Time for a third party?

[Divine Wind]

Independent ≠ Libertarian. I am Independent.

Correct, but doesn't declaring yourself an Independent signify neither the DNC nor the RNC represents your interests?

 

[Disir]

Independent ≠ Libertarian. I am Independent.

Correct, but doesn't declaring yourself an Independent signify neither the DNC nor the RNC represents your interests?

Are you sure you have read my posts?

 

[kaz]

Independent ≠ Libertarian. I am Independent.

Correct, but doesn't declaring yourself an Independent signify neither the DNC nor the RNC represents your interests?

Are you sure you have read my posts?

I have, and you're right. The DNC clearly does represent your interests

 

[Desperado]

there are many political parties in the US
List of political parties in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pick one to your liking and support it

 

[Divine Wind]

a third party will solve nothing. Work with what you have and make that work for you.

Disagreed. I've voted for the "lesser of two evils" several times and it solved nothing. In fact, things got worse. Now we're left with two of the most controversial and hated candidates in modern history. Which one are you voting for? Do you really support them or, like many others, are you really just voting against the other candidate?

Sorry, but as kaz just pointed out, it's crazy to keep doing the same thing expecting a different result. I can't bring myself to vote for either Clinton nor Trump. I also am a strong advocate of voting as a civic duty. Ergo, I'm voting for the candidate who best represents our nation's interests. In this case, it will probably be Gary Johnson or whomever the LP selects as their nominee. Sure, you may get your choice of Hillary or the Donald, but I can't hold my nose and vote for either of them.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ibertarians-big-third-party-run-guns-weed-and
AS THE likely presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, Gary Johnson has a lot to be modest about; and he is. “Everybody I meet seems to like me,” says the two-term former Republican governor of New Mexico. “But I’m a Libertarian, so doesn’t that denote there are some loose screws out there?” He leaves the question hanging.

Tiny, electorally trifling and obsessed with guns and weed, cherished emblems of its 11,000 members’ freedom, the party has never mattered in national politics. It is by some measures America’s third-biggest—yet not flattered by that comparison. In 2012 Mitt Romney crashed to defeat with 61m votes; Mr Johnson, who ran for the Libertarians after failing to be noticed in the Republican primaries, won 1.3m. Yet he could be about to improve on that.

Mr Johnson and his running-mate, Bill Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts, are expected to emerge from the Libertarians’ convention in Orlando on 30th May with the party’s ticket. If so, he could feasibly launch the biggest third-party run since Ralph Nader won almost 3% of the vote for the Green Party in 2000—including 100,000 votes in Florida that may have cost Al Gore the presidency. Or he could do better; a poll by Monmouth University put Mr Johnson on 11% in a three-way race with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. That was especially creditable given how little he is known; he figured in almost no national polls in 2012. It has encouraged Mr Johnson to think he could register the 15% vote-share that would guarantee him inclusion in this year’s televised debates.

With publicity, he could catch on. He has the accomplishments of a chest-beating conservative hero—he is a self-made millionaire, triathlete and razor-beaked deficit hawk; he vetoed 750 spending bills in New Mexico. He is also a sometime dope smoker (he resparked his youthful habit in 2005 to manage the pain from a paragliding accident), who comes across as almost goofily unaffected. He speaks in horror of the disdain many Americans show for Mexican immigrants—whom he calls “the cream of the crop”—as if it were borne of some crazy misunderstanding, rather than embedded nativist resentment and economic anxiety. Voters sick of political polish might like the mix: he really is authentic. Yet Mr Johnson’s main cause for hope is the unpopularity of the likely Republican and Democratic alternatives.

Around 60% of voters dislike Donald Trump and 55% Hillary Clinton. That should encourage more Americans to vote as freely of the old duopoly as they increasingly claim to be; 42% say they are independent voters, up from 30% a decade ago. And the Libertarians’ voguish message of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism and anti-interventionism has something for the disaffected of both big parties. Compared with a straightforward Trump-Clinton match-up, the Monmouth poll suggested Mr Johnson could take 6% of the vote from Mrs Clinton and 4% from Mr Trump.

The particular unease of many Republicans with their presumptive candidate—along with their failure hitherto to launch a conservative rival to him—explains a surge of interest in the Libertarian confab in Orlando. After Mr Trump sewed up their nomination in Indiana this month, Google reported a 5,000-fold increase in online searches for Mr Johnson. He is not to all Republican tastes; Mr Trump’s most outspoken critics in the party tend to hold neoconservative views on security. Yet even they hope he might bring disenchanted Republicans to the polls in November, and thereby retain their support for Republican candidates in the coterminous congressional contests.

