Is It Time For a Third Party?

[JQPublic1]

Why would Democrats, liberals or Progressives want a third party? Their Party has been successful twice in a row already. It's the losers who want to split thing up!

 

[Bleipriester]

Is It Time For a Third Party?

February 20, 2013
by Sean Aland

...


The Democrat Party—at one time an honorable organization—has been hijacked by leftist progressives, which is another name for American socialists. It is now the party of big government, redistribution, entitlements, equal outcome, and runaway spending; a party that ignores the Constitution and refuses to compromise. It is the far left political party. The Republican Party that used to be the small government, constitutional-conservative party has tried to get its tent so big the Party is fast becoming the Democrat light Party. The Republican Party now strives to be the party of the middle and middle left—a so-called kinder, gentler party that is more moderate, inclusive, and submissive—one that no longer represents the right.

The Tea Party, despised by both establishment Democrats and Republicans, is the new representative of conservatives. It stands for the conservative, Christian, constitutional, capitalist, small-government ideology. Simply stated the contemporary Democratic Party represents the far left, the Republican Party represents the moderate left, and the Tea Party represents real conservatives who are trying to salvage our country. Currently both parties suffer from an identity crisis with Blue Dog Democrats supporting socialism and the Republican Party abandoning its base. Since both major parties have abandoned their constituents, it may be time for Americans to abandon the elephants and asses and start a new majority party.


...


We are at a crossroads in America. Hence, it might be time to carefully examine the platforms of both major parties to deter mine what they actually stand for and represent. This might require the establishment of a third party to get the attention of the establishment, careerist politicians of the current two parties. That party could be the Tea Party. If this does not happen, perhaps it is time to adopt the European model of two major political parties, the Socialist party and the Conservative party. The progressive Democrats and RINO’s would feel more at home in a Socialist Party , and the Blue Dog Democrats and GOP conservatives that still have an ounce of character could start rebuilding a constitutional, small government, Conservative Party under the tutelage of the Tea Party Patriots.


Read more: Is It Time For a Third Party? ? Patriot Update

Socialists. Don´t overstretch that term please. What you call socialism, is still predatory capitalism to us in Europe. Not even the the current French homo-government has a whiff of socialism though they call themselves "Socialist Party".

As for the Tea Party I heard they want to limit the right to vote to landowners.

 

[midcan5]

The tea party is already a third party, they demonstrate the problem with multiple parties in that they can control legislation that is supported by a majority of Americans. No longer does majority rule matter, nor the will of the majority of people. You see that today with healthcare, taxes, gun control, and other complex issues. But I am not claiming our two parties are the best we can do, they prove their uselessness daily.

This video covers the problem with third parties well.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0pZ9LTZW1g]David Deutsch on the AV Referendum (UK) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[American_Jihad]

Is It Time For a Third Party?

February 20, 2013
by Sean Aland

...


The Democrat Party—at one time an honorable organization—has been hijacked by leftist progressives, which is another name for American socialists. It is now the party of big government, redistribution, entitlements, equal outcome, and runaway spending; a party that ignores the Constitution and refuses to compromise. It is the far left political party. The Republican Party that used to be the small government, constitutional-conservative party has tried to get its tent so big the Party is fast becoming the Democrat light Party. The Republican Party now strives to be the party of the middle and middle left—a so-called kinder, gentler party that is more moderate, inclusive, and submissive—one that no longer represents the right.

The Tea Party, despised by both establishment Democrats and Republicans, is the new representative of conservatives. It stands for the conservative, Christian, constitutional, capitalist, small-government ideology. Simply stated the contemporary Democratic Party represents the far left, the Republican Party represents the moderate left, and the Tea Party represents real conservatives who are trying to salvage our country. Currently both parties suffer from an identity crisis with Blue Dog Democrats supporting socialism and the Republican Party abandoning its base. Since both major parties have abandoned their constituents, it may be time for Americans to abandon the elephants and asses and start a new majority party.


...


