CDZ More than just two viable parties?

[Bernhard]

With all the division in America these days, and the polarization between the two parties, what would you think of having more viable parties to choose from?

Several other Western countries have multi-party systems, and more than just two parties play a role. It's different, but it works.

What do you think?

What would a party have to look like, for you to support it over Dems or Reps?

 

[mamooth]

Republicans and libertarians -- essentially the same thing -- don't want more than two viable parties. They demonstrate that by attacking any election funding reform so viciously.

Democrats are fine with the idea of reform. Specifically, publicly-funded elections. You know, the system used in some form by every other western democracy, none of which have dissolved into totalitarianism. You can't have a viable third party without funding, and you can't get funding unless the system is reformed.

 

[Moonglow]

A party that didn't represent the corporates view of govt. control. and consumer suppression.

 

[progressive hunter]

With all the division in America these days, and the polarization between the two parties, what would you think of having more viable parties to choose from?

Several other Western countries have multi-party systems, and more than just two parties play a role. It's different, but it works.

What do you think?

What would a party have to look like, for you to support it over Dems or Reps?

the problem is the partys and having more will just compound the problem,, they are what divides us,,

what needs done is to remove any sign of partys at the federal level including on any ballot or congressional record,,,

 

[Bernhard]

Republicans and libertarians -- essentially the same thing -- don't want more than two viable parties. They demonstrate that by attacking any election funding reform so viciously.

Democrats are fine with the idea of reform. Specifically, publicly-funded elections. You know, the system used in some form by every other western democracy, none of which have dissolved into totalitarianism. You can't have a viable third party without funding, and you can't get funding unless the system is reformed.

Sounds good. I'm all for public campaign funding. Works pretty well over here. That way, you make parties more independent from big money.

But I'm not so sure Democrats are really interested in a reform, either. Looks to me that both big parties are profiting quite a lot from how things are now.

 

[Kilroy2]

The issue will still be at some point that parties have to join together to defeat the other party. Whether it is electoral college or who gets the most individual votes. Polls show that at least 40 percent of votes at the national level will vote for one candidate that they do not really support that much but is just a vote against the other candidate.

Bernie Sanders has followers. IF they voted for the eventually democrat nominee during the main election it is more because they are voting against the republican candidate. The same can be said on the other Rep side.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Republicans and libertarians -- essentially the same thing -- don't want more than two viable parties. They demonstrate that by attacking any election funding reform so viciously.

Democrats are fine with the idea of reform. Specifically, publicly-funded elections. You know, the system used in some form by every other western democracy, none of which have dissolved into totalitarianism. You can't have a viable third party without funding, and you can't get funding unless the system is reformed.

Sounds good. I'm all for public campaign funding. Works pretty well over here. That way, you make parties more independent from big money.

But I'm not so sure Democrats are really interested in a reform, either. Looks to me that both big parties are profiting quite a lot from how things are now.

Profiting from? Would the Democratic Party prosper (and by that I mean win elections) if they didn't seek donations?

Who profits? Television Networks and AM radio stations, corporations, industries and grifters. The biggest grifter is Donald Trump.

 

[Bernhard]

The issue will still be at some point that parties have to join together to defeat the other party. Whether it is electoral college or who gets the most individual votes. Polls show that at least 40 percent of votes on the national level for one candidate that they do not really support that much is just a vote against the other candidate.

Bernie Sanders has followers. IF they vote for the eventually democrat nominee during the main election it is more because they are voting against the republican candidate. The same can be said on the other Rep side.

That's basically how it works in Germany ... we have a moderate left party, a far-left party and a green party, and on the other side a moderate right, a far-right party and a moderately libertarian one.

Since none of these parties hardly ever wins 50% of the seats alone, they have to form "coalitions". But it's not always parties from either side cooperating. The far-right and far-left have been considered too far out there by the moderates most of the time, so for the past 8 years, we had a coalition of moderate right and moderate left party.

 

[Kilroy2]

Q. What ideology does this retired Police Capt. adhere to?


A. Trumpism, and that party is not viable in America.

Ex-Cop Charged After Allegedly Attacking Repairman He Suspected In Election Fraud Plot

Former Houston Police Capt. Mark Aguirre allegedly held the man at gunpoint and accused him of carrying fraudulent ballots in his truck. No ballots were found.

www.yahoo.com

Wow that was a crazy story. It shows that people really are taking politics to seriously. it also highlights how those in the spot light should be careful what they say because there have always been people with loose screws. Having someone they are infatuated with say something that they will misinterpret can lead to situations like the one you posted. Luckily no one was killed but one guy who was a policeman has just ruined his life.

 

[Natural Citizen]

With all the division in America these days, and the polarization between the two parties, what would you think of having more viable parties to choose from?

Several other Western countries have multi-party systems, and more than just two parties play a role. It's different, but it works.

What do you think?

What would a party have to look like, for you to support it over Dems or Reps?