Mr Johnson rejects Mr Trump utterly: “There’s nothing about Donald Trump that appeals to me.” Yet he sounds most hopeful of picking up support from disaffected Democrats, especially followers of Senator Bernie Sanders, whom he says he agrees with on almost everything—including the evil of crony capitalism and virtues of pot—except the economy. Yet how would he woo them?

Mr Johnson’s suggestion is unconventional. On the basis that, he argues, with some support from surveys, Americans are more libertarian than they know, he would point them to an online quiz, “Isidewith.com”, to help them work out where they stand. “I say, “Take the quiz, and whoever you pair up with, I think you should knock yourself out over them.” His own experience with the quiz, he sweetly relates, suggest he agrees with 73% of Mr Sanders’s proposals, 63% of Mrs Clinton’s and 57% of Mr Trump’s

 

[Disir]

Independent ≠ Libertarian. I am Independent.

Correct, but doesn't declaring yourself an Independent signify neither the DNC nor the RNC represents your interests?

Are you sure you have read my posts?

I have, and you're right. The DNC clearly does represent your interests

They do not and you have not.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What would and who would a 3rd party represent?

Would it be conservative or liberal, reactionary or progressive?

Would it support the will of the people, and be guided by referendums to decide wedge issues (abortion, gun control, tax policy, liberty issues on religion vis a vis the rights of minority populations).

Would such a party support free markets or regulated markets?

Would it support established industries and eschew new technologies?

Would it support a textual interpretation of the Constitution, or recognize the 21st century is greatly different than the 18th?

Would it close our borders and be a by-stander on the world stage, or seek power and control over the policies of other foreign nations?

Would it be fiscally conservative, fiscally responsible or spend like a drunk Marine?

The most obvious third party would be Republicans who are sick of abortion and social issues and Democrats who are sick of out of control spending

Removing the Social Conservatives from the Republican Party will effectively make the R Party a minority party and put the D's in power for years to come. Social conservatives control the vote in Red States, removing them from the R Party will hand over to the D's the electoral college.

Out of control spending is too subjective a phrase, a third party would be wise to set economic policy to responsively take care of what needs to be done, and eschew things (such as unnecessary wars and corporate welfare) which do noting for the many and continue to enrich the few.

A third or fourth or greater number of parties may work in a Parliamentary system, where coalitions control policy and who is the executive (the Prime Minister); in our system chaos would reign (any doubt, consider the chaos the Tea Party has had on governance).

I think there are more liberals who think we're spending too much than you think there are. They have just been coralled by the Democrats and their endless they are worse message.

And I didn't say the socons would leave the Republican party, I said non-socons would to join the third party.

I would still be left without a party, I was just logically saying in our system non-socon Republicans and more fiscally conservative Democrats would be the obvious third party

Mea culpa, the socons (first time I've read that contraction) would not leave the R Party (my post was wrong). In effect, staying with the R's will still religate the R Party to a minority one, and bring chaos to local and state elections too (IMO). We have too many single issue voters which makes for an interesting mix if most of them feel the two viable choices do not effectively meet their wants and needs.

 

[mikegriffith1]

We finally, finally, finally have a real chance to elect a non-politician. Let's give that a shot. If that doesn't pan out, then we can talk about a third party. Now is not the time to be talking third party. Trump is more conservative than McCain or Romney was. When the alternative is Hillary, it is nuts to be talking about a third party.

 

[Divine Wind]

Are you sure you have read my posts?

On this thread? Yes. Elsewhere, I don't recall. Are you a staunch supporter of either the DNC or RNC?

 

[ChrisL]

I thought the Tea Party was supposed to cure all the right winger's ills

Until it was infiltrated by the religious right.

 

[Divine Wind]

The poll below shows many Americans, like myself, feel that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent our interests. Is it time for a third party? I say yes....and so do many other Americans.

Americans Continue to Say a Third Political Party Is Needed
A majority of U.S. adults, 58%, say a third U.S. political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic parties "do such a poor job" representing the American people. These views are little changed from last year's high. Since 2007, a majority has typically called for a third party.

Have you checked out the Libertarians? I don't know anything about them, yet, but I aim to find out. Supposedly fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Yes, I've read their platform and agree with it, although in some cases, like in many things, the problem isn't the position, but in the details: Platform

https://www.lp.org/files/2014_LP_Platform.pdf

 

[OldLady]

Whole lotta people don't like the libertarian party.

Why? Because they are content to let the Democratic or Republican Party do their speaking for them or because they know a third party won't win so they simply choose the lesser of two evils?

No. Because of their platform.

If that is true, then why do you think the ranks of the Independents have grown to the point it's larger than either the Republicans or Democrats?