We are at a crossroads in America. Hence, it might be time to carefully examine the platforms of both major parties to deter mine what they actually stand for and represent. This might require the establishment of a third party to get the attention of the establishment, careerist politicians of the current two parties. That party could be the Tea Party. If this does not happen, perhaps it is time to adopt the European model of two major political parties, the Socialist party and the Conservative party. The progressive Democrats and RINO’s would feel more at home in a Socialist Party , and the Blue Dog Democrats and GOP conservatives that still have an ounce of character could start rebuilding a constitutional, small government, Conservative Party under the tutelage of the Tea Party Patriots.


Read more: Is It Time For a Third Party? ? Patriot Update

Socialists. Don´t overstretch that term please. What you call socialism, is still predatory capitalism to us in Europe. Not even the the current French homo-government has a whiff of socialism though they call themselves "Socialist Party".

As for the Tea Party I heard they want to limit the right to vote to landowners.

adolf hitler and valerie jarrett in background

And he's anti christian, smashing the christian symbol yelling yee haw, oh my...

 

[HUGGY]

BUGGY, as usual you're full of

...

Ya ...wishing Americans become better informed is bullshit. I see your point.

BUGGY, you can't pull that liberal spin on me, You blaming Christians is the B/S, U f/n dork. You couldn't see a point if someone drove a railroad spike threw yo f/n brain...

My "Liberal Spin"??? You are a paranoid tea party pinhead that is so hard up for followers that you even hold your own children hostage in an effort to try to make your mental ilness a valid "point of view".

There should be a law against someone as stupid as yourself "homeschooling" children.

Check this out peabrain...I am not a "liberal". I am farther to the right than you are on some issues. Constantly attempting to label me a Liberal proves you don't have the mental horsepower to teach anyone anything.

You do have a willing constitchuency though...they reside in mental institutions.

 

[American_Jihad]

Ya ...wishing Americans become better informed is bullshit. I see your point.

BUGGY, you can't pull that liberal spin on me, You blaming Christians is the B/S, U f/n dork. You couldn't see a point if someone drove a railroad spike threw yo f/n brain...

My "Liberal Spin"??? You are a paranoid tea party pinhead that is so hard up for followers that you even hold your own children hostage in an effort to try to make your mental ilness a valid "point of view".

There should be a law against someone as stupid as yourself "homeschooling" children.

Check this out peabrain...I am not a "liberal". I am farther to the right than you are on some issues. Constantly attempting to label me a Liberal proves you don't have the mental horsepower to teach anyone anything.

You do have a willing constitchuency though...they reside in mental institutions.

BUGGY, you're a progressive/liberal/socialist/hack. I'M under 30 no kids and retired...

 

[flacaltenn]

A third party is for people who are too timid, lazy or ignorant to take responsibility for electing the right candidates. If you think socialism isn't coming fast enough for you than try to make the democrat party more responsive. If you want to improve the republican party than get behind the Tea Party and for Christ sake quit whining.

That's definitely true to an extent.

I am neither timid, lazy, or ignorant.. In fact, I've been working diligiently and intelligiently to END the 2 party monopoly on power in this country for a couple decades.. There is no solution by "electing the right person" Why?

Because the parties have dug in and raised barriers to entry into elected office with onerous ballot access requirements. They have carved out battle trenches where in 100s of races --- the main candidate runs unopposed by the minority party. Having only one principal opponent allows them to close shop and not waste money on "losing battles". Leaving Millions of voters with no redress. (try living in Calif as a Repub or Libertarian and you'll discover the true meaning of voter disenfranchisement).

Because there is no where to hide in DC from the wrath of your party leadership.. Oppose the 4 people who control ALL LEGISLATION in the Capitol and you'll find yourself off the committtees and running your seat from the supply cabinet with no staff.

These parties are unaccountable because once in power, they can dodge any responsibility for their actions and claim that the "other guys did it first".

It's harder to lie and consolidate power when you have more than one opponent. And you need places where ethical elected representatives can hang out and survive the tyranny of party leadership. Places where principles and the CUSTOMER still matter.

Our debates are a joke because difficult issues are ignored and NOT subjected to the light of day. Your highest offices are being won on SLOGANS and sound bites and not task lists of stuff that needs to get fixed.