The American electorate itself is actually where the most reform is needed. Seriously. In fact, the American electorate as a collective is likely one of the least informed of all nations. In many cases they don't even understand the country's fundamental form of government. It's bad. Almost reality tv...ish. Political football is a fitting term. Our elections are measured with a blue helmet vs red helmet mindset, yet both color helmets are playing on the same team. Democracy has long been weaponized in America. The politicians thrive on the electorate's eagerness to view our elections in those terms. I take no satisfaction in saying that. It's pathetic, in fact. But it is the truth. The problem is compounded by a strong sense of entitlement, a strong willingess to simply be led and a constant erosion of virtue in American society, from which the worst of the worst rise and seek office.

 

[Bernhard]

With all the division in America these days, and the polarization between the two parties, what would you think of having more viable parties to choose from?

Several other Western countries have multi-party systems, and more than just two parties play a role. It's different, but it works.

What do you think?

What would a party have to look like, for you to support it over Dems or Reps?

The American electorate itself is actually where the most reform is needed. Seriously. In fact, the American electorate is likely one of the least informed of all nations. In many cases they don't even understand the country's fundamental form of government. It's bad. Almost reality tv...ish. I take no satisfaction in saying that. It's pathetic, in fact. But it is the truth. The problem is compounded by a strong sense of entitlement, a strong willingess to simply be led and a constant erosion of virtue in American society, from which the worst of the worst rise and seek office.

Guess it's always a problem in any constitutional republic ... you'll always have a share of the electorate not being sufficiently informed or educated. And demagogues can take advantage of that ... and such a republic is based on the hope that those who pander to the people are responsible.

But ... if the system is different, and presents more than just two options? And if the system forces the parties to cooperate, rather than obstruct each other? Hope is this spills down on the voters...

 

[Kilroy2]

The issue will still be at some point that parties have to join together to defeat the other party. Whether it is electoral college or who gets the most individual votes. Polls show that at least 40 percent of votes on the national level for one candidate that they do not really support that much is just a vote against the other candidate.

Bernie Sanders has followers. IF they vote for the eventually democrat nominee during the main election it is more because they are voting against the republican candidate. The same can be said on the other Rep side.

That's basically how it works in Germany ... we have a moderate left party, a far-left party and a green party, and on the other side a moderate right, a far-right party and a moderately libertarian one.

Since none of these parties hardly ever wins 50% of the seats alone, they have to form "coalitions". But it's not always parties from either side cooperating. The far-right and far-left have been considered too far out there by the moderates most of the time, so for the past 8 years, we had a coalition of moderate right and moderate left party.

Well governments works when there is cooperation from opposing sides as long as it stays civil and that is a big if. The effect of social media certainly makes cooperation hard for politicians.

 

[Dick Foster]

With all the division in America these days, and the polarization between the two parties, what would you think of having more viable parties to choose from?

Several other Western countries have multi-party systems, and more than just two parties play a role. It's different, but it works.

What do you think?

What would a party have to look like, for you to support it over Dems or Reps?

Apparently you've yet to figure out that all political parties should be banned and made illegal. They aren't to be found in the constitution so aren't legitimately codified in law and they bring nothing but division, corruption and trouble. This country needs to learn how to think and choose the best qualified leaders for a change. We need to enact term limits in our constitution and by constitutional amendment eliminate political corruption and when it's found immediately administer the death penalty.

 

[Bernhard]

The issue will still be at some point that parties have to join together to defeat the other party. Whether it is electoral college or who gets the most individual votes. Polls show that at least 40 percent of votes on the national level for one candidate that they do not really support that much is just a vote against the other candidate.

Bernie Sanders has followers. IF they vote for the eventually democrat nominee during the main election it is more because they are voting against the republican candidate. The same can be said on the other Rep side.

That's basically how it works in Germany ... we have a moderate left party, a far-left party and a green party, and on the other side a moderate right, a far-right party and a moderately libertarian one.

Since none of these parties hardly ever wins 50% of the seats alone, they have to form "coalitions". But it's not always parties from either side cooperating. The far-right and far-left have been considered too far out there by the moderates most of the time, so for the past 8 years, we had a coalition of moderate right and moderate left party.

Well governments works when there is cooperation from opposing sides as long as it stays civil and that is a big if. The effect of social media certainly makes cooperation hard for politicians.

I'd assume that if the system requires parties to cooperate after the election, they'll have a strong incentive not to cross a certain line during the campaign.

But yeah, social media is a bit like the atom bomb. Not sure if mankind is wise enough to handle it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Guess it's always a problem in any constitutional republic ... you'll always have a share of the electorate not being sufficiently informed or educated. And demagogues can take advantage of that ... and such a republic is based on the hope that those who pander to the people are responsible.

But ... if the system is different, and presents more than just two options? And if the system forces the parties to cooperate, rather than obstruct each other? Hope is this spills down on the voters...

Technically America is a Compound Republic. A federation of State Republics reserving the majority of power over the Federal Republic. See Federalist #51, by Madison. The Federalist being understood as the blueprint for our Constitution and fundamental form of governance.

To say Constitutional Republic is actualy redundant, given the true definition of a Republic itself.