Democratic, Republican Identification Near Historical Lows
In 2015, for the fifth consecutive year, at least four in 10 U.S. adults identified as political independents. The 42% identifying as independents in 2015 was down slightly from the record 43% in 2014. This elevated percentage of political independents leaves Democratic (29%) and Republican (26%) identification at or near recent low points, with the modest Democratic advantage roughly where it has been over the past five years.

Party Affiliation

I've been an independent for over 40 years, and I'll tell you why. Canned answers from an organized "party platform" don't cut it; they rarely fit right. I could care less what party a candidate is from and imo neither should anyone else. People should choose the best person with the views they agree with to represent them. I am not at all sure the primaries would have gone the way they have if Independents had a free hand to vote in them. There are a lot of independents and we'll see if the election is as predictable as the pundits think.

 

[Divine Wind]

I thought the Tea Party was supposed to cure all the right winger's ills

Until it was infiltrated by the religious right.

Agreed. Although all Americans, regardless of religious beliefs, have equal rights under the law, to shove religion down the throats of others is wrong. Our Founders intentionally made our government secular so as not to get bogged down in religious arguments no one could win except by force as the Euros did....and do.

 

[ChrisL]

The poll below shows many Americans, like myself, feel that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent our interests. Is it time for a third party? I say yes....and so do many other Americans.

Americans Continue to Say a Third Political Party Is Needed
A majority of U.S. adults, 58%, say a third U.S. political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic parties "do such a poor job" representing the American people. These views are little changed from last year's high. Since 2007, a majority has typically called for a third party.

Have you checked out the Libertarians? I don't know anything about them, yet, but I aim to find out. Supposedly fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Yes, I've read their platform and agree with it, although in some cases, like in many things, the problem isn't the position, but in the details: Platform

https://www.lp.org/files/2014_LP_Platform.pdf

Here is one of those tests that allows you to figure out your party affiliations. Might be interesting. Whenever I take one of these tests, I always fall under the centrist/moderate category.

How Republican vs Democrat are you?

 

[Divine Wind]

I've been an independent for over 40 years, and I'll tell you why. Canned answers from an organized "party platform" don't cut it; they rarely fit right. I could care less what party a candidate is from and imo neither should anyone else. People should choose the best person with the views they agree with to represent them. I am not at all sure the primaries would have gone the way they have if Independents had a free hand to vote in them. There are a lot of independents and we'll see if the election is as predictable as the pundits think.

Shouldn't political parties have a right to choose their own candidates?

If changes need to be made, then why not make it in election reform? Such as how candidates collect and spend money. The length of the election season. The winner-take all aspect of voting.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Easy with the third party Divine.Wind LOL....easy

First things first....

Let Mr Trump become President first (and he will)

After that ... whatever will be, will be!

Exactly. Just this once let's try a non-politician, who has backed tax cuts, deregulation, school choice, tougher border security, more drilling, and right-to-work laws all his adult life. Then, in the unlikely event that that doesn't work out, it will be time to consider other options.

 

[ChrisL]

Here are my results. Lol.

I side with Kevin on most 2016 Presidential Election issues
Candidates you side with...
97%


Kevin McCormick Libertarian
on social, healthcare, environmental, immigration, domestic policy, criminal, foreign policy, economic, electoral, and science issues.
compare answers

83%


Austin Petersen Libertarian
on healthcare, immigration, domestic policy, environmental, electoral, and science issues.
compare answers

83%


Marc Allan Feldman Libertarian
on environmental, healthcare, immigration, criminal, social, and science issues.
compare answers

81%


Shawna Sterling Libertarian
on healthcare, immigration, domestic policy, criminal, and electoral issues.
compare answers

80%


Gary Johnson Libertarian
on environmental, social, healthcare, and immigration issues.
compare answers

77%


Donald Trump Republican
on immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, electoral, and science issues.
compare answers

70%


Bernie Sanders Democratic
on social, economic, education, and criminal issues.
compare answers

59%


Hillary Clinton Democratic
on social, economic, and criminal issues.
compare answers

 

[ChrisL]

Yuck, I hate that they included the front runners in my results.

 

[skye]

Easy with the third party Divine.Wind LOL....easy

First things first....

Let Mr Trump become President first (and he will)

After that ... whatever will be, will be!

Exactly. Just this once let's try a non-politician, who has backed tax cuts, deregulation, school choice, tougher border security, more drilling, and right-to-work laws all his adult life. Then, in the unlikely event that that doesn't work out, it will be time to consider other options.

Totally agree with you!

 

[kaz]

Independent ≠ Libertarian. I am Independent.

Correct, but doesn't declaring yourself an Independent signify neither the DNC nor the RNC represents your interests?

Are you sure you have read my posts?

I have, and you're right. The DNC clearly does represent your interests

They do not and you have not.

Like when? I never see you do anything but support them