Time for change, time for third party voting...

[FA_Q2]

If people would stop seeing politics as a team sport then yes. Unfortunately, most people want to 'win' rather than elect a leader that will actually change anything.

You're forgetting the third possibility, which is losing.

I am well aware of that possibility. Every time another republican is elected I (and the nation as I see it) looses. People continue to vote in those republicans that claim to support freedom while being diametrically opposed to it and those politicians keep running because they keep winning.

 

[Onyx]

How many people will think like this? I think if they all got the cojones to vote third party, there might actually be some real positive change in the US for once.

No.

Multi-party structures are just as cutthroat and useless. When they become successful, they attract corrupt and ambitious career politicians. Since the goal of political parties is to win elections, multi-party structures usually just end up forming into two liberal and conservative coalitions anyways.

The problem is not how people are being represented. It is an inherent flaw in the system, and a fundamental divide between civil populations in which everyone is wrong.

 

[Norman]

If people would stop seeing politics as a team sport then yes. Unfortunately, most people want to 'win' rather than elect a leader that will actually change anything.

You're forgetting the third possibility, which is losing.

I am well aware of that possibility. Every time another republican is elected I (and the nation as I see it) looses. People continue to vote in those republicans that claim to support freedom while being diametrically opposed to it and those politicians keep running because they keep winning.

The alternative is to vote for democrats who are openly against freedom... so better play the uncertain card I would say.

In the end politicians will always pander to their special interest groups. This is why I am supporting Trump, finally a candidate who isn't simply bought. Of course, the special interest conducting the buying is furious!

 

[bripat9643]

If people would stop seeing politics as a team sport then yes. Unfortunately, most people want to 'win' rather than elect a leader that will actually change anything.

You're forgetting the third possibility, which is losing.

I am well aware of that possibility. Every time another republican is elected I (and the nation as I see it) looses. People continue to vote in those republicans that claim to support freedom while being diametrically opposed to it and those politicians keep running because they keep winning.

Your belief that Democrats support freedom couldn't be more absurd. Where is the "freedom" in the 2000 page Obamacare bill? Where is the freedom in driving the coal industry out of business?

 

[Norman]

If people would stop seeing politics as a team sport then yes. Unfortunately, most people want to 'win' rather than elect a leader that will actually change anything.

You're forgetting the third possibility, which is losing.

I am well aware of that possibility. Every time another republican is elected I (and the nation as I see it) looses. People continue to vote in those republicans that claim to support freedom while being diametrically opposed to it and those politicians keep running because they keep winning.

Your belief that Democrats support freedom couldn't be more absurd. Where is the "freedom" in the 2000 page Obamacare bill? Where is the freedom in driving the coal industry out of business?

They believe in positive freedom (a bullshit term invented by them) - the freedom to sit on your ass as others serve.

 

[Onyx]

I am trying to think hard about one liberty that Democrats currently support regaining in politics....

 

[Conservative65]

If people would stop seeing politics as a team sport then yes. Unfortunately, most people want to 'win' rather than elect a leader that will actually change anything.

You're forgetting the third possibility, which is losing.

I am well aware of that possibility. Every time another republican is elected I (and the nation as I see it) looses. People continue to vote in those republicans that claim to support freedom while being diametrically opposed to it and those politicians keep running because they keep winning.

It gets less tight?

 

[my2¢]

Time for 3rd part? I'd prefer to go in the opposite direction. I'd reduce any advantage that political parties have in the system and have a non-partisan open primary in September or October where if any candidate gets over 50% of the vote he/she wins, otherwise the top 2 finishers have a run-off election in November.

 

[Onyx]

I am trying to think hard about one liberty that Democrats currently support regaining in politics....

Oh, got it.

Euthanasia.

 

[Onyx]

Time for 3rd part? I'd prefer to go in the opposite direction. I'd reduce any advantage that political parties have in the system and have a non-partisan open primary in September or October where if any candidate gets over 50% of the vote he/she wins, otherwise the top 2 finishers have a run-off election in November.

In other words, forcing an end to free assembly and affiliation in the political system.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How many people will think like this? I think if they all got the cojones to vote third party, there might actually be some real positive change in the US for once.