Other than that --- everythings just fine with you party animals spending the majority of your lives dropping f-bombs on your "enemies" on USMB.. What a waste of bandwidth is on display here. Meanwhile, corporate welfare and stone-stupid foreign policy is propagated by BOTH of your clown parties forever. While most intelligient and informed people already agree on fixes to both of these perennial festering sores.

I sleep well knowing that the guy I voted for in 2012 was a 3 time governor with MORE street cred than either of your sorry ass actors. Lemme turn the tables here.

How's all that Rep/Dem shit working out for YOU??? --- morons..

 

[itfitzme]

Ranked voting

The US voting system is fundamentally incapable of sustaining more than two major parties. *The two parties compete for the swing vote, shifting their platform towards center as the center shifts. *

We would have to change our single choice voting system to a ranked system

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting_systerms

 

[flacaltenn]

Ranked voting

The US voting system is fundamentally incapable of sustaining more than two major parties. *The two parties compete for the swing vote, shifting their platform towards center as the center shifts. *

We would have to change our single choice voting system to a ranked system

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting_systerms

First of all this "center shifting" is a meaningless TRANSIENT, cynical ploy just to get elected. And NOT an indication of a better elected political product..

But there is NO evidence that our system can't sustain more than 2 parties. None at all.. In fact -- I told you that 100s of important elections go UNCONTESTED by the minority party in hopeless districts. SURELY -- other candidates should be able to fill those voids..

The BIG VOID that needs to be filled is in parties who will SUPPORT liberty and freedom and actually OPPOSE crap like the Patriot Act. Or who believe in proper Defense but would never use US military force UNINVITED and without a direct threat to the Homeland or an ally. Or who OPPOSE corporate welfare and are principled enough to act on it,, because they do not believe that getting elected grants them privileges of patronage for their biggest constituents...

 

[PaulieGirl]

And a fourth, and a fifth...like Europe.

 

[itfitzme]

Ranked voting

The US voting system is fundamentally incapable of sustaining more than two major parties. *The two parties compete for the swing vote, shifting their platform towards center as the center shifts. *

We would have to change our single choice voting system to a ranked system

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting_systerms

First of all this "center shifting" is a meaningless TRANSIENT, cynical ploy just to get elected. *And NOT an indication of a better elected political product..*

But there is NO evidence that our system can't sustain more than 2 parties. None at all.. In fact -- I told you that 100s of important elections go UNCONTESTED by the minority party in hopeless districts. SURELY -- other candidates should be able to fill those voids..*

The BIG VOID that needs to be filled is in parties who will SUPPORT liberty and freedom and actually OPPOSE crap like the Patriot Act. Or who believe in proper Defense but would never use US military force UNINVITED and without a direct threat to the Homeland or an ally. *Or who OPPOSE corporate welfare and are principled enough to act on it,, because they do not believe that getting elected grants them privileges of patronage for their biggest constituents...

"But there is NO evidence that our system can't sustain more than 2 parties."

Yeah, no evidence except that we only see two parties repeatedly in office. *But we wouldn't want actual historical facts getting in the way.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ranked voting

The US voting system is fundamentally incapable of sustaining more than two major parties. *The two parties compete for the swing vote, shifting their platform towards center as the center shifts. *

We would have to change our single choice voting system to a ranked system

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting_systerms

First of all this "center shifting" is a meaningless TRANSIENT, cynical ploy just to get elected. *And NOT an indication of a better elected political product..*

But there is NO evidence that our system can't sustain more than 2 parties. None at all.. In fact -- I told you that 100s of important elections go UNCONTESTED by the minority party in hopeless districts. SURELY -- other candidates should be able to fill those voids..*

The BIG VOID that needs to be filled is in parties who will SUPPORT liberty and freedom and actually OPPOSE crap like the Patriot Act. Or who believe in proper Defense but would never use US military force UNINVITED and without a direct threat to the Homeland or an ally. *Or who OPPOSE corporate welfare and are principled enough to act on it,, because they do not believe that getting elected grants them privileges of patronage for their biggest constituents...

"But there is NO evidence that our system can't sustain more than 2 parties."

Yeah, no evidence except that we only see two parties repeatedly in office. *But we wouldn't want actual historical facts getting in the way.