But whatever. I've been on here too long and have some work to do. Enjoy your afternoon.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Democrats and Republicans are both coalition of interest groups.
The Dem want an amoral culture and socialist slavery.
The Reps want a decent culture and free market economics.
We can see the outcome of Democrat policies.
Burning Cities.
The Dems bankrupt the government and enslave the taxpayers.
Left Wing economics enslaves the vital educated middle class workers.
Eventually people start fleeing from the Progressive Dystopia.
Liberals in general are miserable losers who want to make everyone else miserable.
The Dem Voters are ignorant bigots who the Corrupt Democrat Politicians exploit.

 

[Donald H]

You have enough parties already so forget it.
Americans can't seem to come together and demand from government the rights and freedoms that other democracies take for granted. That could be because the ordinary people have been convinced that they aren't deserving of a piece of the American pie. America is a country that has the capability to provide for all the people, so is the the biggest reason why it never happens?
Or is there a reluctance to share the wealth on account of so many non-white people could benefit and rise out of poverty?

Is it?

AOC has it right already on the Biden regime coming up. She and others know that the Dem party has lost it's direction and must find another answer beside Shumer and Pelosi. They must make a sharp turn left and find new leaders to replace those two who understand what is so desperately needed for America.

There's obviously no need for another party, there's a need for a 'socially' responsible party and the Dems are currently the closest to being that. A party is not what's lacking, it's a new mindset of the American people that's so desperately needed.

Doe anybody have the courage to step up and address the issue?

best wishes from Canada.

 

[Bernhard]

Guess it's always a problem in any constitutional republic ... you'll always have a share of the electorate not being sufficiently informed or educated. And demagogues can take advantage of that ... and such a republic is based on the hope that those who pander to the people are responsible.

But ... if the system is different, and presents more than just two options? And if the system forces the parties to cooperate, rather than obstruct each other? Hope is this spills down on the voters...

Technically America is a Compound Republic. A federation of State Republics reserving the majority of power over the Federal Republic. See Federalist #51, by Madison. The Federalist being understood as the blueprint for our Constitution and fundamental form of governance.

To say Constitutional Republic is actualy redundant, given the true definition of a Republic itself.

But whatever. I've been on here too long and have some work to do. Enjoy your afternoon.

Huh?

Call it "constitutional republic", "democratic republic", "liberal republic" ... whatever you say has a huge potential to be misunderstood, due to the very different concepts that there are about these terms.

So I agree bickering about mere words is a waste of both our afternoons. However, it was you who started the bickering about mere words, rather than discussing the actual content.

 

[Donald H]

Guess it's always a problem in any constitutional republic ... you'll always have a share of the electorate not being sufficiently informed or educated. And demagogues can take advantage of that ... and such a republic is based on the hope that those who pander to the people are responsible.

But ... if the system is different, and presents more than just two options? And if the system forces the parties to cooperate, rather than obstruct each other? Hope is this spills down on the voters...

Technically America is a Compound Republic. A federation of State Republics reserving the majority of power over the Federal Republic. See Federalist #51, by Madison. The Federalist being understood as the blueprint for our Constitution and fundamental form of governance.

To say Constitutional Republic is actualy redundant, given the true definition of a Republic itself.

But whatever. I've been on here too long and have some work to do. Enjoy your afternoon.

Huh?

Call it "constitutional republic", "democratic republic", "liberal republic" ... whatever you say has a huge potential to be misunderstood, due to the very different concepts that there are about these terms.

So I agree bickering about mere words is a waste of both our afternoons. However, it was you who started the bickering about mere words, rather than discussing the actual content.

Just like little children in a sand box, you 'people' can't even begin to discuss the problem without an argument ensuing.

You need to fight for a couple of months over the 'name' for the new party. LOL

 

[Bernhard]

Guess it's always a problem in any constitutional republic ... you'll always have a share of the electorate not being sufficiently informed or educated. And demagogues can take advantage of that ... and such a republic is based on the hope that those who pander to the people are responsible.

But ... if the system is different, and presents more than just two options? And if the system forces the parties to cooperate, rather than obstruct each other? Hope is this spills down on the voters...

Technically America is a Compound Republic. A federation of State Republics reserving the majority of power over the Federal Republic. See Federalist #51, by Madison. The Federalist being understood as the blueprint for our Constitution and fundamental form of governance.

To say Constitutional Republic is actualy redundant, given the true definition of a Republic itself.

But whatever. I've been on here too long and have some work to do. Enjoy your afternoon.

Huh?

Call it "constitutional republic", "democratic republic", "liberal republic" ... whatever you say has a huge potential to be misunderstood, due to the very different concepts that there are about these terms.

So I agree bickering about mere words is a waste of both our afternoons. However, it was you who started the bickering about mere words, rather than discussing the actual content.

Just like little children in a sand box, you 'people' can't even begin to discuss the problem without an argument ensuing.

You need to fight for a couple of months over the 'name' for the new party. LOL

Guess that's more a reflection of the general quality of the debate on this board, than anything else. Make a neutral, constructive statement, yet someone will come along and pee in your food for no reason.

So far, I can't say this board shows a decent quality ... yet it's surprisingly entertaining at times.