No.

Multi-party structures are just as cutthroat and useless. When they become successful, they attract corrupt and ambitious career politicians. Since the goal of political parties is to win elections, multi-party structures usually just end up forming into two liberal and conservative coalitions anyways.

The problem is not how people are being represented. It is an inherent flaw in the system, and a fundamental divide between civil populations in which everyone is wrong.

I disagree. Having seen multi-party politics.

The first reason why I disagree is that multiparty politics gives people choice. Right now people have two choices. Go to Germany and they have six or more. Right now they made the choice to have very few parties, well that's because they have a 5% cut off and two parties got to within 0.3% of that but didn't get seats.

The second reason is that if you have multiple parties, they're interested in taking down others. In the US the Republicans and Democrats fight it out, but there's no interest in making the other disappear. They have what they know.

In the UK UKIP have risen up, the Lib Dems were in junior govt. In Germany the CDU/CSU and SPD are the main parties but will form coalitions with the FPD or the Greens. This means that people who vote for lower parties may actually get their policies through, meaning more democracy, not less.

In the US the politics are based around those that the main parties declare are important. That's why they hate Trump, because they don't know what they'll get. In fact I doubt Trump even knows, one day it's contradictory to the previous.

If you ACTUALLY look at politics in other countries, you'll see that where there are more parties, politics is healthier.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Time for 3rd part? I'd prefer to go in the opposite direction. I'd reduce any advantage that political parties have in the system and have a non-partisan open primary in September or October where if any candidate gets over 50% of the vote he/she wins, otherwise the top 2 finishers have a run-off election in November.

And does it work? Some legislatures have non-partisan politics, and yet the politicians aren't necessarily partisan, are they?

 

[Onyx]

The first reason why I disagree is that multiparty politics gives people choice. Right now people have two choices. Go to Germany and they have six or more. Right now they made the choice to have very few parties, well that's because they have a 5% cut off and two parties got to within 0.3% of that but didn't get seats.

Two choices still exist.

No matter who you vote for, you are deciding for a liberal or conservative coalition. It works that way in Germany too.

The ruling coalition is called the government, while the coalition not in power is known as the opposition. If you refuse to join a coalition, then you get butchered during elections.

In the UK UKIP have risen up, the Lib Dems were in junior govt. In Germany the CDU/CSU and SPD are the main parties but will form coalitions with the FPD or the Greens. This means that people who vote for lower parties may actually get their policies through, meaning more democracy, not less.

Some political parties in coalitions swing, which makes the major parties accountable to make promises. These are mostly single issue parties.

Those promises are empty though unless there is already majority consolidation, like is already the case in the US two party system.

Often minor parties are irrelevant too, because if their ideas become of any significance, they just become adopted by the primary political factions.

If you ACTUALLY look at politics in other countries, you'll see that where there are more parties, politics is healthier.

The countries you referenced, Germany and the UK, are just as disenfranchised and upset. Both were actually already on the path to implosion before the US 2016 election, and still are.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The first reason why I disagree is that multiparty politics gives people choice. Right now people have two choices. Go to Germany and they have six or more. Right now they made the choice to have very few parties, well that's because they have a 5% cut off and two parties got to within 0.3% of that but didn't get seats.

Two choices still exist.

No matter who you vote for, you are deciding for a liberal or conservative coalition. It works that way in Germany too.

The ruling coalition is called the government, while the coalition not in power is known as the opposition. If you refuse to join a coalition, then you get butchered during elections.

In the UK UKIP have risen up, the Lib Dems were in junior govt. In Germany the CDU/CSU and SPD are the main parties but will form coalitions with the FPD or the Greens. This means that people who vote for lower parties may actually get their policies through, meaning more democracy, not less.

Some political parties in coalitions swing, which makes the major parties accountable to make promises. These are mostly single issue parties.

Those promises are empty though unless there is already majority consolidation, like is already the case in the US two party system.

Often minor parties are irrelevant too, because if their ideas become of any significance, they just become adopted by the primary political factions.

If you ACTUALLY look at politics in other countries, you'll see that where there are more parties, politics is healthier.

