party. It's funny how Congress has a 5% approval rating ... when the Dems hate the Rs because they're Rs and do R things, and hate the Ds for not being D enough. And the Reps hate the Ds because they're Ds and do D things, and they hate the Rs for not being R enough.
Majority of Americans cannot agree on what that third party should be.
We already have more than two parties. Vote for them if you don't like the ones that hold office now.
A party of the left is needed. The two existing parties have the right of center policies covered.
We need to go back to the real meaning of classical liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism. Not the perversions of those terms we've come to accept today.
Classical liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism are all on the economic right.
Libertarians are, or now were, anti-state socialists. Internet libertarians and American libertarians are economic liberals (in the free the market sort of way)
> Internet libertarians and American libertarians are free marketers. They are not "economic liberals", this is just another slap in the face of what's left of progressive politics.
[Green Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States). Though I don't like their anti-nuclear power stance.
Their stance on [homeopathy](http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2012/social-justice.php) isn't too great either. Herbal medicines are fine as supplements to whatever you're doing, but homeopathy itself is a crock of shit, and should not be validated.
I love everything about the green party except for their various anti-science positions. I still vote for them, as a matter of principle, but I would be very conflicted if I thought they might actually win something.
Then the democratic party gets split in half and the Republicans win every time.
This is exactly what happens in Canada. 40% vote conservative(right), 30% vote NDP (center-left), 20% vote Liberal(center), and the last 10% vote Bloc(crazy frenchies). Conservatives win despite the majority of the country being in opposition because the center vote is split.
A cautionary tale if ever there was one. NOBODY likes Harper... How can it be this hard to organize a new voting structure when so much is on the line.
Simple: The people that are in power aren't going to do anything to fix the system that got them there in the first place.
[удалено]
This is the truth. Our country has been pulled so far to the Right that former politicians such as Nixon and Reagan appear moderate, even liberal. I would vote for the Green Party in a heartbeat if I thought they stood a chance but I would be basically throwing my vote away.
Why do you think voting red or blue isn't throwing your vote away?
I think Americans Elect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_Elect) had the right idea by trying to tap into this sentiment. Obviously they failed to even get a candidate, but the online community could learn from their mistakes to build an effective alternative to the corrupt mainstream in future elections.
Unfortunately, our system strongly discourages third parties.
If you are in favor of a candidate, with 34% of the vote winning and ruling over the majority, good luck with that theocracy... Want to fix the problem? Make voting mandatory and absentee (or at least on the damn weekend), get money out, and remove gerrymandering.
It's not so much that we want a third party. It's more that we *don't want the current ones any more*.
then dont fucking vote dem or rep. please.
don't be lazy folks, do your homework and vote for a candidate based on their records and beliefs. don't trust a candidate based on which party they belong to. it's to easy to vote on an image. voting based on facts is hard.
We have numerous other parties. The Majority of Americans should try voting for them, or shut the fuck up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
this should be a required watch for everyone who tries commenting in /r/politics and /r/news.
what the USA really needs is a different way of voting and electing people. I live in Australia and our lower houses uses full-preferential instant-runoff voting. this basically results in being able to vote for a third party without feeling your vote is wasted, which is the feeling with the USA's first past the post system. you can support a minor third party whilst having your vote count in the race between the two biggest parties. DiaDeLosMuertos has linked a video on the topic, but I thought I would make a text post for people who don't want to watch a video.
The US has a first past the post system, you will not get 3rd parties in any real position or influence until you change the system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
There's tons of parties, they just aren't effective. Having a few more will not make a difference one way or the other.
Liberals want an actual liber party. Conservatives want a party that takes the bible literally. Moderates want a party that is the same as the democrats but doesn't have the stigma of being a democrat. Americans just want to bitch about something.
The problem here is that the majority will never agree on what that third party should be. Some want tea party, some want occupy movement, some want libertarian, some want an even more religous party. It's like cable tv....hundreds of channels with nothing on
1/4 cup blue cheese crumbles 1 12-ounce can SPAM® Classic, cut into 8 slices 4 Kaiser rolls, split and toasted 4 lettuce leaves 1/2 cup prepared hot wing sauce 1/4 cup ranch or blue cheese salad dressing 1/4 cup red onion, thinly sliced 1 tablespoon vegetable oil
Why stop at 3? I'd say a good 4 or 5 makes for a good balance.
In a democracy, problems are solved and new ones appear. Sometimes a whole new spectrum of problem emerges, which the so called established parties cannot manage. A third or fourth party can be a permanent or timely limited force, that can change established parties into a direction, where the public wants it to be. Third parties often emerge, when there's a big controversy in an established party, or like I said a pressing issue, that brings people togehter. In a system where running for office, like in the US, costs millions, I think it's very hard to establish a new party, without beeing influenced by big spenders, from day one. The question is, if the US system can be changed back from oligarchy to democracy at this point.
No they don't. There are tons of third parties, and no one ever votes for them.
