I Think This Qualifies As Pissed and I Agree With Him

[Diuretic]

I sometimes surprise myself! I don't call myself a "leftie" but I do argue like blazes with those from the "right". I used to have a friend who was an ex-Trotskyist (he moved interstate) and we used to have some very interesting discussions.

 

[Dr Grump]

Diuretic

You and I are pretty much cut from the same cloth re politics...

 

[musicman]

I think I must be a part of the liberal mob although I hate labelling and being labelled. However it appears that I am. Anyway do post Kathy Sue, you won't have your head bitten off for expressing an opinion, I hope.

WHAT THE HELL KIND OF POST IS THAT!!??

Just pulling your leg, Diuretic. I couldn't resist an opportunity like that!

 

[Diuretic]

WHAT THE HELL KIND OF POST IS THAT!!??

Just pulling your leg, Diuretic. I couldn't resist an opportunity like that!

I stepped right out of line - I need

 

[musicman]

I stepped right out of line - I need

 

[Adam's Apple]

Since the country is really divided into liberals and conservatives, maybe what we really need is a Liberal Party and a Conservative Party. Neither the Democrat Party nor the Republican Party is currently serving their established constituencies. I think where we are right now--people's great dissatisfaction with both parties--would support the development of another national party. Even if the third-party candidates didn't win election, it would send a strong message to both parties that we're not going to put up with the status quo in Washington.

 

[Gunny]

Since the country is really divided into liberals and conservatives, maybe what we really need is a Liberal Party and a Conservative Party. Neither the Democrat Party nor the Republican Party is currently serving their established constituencies. I think where we are right now--people's great dissatisfaction with both parties--would support the development of another national party. Even if the third-party candidates didn't win election, it would send a strong message to both parties that we're not going to put up with the status quo in Washington.

Great idea; however, the two-party bureaucracy monopolize politics at the National level. It's virtually impossible for a third party to get its fair share, and/or compete with the established two.

A third party President wouldn't matter much anyway. Congress would oppose his/her every move.

 

[Adam's Apple]

It's sad but true that the two-party system does monopolize at the national level, and today neither party is representing their base constituencies. If there were a Liberal Party and a Conservative Party in place, then at least Ted Kennedy and Lincoln Chafee could belong to the same party. :tng:

I do understand what you’re saying, Gunny, and I agree that our current system is too ingrained to ever be changed easily, not to mention the tons and tons of money that would have to be poured into the effort. To get an effective third party up and running, it would take lots of people willing to commit their time and financial resources to a losing cause for a number of years, with the realization up front that their efforts may never come to fruition. What a bummer to be hopeless on something that is so much needed today.

 

[Diuretic]

Non-partisan question coming up.

How easy is it for someone who is independent of either the Democratic Party or the GOP and not involved with any other organised party (eg Libertarian) to get elected to Congress? And I don't mean someone like Donald Trump. I mean someone who is just an ordinary person without a lot of money to back them?

Is it possible?

 

[Adam's Apple]

No disrespect intended, Diuretic, but if you lived in America, you would not even have to ask that question. Money--lots and lots of it--is the name of the game.

 

[Diuretic]

No disrespect intended, Diuretic, but if you lived in America, you would not even have to ask that question. Money--lots and lots of it--is the name of the game.

I thought it might seem a bit naieve AA - but heck I had to ask. But I appreciate the answer, it clarifies something for me. The American political system has a party system that is far looser in discipline than in my country (which follows the Westminster model in its parliament). Our political parties are very highly disciplined. You would never see a bill being proposed by the member of one party and seconded or supported by the member of another party. I won't go on about it because it will derail the thread.

My point is that even someone who is an ordinary person without wealth can be elected to parliament IF they become a member of one of our main political parties. The party will stump up the money (not millions, more like thousands) BUT they have to sign up to the party platform if they do and if they stray (ie vote against their party) they will boot that person at the next election.

That's real party power and although we like to accuse our main politlcal parties of being Tweedledee and Tweedledum they are far more different from one another than the Democratic Party and the GOP.

Not saying it's better - in many ways party discipline works against the common interest - just that's how it works in practice here.

 

[CSM]

There is no doubt that I am one of the more conservative members of this little posting community; HOWEVER I am not very happy with the current administration. There are just too many issues that they could and should act on but wont. Most notably the immigration issue is driving me crazy lately. The Dems obsession with bashing Bush and not proposing any solutions with real substance also drives me crazy. Our dependence of foriegn energy sources, intelligence vs privacy issues, the judicial system and our foreign policy (especially regarding third world countries) all drive me nuts. The UN, while often a source of humor, aggravates the heck out of me too.

Third party sounds great to me. If the current system is too entrenched then I say let the revolution begin! Send money and guns!

 

[5stringJeff]

I thought it might seem a bit naieve AA - but heck I had to ask. But I appreciate the answer, it clarifies something for me. The American political system has a party system that is far looser in discipline than in my country (which follows the Westminster model in its parliament). Our political parties are very highly disciplined. You would never see a bill being proposed by the member of one party and seconded or supported by the member of another party. I won't go on about it because it will derail the thread.

My point is that even someone who is an ordinary person without wealth can be elected to parliament IF they become a member of one of our main political parties. The party will stump up the money (not millions, more like thousands) BUT they have to sign up to the party platform if they do and if they stray (ie vote against their party) they will boot that person at the next election.

That's real party power and although we like to accuse our main politlcal parties of being Tweedledee and Tweedledum they are far more different from one another than the Democratic Party and the GOP.

Not saying it's better - in many ways party discipline works against the common interest - just that's how it works in practice here.

To answer your question, regular Joe independents get elected on a local level quite often. However, as the positions go from local to state to federal, the chances of a no-name independent getting elected falls dramatically.

 

[musicman]

These are all excellent points, but I think it important to add that third parties can certainly have an EFFECT on national elections. In '68, a vote for George Wallace was most assuredly a vote for Richard Nixon, as was a vote for Perot in '92 a vote for Bill Clinton. I think the Democrats are smacking their lips at the prospect of an independent siphoning off the votes of angry conservatives; it is the left's only realistic hope for regaining power (in the short run, at any rate).

The Republicans, of course, are too stupid - or arrogant - to see this.

 

[ErikViking]

.
.
.
The Dems obsession with bashing Bush and not proposing any solutions with real substance also drives me crazy
.
.
.

I would probably be a Democrat if I were American. But here I'm not, and "my side" is the oppostion. And I think it is quite the same here. The oppostion "my side" do 80% complaining about what is being done and 20% totally unrealistic or vote fishing like proposals. Maybe opposition is a good term. It mainly opposes. Just a thought of mine.