Ballot access rules are so rigged that 3rd parties exhaust themselves and their funding just TRYING to get on a 50 state national ballot. Fix that and the access to the public debate and see what happens.. No reason on EARTH that a party who jumps thru the 50 state ballot access hoop --- shouldn't be in the Prez debates.

In reality, the parties are ALREADY unwilling coalitions of competing groups. The Reps have their Tea Party and Country Club and stealth Libertarians -- and the Dems are constantly feuding amongst mainstream "my momma voted" Dems and the whacky Progressives with a few closet Socialists thrown in.

These factions have no where to hide from the leadership in power. It's not safe in EITHER party if you cross your leadership.. You might as well commit political suicide. They cannot find shelter in an alternate caucus -- they NEED additional parties so that they can FULLY express their views. It's not safe in EITHER party if you cross your leadership.. You might as well commit political suicide.

 

[itfitzme]

First of all this "center shifting" is a meaningless TRANSIENT, cynical ploy just to get elected. *And NOT an indication of a better elected political product..*

But there is NO evidence that our system can't sustain more than 2 parties. None at all.. In fact -- I told you that 100s of important elections go UNCONTESTED by the minority party in hopeless districts. SURELY -- other candidates should be able to fill those voids..*

The BIG VOID that needs to be filled is in parties who will SUPPORT liberty and freedom and actually OPPOSE crap like the Patriot Act. Or who believe in proper Defense but would never use US military force UNINVITED and without a direct threat to the Homeland or an ally. *Or who OPPOSE corporate welfare and are principled enough to act on it,, because they do not believe that getting elected grants them privileges of patronage for their biggest constituents...

"But there is NO evidence that our system can't sustain more than 2 parties."

Yeah, no evidence except that we only see two parties repeatedly in office. *But we wouldn't want actual historical facts getting in the way.

Ballot access rules are so rigged that 3rd parties exhaust themselves and their funding just TRYING to get on a 50 state national ballot. Fix that and the access to the public debate and see what happens.. No reason on EARTH that a party who jumps thru the 50 state ballot access hoop --- shouldn't be in the Prez debates.*

In reality, the parties are ALREADY unwilling coalitions of competing groups. The Reps have their Tea Party and Country Club and stealth Libertarians -- and the Dems are constantly feuding amongst mainstream "my momma voted" Dems and the whacky Progressives with a few closet Socialists thrown in.*

These factions have no where to hide from the leadership in power. *It's not safe in EITHER party if you cross your leadership.. You might as well commit political suicide. They cannot find shelter in an alternate caucus -- they NEED additional parties so that they can FULLY express their views. It's not safe in EITHER party if you cross your leadership.. You might as well commit political suicide.

This is interesting;

"Consumer advocate Ralph Nader ran a write-in campaign in 1992 during the New Hampshire primary for the presidential nomination of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Declaring himself the "none of the above candidate" and using the Concord Principles as his platform, Nader received 3,054 votes from Democrats and 3,258 votes from Republicans."

Write-in candidate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nadar was escorted, by police, out of the debates, once. (Actually, he agreed to leave, but it was under threat of being physically escorted)

Yeah, the current system has all sorts of issues.

I thought by ""But there is NO evidence that our system can't sustain more than 2 parties.", you meant the current system and in observation of what has occured. *I wasn't taking that to mean how it would be if it was the way it ought to be.

And yeah, it's all about shifting slightly about center to get that extra 1%.

If we really want to fix the mess, ranked voting is far more representive of the will of the voter.

----

if people would just do what Libertarians think they should do, then everyone would have more liberty.

 

[flacaltenn]

"But there is NO evidence that our system can't sustain more than 2 parties."

Yeah, no evidence except that we only see two parties repeatedly in office. *But we wouldn't want actual historical facts getting in the way.