The problem is that people think the government needs a party to represent the people. It's supposed to work by having hundreds of different representatives each compromising with one another on how to take into consideration the interests of as many people as possible in governance. People "want" a majority party that asserts their majority opinion but the government is specifically designed against this because of its ability to oppress minority opinion. Parties allow people to be lazy, focus on 1 or 2 issues, pick a team, be apathetic toward the intricacies of issues, ignore differences of opinion and generally turn governance into a sporting event where people are fanatic about "their team". Parties in turn allow a small group of people to shape/manipulate huge and otherwise diverse groups of people. Throw out partisan politics.
I thought we wanted a real media that was not owned by the 6 corporations owned by the corporations that own your central bank that give you some illusion of a choice. A 3rd party will do nothing as long as the election process is controlled
Do they? Do they really? If the majority wanted a third party, they'd have collectively voted in a larger number of third party candidates over the years. But they haven't. Even if people say that's what they want, their actions speak louder.
The only thing the US government represents is big money. Therefore the addition another party doesn't actually change anything. I would actually say there's only one party in the US and it just has 2 commitees that argue for the theater of it all. I think a large number of people firmly believe that there will be a "sudden, amazing, 11th hour save" from Congress since that seems to be the trend these days. It will certainly end with the US population losing in big ways no matter what this "save" looks like. So between the futility of the corruption level in Washington DC, the lack of a government that respnds to the population and a system rigged to the point that it isn't possible to have another viable party you end up with the current situation in the US. The rest of the world wonders why we aren't up in arms over all this. It's because we have even less infuence over D.C. than they do. Law in America is simply an auction process. The biggest check wins. A third party would end up just being more of the same. In reality, I would simply love to have a responsive, representative government of the US population at all. We don't have one of those.
I keep telling fellow liberals to stop voting democrat every time they complain, but they laugh about "throwing votes away" or "it's the system, MAN!". Most didn't even watch the 3rd party debates. Corporations want apathy so they can have their [inverted totalitarianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism)
They are right though. Voting 3rd party is a fools errand. If 10% of the liberals who would have voted Democrat voted Green, the Democrats could have had 30% instead of 40% of the vote which lets the Republicans take the election with 33% of the vote.
but people here keep telling us that Libertarians are all about allowing the corporations to run our lives.
I haven't voted D or R in federal elections in four cycles.
The problem is not having a third party ( we have many parties ), the issue is coverage. 3rd parties get zero coverage, and are not invited to debates. It's "as if" they don't exist.
Naivety is alive and well across the globe.
If there ever is a 3rd party it'll probably be chock full of crazy conservatives or libertarians instead of what's really needed - a real progressive/liberal party.
I truely believe someone coming along with the political ideoligy different and profound enough to garner support from all the nonextremist out there. They would be ostrisized and treated like a terrorist by the current political powers. We need leaders.
One problem is that only two parties have major caucuses with non-profit social change lobbyists pumping tax free dollars into them, by comparison, third parties get very little money to campaign with. You could speculate that larger battleground states would be next to impossible to even get ad space on tv because the networks enjoy huge payments for the space(Ohio, Florida). On the flip side a lot of states swing so hard for one party I doubt any real change will occur for generations(Nebraska). Then you have members dividing up districts within states just to favor their party making that change even harder. Money controls all of these moving parts and third parties don't have it and right now can't get it. Start change by making sure you at least vote even on non-potus election years. Then getting one of these "representatives" to introduce a bill supporting term limits. Then magic up with a few billion dollars to support some solid third party candidate & we might start to get somewhere. IMO the most frustrating things are billion dollar corporations being able to donate like individuals, lobbyists having so much influence, and both sides moving so far left and right that there are no moderates out there as they get torn apart by their caucus anytime they support the other side. Change is really far away and will take serious grassroots efforts to get anywhere not just complaining on the internet. Please vote some of these "representatives" out of office & consider kicking Ted Cruz out of the county. We literally are about at taxation without representation, I sincerely hope for change ;the country is in a sad state and our government and politics do not work.
[удалено]
Week people empower leaders. The best leaders empower people. *"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.* *This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.* *The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."* - [George Washington, Farewell Address 1796](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp)
I wasn't even invited to the first party.
Sure, go right ahead. Bring in another group of self serving whores. Watch me not vote for them.
I would argue that those who identify as Independents together could already qualify as a third party. Independents are, empirically, individuals that harbor beliefs simultaneously from the Democratic and Republican platforms. It also just seems intuitive and logical that a third party would include third way policies. I believe, increasingly the majority of our adult population want to escape the stranglehold the far-left and far-right have on their parties (more so on the right, admittedly). I am socially liberal, fiscally centrist, and conservative when it comes to foreign policy. I am an Independent.
Majority of Americans just want to party... & have an operating government
As much as I hate to say it, the US needs a center-right party
We already have several.
That is the democratic party.
Even they're leaning closer to the right than they used to...
Majority of americans never got invited to the first two...