The countries you referenced, Germany and the UK, are just as disenfranchised and upset. Both were actually already on the path to implosion before the US 2016 election, and still are.

Maybe you are. However liberal and conservative have many different levels. Imagine if the Republicans were forced to deal with the Libertarians. All of a sudden they have to be nice to people, they have to cooperate, bad things don't get passed, etc etc.

Also, Germany has had grand coalitions where the SPD and CDU have had to join forces and work for the country, rather than just be lousy politicians.

Maybe the people aren't happy, but that's because people are generally miserable fuckers with miserable lives and want to moan. Studying West German politics through from WW2 to today, it's interesting that people like Willy Brand were always on the brink of failure because people didn't like them, yet the politics they served up were so much better than the politics in some other countries. They were successful because they were always on a knife edge, always responsible for their actions, always having to consider the people.

In the US it simply isn't like this, the two main parties play the games and know, like the NFL, that there's no relegation.

 

[Onyx]

Maybe you are. However liberal and conservative have many different levels. Imagine if the Republicans were forced to deal with the Libertarians. All of a sudden they have to be nice to people, they have to cooperate, bad things don't get passed, etc etc.

They already are forced to deal with independent citizens and alternative ideologies.

In the past, minor parties and single issue parties have had their agendas adopted and assimilated into the platform of the American major parties.

Also, in reference to my disdain for politics, a larger political platform means more ways politicians will attempt to control Americans.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Maybe you are. However liberal and conservative have many different levels. Imagine if the Republicans were forced to deal with the Libertarians. All of a sudden they have to be nice to people, they have to cooperate, bad things don't get passed, etc etc.

They already are forced to deal with independent citizens and alternative ideologies.

In the past, minor parties and single issue parties have had their agendas adopted and assimilated into the platform of the American major parties.

Also, in reference to my disdain for politics, a larger political platform means more ways politicians will attempt to control Americans.

Sometimes these issues get in to the main parties' agendas, but not much in the US.

Which Green Party has had the most success with its policies, the Green Party of Germany or the Green Party of the US?

I mean Green issues are almost a non-starter in the US.

This is about 25% of Germany energy

The US is on 8%

That's the difference having a Green Party getting into junior government.

The same could be said for other issues. German politics is far more about the people than the US, which is why the people are going crazy about the refugee crisis, because all of a sudden they feel like the politicians aren't listening, when they expect them to.

 

[Onyx]

The same could be said for other issues. German politics is far more about the people than the US, which is why the people are going crazy about the refugee crisis, because all of a sudden they feel like the politicians aren't listening, when they expect them to.

All politics are anti-people.

Politics are the clashing of various agendas on how best to systematically control the population.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The same could be said for other issues. German politics is far more about the people than the US, which is why the people are going crazy about the refugee crisis, because all of a sudden they feel like the politicians aren't listening, when they expect them to.

All politics are anti-people.

Politics are the clashing of various agendas on how best to systematically control the population.

I disagree. Those who rise to the top are often anti-people, but there are many who aren't. Also some countries manage to be better for the people than most others.

 

[Onyx]

I disagree. Those who rise to the top are often anti-people, but there are many who aren't. Also some countries manage to be better for the people than most others.

1 in 10000 in reference to having both good and honest intentions.

I do not have factual evidence for that statistic, but it seems to fit the bill.

What I do know as a fact, is that systematic control by the political majority is not "for the people!"

 

[frigidweirdo]

I disagree. Those who rise to the top are often anti-people, but there are many who aren't. Also some countries manage to be better for the people than most others.

1 in 10000 in reference to having both good and honest intentions.

I do not have factual evidence for that statistic, but it seems to fit the bill.

What I do know as a fact, is that systematic control by the political majority is not "for the people!"

I disagree. If you've seen local politicians, some are little Hitlers, but many are good people who want to do good. I've met national politicians and some of them were good guys trying to do what was good for the country and their community.

Problem is some of them get scared away from politics by those who are aggressive, others don't get heard because they're not aggressive.

Same on this forum. Many people on here are extremely aggressive. They start each post with an attack on the poster just to give themselves some semblance of supposed power, and it's ridiculous.