Ballot access rules are so rigged that 3rd parties exhaust themselves and their funding just TRYING to get on a 50 state national ballot. Fix that and the access to the public debate and see what happens.. No reason on EARTH that a party who jumps thru the 50 state ballot access hoop --- shouldn't be in the Prez debates.*

In reality, the parties are ALREADY unwilling coalitions of competing groups. The Reps have their Tea Party and Country Club and stealth Libertarians -- and the Dems are constantly feuding amongst mainstream "my momma voted" Dems and the whacky Progressives with a few closet Socialists thrown in.*

These factions have no where to hide from the leadership in power. *It's not safe in EITHER party if you cross your leadership.. You might as well commit political suicide. They cannot find shelter in an alternate caucus -- they NEED additional parties so that they can FULLY express their views. It's not safe in EITHER party if you cross your leadership.. You might as well commit political suicide.

This is interesting;

"Consumer advocate Ralph Nader ran a write-in campaign in 1992 during the New Hampshire primary for the presidential nomination of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Declaring himself the "none of the above candidate" and using the Concord Principles as his platform, Nader received 3,054 votes from Democrats and 3,258 votes from Republicans."

Write-in candidate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nadar was escorted, by police, out of the debates, once. (Actually, he agreed to leave, but it was under threat of being physically escorted)

Yeah, the current system has all sorts of issues.

I thought by ""But there is NO evidence that our system can't sustain more than 2 parties.", you meant the current system and in observation of what has occured. *I wasn't taking that to mean how it would be if it was the way it ought to be.

And yeah, it's all about shifting slightly about center to get that extra 1%.

If we really want to fix the mess, ranked voting is far more representive of the will of the voter.

----

if people would just do what Libertarians think they should do, then everyone would have more liberty.

Yeah --- ranked voting is interesting. But it's a cop-out so that folks can bugger the system with putting PRACTICAL voting above conscience.

When you horse around with these wildass ideas, you get the mess you got in Cali where the final ballot only has 2 democrats on it. Because they were the top vote getters in the primaries and NO OTHER party is represented. Can you say totalitarian?

I would far prefer to have a buffet choice on the ballot.

 

[itfitzme]

Ballot access rules are so rigged that 3rd parties exhaust themselves and their funding just TRYING to get on a 50 state national ballot. Fix that and the access to the public debate and see what happens.. No reason on EARTH that a party who jumps thru the 50 state ballot access hoop --- shouldn't be in the Prez debates.*

In reality, the parties are ALREADY unwilling coalitions of competing groups. The Reps have their Tea Party and Country Club and stealth Libertarians -- and the Dems are constantly feuding amongst mainstream "my momma voted" Dems and the whacky Progressives with a few closet Socialists thrown in.*

These factions have no where to hide from the leadership in power. *It's not safe in EITHER party if you cross your leadership.. You might as well commit political suicide. They cannot find shelter in an alternate caucus -- they NEED additional parties so that they can FULLY express their views. It's not safe in EITHER party if you cross your leadership.. You might as well commit political suicide.

This is interesting;

"Consumer advocate Ralph Nader ran a write-in campaign in 1992 during the New Hampshire primary for the presidential nomination of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Declaring himself the "none of the above candidate" and using the Concord Principles as his platform, Nader received 3,054 votes from Democrats and 3,258 votes from Republicans."

Write-in candidate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nadar was escorted, by police, out of the debates, once. (Actually, he agreed to leave, but it was under threat of being physically escorted)

Yeah, the current system has all sorts of issues.

I thought by ""But there is NO evidence that our system can't sustain more than 2 parties.", you meant the current system and in observation of what has occured. *I wasn't taking that to mean how it would be if it was the way it ought to be.

And yeah, it's all about shifting slightly about center to get that extra 1%.

If we really want to fix the mess, ranked voting is far more representive of the will of the voter.

----

if people would just do what Libertarians think they should do, then everyone would have more liberty.

Yeah --- ranked voting is interesting. But it's a cop-out so that folks can bugger the system with putting PRACTICAL voting above conscience.*

When you horse around with these wildass ideas, you get the mess you got in Cali where the final ballot only has 2 democrats on it. Because they were the top vote getters in the primaries and NO OTHER party is represented. Can you say totalitarian?*

I would far prefer to have a buffet choice on the ballot.

Can we say "Berkeley, Ca"?

Yeah, cuz when people don't vote the way you think they should, it's totalitarian.

Like I say, to a Conservative, democratic freedom when everyone votes the way they are told too. To a Libertarian, it is when everyone votes the way they are SUPPOSE to.