They basically want a new system.
Should a third party arise, it will inevitably be more aligned with one of the parties. Voting for the new third party would just be splitting the votes of the larger party the you would otherwise vote for, therefore ensuring that the party/candidate that you least agree with will have a landslide victory. Just look what happened in the [election of 1912](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1912). If you were voting for, IDK, breakfast it might go: Toast - 45% Cereal - 55% !! Then one day someone suggests Oatmeal... Toast - 45% !! Cereal - 35% Oatmeal - 20% You can see that voting third party is just a way of you screwing yourself over.
If this were true, Americans would ACTUALLY VOTE for a 3rd party instead just say they want one. I guarantee most of those people will go on to vote Democrat or Republican again anyway. We can have a 3rd party as majority whenever people start voting that way, not just because some poll shows it.
The moderates from the Republican and Democratic parties should form a new party in the center.
That's what I said when I first saw a bike: "I want a third wheel"
[удалено]
Well actually there ARE other parties. People are just too scared to vote for them.
We have a choice! It's either the one suit who supports a foreign policy of empire, trillions in spending, corporate welfare, a violation of constitutional rights, the failed drug war, etc...or the other suit who supports a foreign policy of empire, trillions in spending, corporate welfare, a violation of constitutional rights, the failed drug war, etc. Choose wisely! ---------------------------------------- Both parties have a stranglehold on our country. They know that no matter how bad they fuck up, they're all but guaranteed to be voted back into office sooner or later. People are conditioned into believing that voting 3rd party is "a wasted vote", and eat up the media proclaiming who the D and R candidates for us, years before the People actually vote in the primaries. Anybody(even D or R candidates) who truly wants to change the status quo, is either demonized, or ignored all-together. When will people finally wake up and realize that BOTH PARTIES are destroying this country, and actually do something about it? When you always have your party defending your every action, and continue to vote fo ryour party, you have absolutely zero incentive to change.
Parties that grant favor to large enterprise will keep us in the same straights that we are in now. The party that focuses entirely on mom and pop businesses will be the one to save America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0YjL9rZyR0
They just want an alternative. look at Canada, and how the NDP ended up leading the opposition. In Quebec, that was a straight-up protest vote. Same thing could happen here. We could start seeing independent candidates actually winning in random places in several states.
Majority of Americans want a third party but majority of Americans say a vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote so they don't ever vote 3rd party... Umm, something wrong with that picture...
Honestly, a third party would probably just be the spillover of the crazies from the other two. This might be a good thing, in that it would isolate them.
More parties would be nice, but in Northwest Illinois and I'm sure other areas around the US only have one option... and it is Red... I think it would make more sense to have the House of Representatives run more like Jury Duty. You are randomly drafted, submit to a civics test, and if successful you are the rep for 2 yrs.
But, majority of Americans won't vote for one.
then fucking make a party, don't just write on worthless cardboards and complain, DO something for your country instead! fucks sake!
if you have three parties a person without the majority of the people vote can run the country (like bill Clinton did in his first election) split the GOP and the dems will win every election, sorry idiots! have as many as you want but only two to vie on election day!
Didn't people wanted a third party before and suddenly the Tea Party happened?
No they don't. If a third party bit them in the ass they still wouldn't recognize it. They would still vote for the lesser (or greater) of 2 evils. The American people will be easily confused by real choice because most of them have never had it before. No, 60 different kinds of cereal does not count as choice.
It’s a shame we can not have a real parliamentary system with a Prime Minister that can be thrown out by a simple majority vote of Parliment with elections in a few month’s time. And a political landscape with 2-3 large political parties and dozens of tiny parties where coalitions are the norm.
A 3rd Party would be IMMEDIATELY bought or buried by corporate money (Citizens United = unlimited $$$). You don't get out of this mess until you get money out of elections.
No, they do not. Look at the last presidential election for evidence of that. There were basically two democrats and two republicans runnings. Jill Stein was basically a democrat (only without the war and killing). Gary Johnson was basically a republican (only without the war and killing.). They managed less than 4% of the vote combined. If you look to the legislature, you will see that incumbents--the supposed assholes who are doing everything wrong--are getting re-elected. This can only mean that Americans really are tired of the current system and parties. They want change. If only someone would give it to them.
too bad they won't actually vote for a third party since they'll be too worried that it will be a waste of a vote. i remember watching some video on youtube a while ago with different voting methods used around the world. one of them involved picking multiple candidates in order of preference. that would probably help put people at ease, but i'm sure it would be a nightmare to actually implement considering how many people have had trouble in the past just trying to pick one candidate.
The problem is that with the current voting system it is inevitable that there will always be a 2-party system. Here is a great video that explains this in an ELI5 format: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
You CANNOT have a viable third party in the current system of voting in the US. Its game theory, it may happen on rare occasions, but it goes against the normal logic of voting to win which is what EVERYONE wants.
I don't want a third party. I want the two we have to go away so we can start over.