 

[dblack]

This is interesting;

"Consumer advocate Ralph Nader ran a write-in campaign in 1992 during the New Hampshire primary for the presidential nomination of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Declaring himself the "none of the above candidate" and using the Concord Principles as his platform, Nader received 3,054 votes from Democrats and 3,258 votes from Republicans."

Write-in candidate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nadar was escorted, by police, out of the debates, once. (Actually, he agreed to leave, but it was under threat of being physically escorted)

Yeah, the current system has all sorts of issues.

I thought by ""But there is NO evidence that our system can't sustain more than 2 parties.", you meant the current system and in observation of what has occured. *I wasn't taking that to mean how it would be if it was the way it ought to be.

And yeah, it's all about shifting slightly about center to get that extra 1%.

If we really want to fix the mess, ranked voting is far more representive of the will of the voter.

----

if people would just do what Libertarians think they should do, then everyone would have more liberty.

Yeah --- ranked voting is interesting. But it's a cop-out so that folks can bugger the system with putting PRACTICAL voting above conscience.*

When you horse around with these wildass ideas, you get the mess you got in Cali where the final ballot only has 2 democrats on it. Because they were the top vote getters in the primaries and NO OTHER party is represented. Can you say totalitarian?*

I would far prefer to have a buffet choice on the ballot.

Can we say "Berkeley, Ca"?

Yeah, cuz when people don't vote the way you think they should, it's totalitarian.

Like I say, to a Conservative, democratic freedom when everyone votes the way they are told too. To a Libertarian, it is when everyone votes the way they are SUPPOSE to.

To a libertarian, it's when the rights of the minority are protected, regardless of how the majority votes.

 

[Katzndogz]

There are almost 30 political parties in the US. Things won't much improve if we have 31.

 

[ModerateGOP]

I'm fiscally conservative. Pro-choice. Pro-gay marriage. Fairly conservative on gun control. In favor of immigration reform and a path to citizenship. In favor of conservation. Want the government to control as little as possible but think most libertarians take it way too far.

Find me a party, I'll thank you later. My family has been voting for Republicans for generations, I am proud of the history of the GOP (abolishing slavery, supporting women's suffrage, pushing through the civil rights legislations despite what liberals will try to tell you), and I think fiscal issues are unbelievably more important than social issues.

Where does that leave me? As long as the Democrats remain the party that tries to build up the weak by pulling down the strong (as they have been since the 1800s), I'll be voting Republican ... no matter how many issues I have with the mentally deluded base.

 

[flacaltenn]

There are almost 30 political parties in the US. Things won't much improve if we have 31.

That's like saying democracy won when there were 67 choices on the ballot in Cali to replace Grey Davis.. Maybe...

Fact is that out of those 31 only 3 or 4 EVER ATTEMPT to candidates on a national ballot, and only 1 or 2 succeed in getting ballot access in more than a dozen states.

Don't care how many are on paper... You need to get the Dem/Rep stranglehold off of the ballot access regulations and publically funded debates. THEN -- we would have a fair test of whether there is any evidence that 2 party rule is a tenet of American democracy..

Any party that NOW jumps hoops to get on enough state ballots to reach the electoral threshold ---- OUGHT to be included in public debates..

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm fiscally conservative. Pro-choice. Pro-gay marriage. Fairly conservative on gun control. In favor of immigration reform and a path to citizenship. In favor of conservation. Want the government to control as little as possible but think most libertarians take it way too far.

Find me a party, I'll thank you later. My family has been voting for Republicans for generations, I am proud of the history of the GOP (abolishing slavery, supporting women's suffrage, pushing through the civil rights legislations despite what liberals will try to tell you), and I think fiscal issues are unbelievably more important than social issues.

Where does that leave me? As long as the Democrats remain the party that tries to build up the weak by pulling down the strong (as they have been since the 1800s), I'll be voting Republican ... no matter how many issues I have with the mentally deluded base.

Hopefully you won't have to witness the bloody carnage of an intraparty coup.. Within your own party -- there is more work being done to remove "moderates" and "extremes" than to focus on the overall health of the party. No place to hide for principles. That's the sad reality of 2 party politics..