CDZ More than just two viable parties?

[buttercup]

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.

Excellent summary, thank you!! It's embarrassing, actually, and I for one lost patience with those ignoramuses, on both sides. They are a big part of the reason why we're losing our freedom, rights and our republic.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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?

IVE said for decades now as long as we have this corrupt one party system of demopublicans and reprocrats disguised as a a corrupt two party system,there is no hope for america,its sick how the elite have it fixed so an independent never gets in. incredible the sheep can never figure that out thats why they never do and their party is as corrupt as the one they hate.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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.

It's absolutely critical to be specific in describing forms of government in the correct language because varying language ispatently antithetical. Particularly given that the Compound Republic is what those who favor a stronger central Republic are trying to overthrow. it is important to understand forms of governmet versus type of government thoroughly in order to understand the fundamentals involved.

It's much more than mere words. Much more.

And I wasn't bickering.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Excellent summary, thank you!! It's embarrassing, actually, and I for one lost patience with those ignoramuses, on both sides. They are a big part of the reason why we're losing our freedom, rights and our republic.

I have to remember to be more careful when I talk like that. Certainly there are a lot of people who are aware of the more critical issues, so I don't wanna act like I'm some kind of elitist and that everybody else is stupid, but so often the loudest tend to be the weakest in that regard.

I think the gradual erosion of virtue in society is probably the most direct threat to our civil liberties. Then it's a domino effect from there. And certainly those in positions of authority and in positions where information is supposed to be passed along take advantage of the shortcoming, often tending to fuel it further.

Here's a great example of what I'm talking about...

 

[Natural Citizen]

IVE said for decades now as long as we have this corrupt one party system of demopublicans and reprocrats disguised as a a corrupt two party system,there is no hope for america,its sick how the elite have it fixed so an independent never gets in. incredible the sheep can never figure that out thats why they never do and their party is as corrupt as the one they hate.

Just be mindful that socialist party supporters are starting to populate various boards. There will be more stalking horse types of discussion like this popping up, but it is disingenuous. It's rather easy to spot if you know what you're looking at and they tend to migrate as a group toward those particular discussions.

They didn't get a lot of attention this past cycle, but they do have a rather mediocre yet functional grassroots and were politically active and will become more active moving forward, in a blend in like you're on the bus sort of way.

 

[Blues Man]

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,,,

I disagree

A third party with enough presence to prevent any one party from having a simple or super majority will be a stabilizing influence because for anything to make it though Congress a compromise must be made and no party can ram anything down our throats anymore

What would your new party stand for? Notice how the image in post #16 illustrates the real problem in America? That cuts right through the bullshit and to the heart of the problems.

Maybe a new party could actually stand for the people unlike the 2 we have now.

 

[Blues Man]

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,,,

I disagree

A third party with enough presence to prevent any one party from having a simple or super majority will be a stabilizing influence because for anything to make it though Congress a compromise must be made and no party can ram anything down our throats anymore

thats the short term effect,, but what about the long term?? the fed gov is supposed to be for the whole country not political parties,,,

Which is exactly why we need a party that actually represents the people unlike the 2 we have now that only represent the interests of their biggest donors.

 

[Donald H]

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

Maybe a new party could actually stand for the people unlike the 2 we have now.

My message was meant to say too that a new party isn't any answer because it would just contain the same people.

Do you have any suggestions on what the new party would represent that could be attractive to enough Americans?

 

[progressive hunter]

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

Maybe a new party could actually stand for the people unlike the 2 we have now.

My message was meant to say too that a new party isn't any answer because it would just contain the same people.

Do you have any suggestions on what the new party would represent that could be attractive to enough Americans?

the constitution??

 

[Donald H]

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,,,

I disagree

A third party with enough presence to prevent any one party from having a simple or super majority will be a stabilizing influence because for anything to make it though Congress a compromise must be made and no party can ram anything down our throats anymore

thats the short term effect,, but what about the long term?? the fed gov is supposed to be for the whole country not political parties,,,

Which is exactly why we need a party that actually represents the people unlike the 2 we have now that only represent the interests of their biggest donors.

I think you're starting to suggest a solution which can only be found in a rewriting of your Constitution. The issue of money buying the system is too large for an amendment.
And the people aren't showing any indication that they acknowledge the problem.

As for the politicians admitting the problem, that would be admitting to their criminal behaviour. No reason to drop the suggestion though, when it's spot on!

 

[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,,,

I disagree

A third party with enough presence to prevent any one party from having a simple or super majority will be a stabilizing influence because for anything to make it though Congress a compromise must be made and no party can ram anything down our throats anymore

thats the short term effect,, but what about the long term?? the fed gov is supposed to be for the whole country not political parties,,,

Which is exactly why we need a party that actually represents the people unlike the 2 we have now that only represent the interests of their biggest donors.

I think you're starting to suggest a solution which can only be found in a rewriting of your Constitution. The issue of money buying the system is too large for an amendment.
And the people aren't showing any indication that they acknowledge the problem.

As for the politicians admitting the problem, that would be admitting to their criminal behaviour. No reason to drop the suggestion though, when it's spot on!

no reason to rewrite it,, just follow what it says,,

 

[buttercup]

Excellent summary, thank you!! It's embarrassing, actually, and I for one lost patience with those ignoramuses, on both sides. They are a big part of the reason why we're losing our freedom, rights and our republic.

I have to remember to be more careful when I talk like that. Certainly there are a lot of people who are aware of the more critical issues, so I don't wanna act like I'm some kind of elitist and that everybody else is stupid, but so often the loudest tend to be the weakest in that regard.

I think the gradual erosion of virtue in society is probably the most direct threat to our civil liberties. Then it's a domino effect from there. And certainly those in positions of authority and in positions where information is supposed to be passed along take advantage of the shortcoming, often tending to fuel it further.

Here's a great example of what I'm talking about...

Same here, in regard to the first thing you said. It can be challenging, because as the saying goes, ”If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention”… but if a message is shared in the wrong way, you can’t reach people. So that’s something I try to be mindful of, how to get a message across in the right way, the way that actually works. If we can’t do that, then we’re no better than the ones we criticize, and it’s fruitless. (Is that a word?)

About the gradual erosion of virtue, I’m glad you bring that up on threads because almost no one talks about that and it’s such an important topic. I believe it has been by design. In the same way the the PTSB have purposely dumbed down the populace over the last several decades (they want dumb, compliant little serfs) they have also intentionally and gradually destroyed virtue. Apparently they understand that liberty depends on people being knowledgeable, aware and virtuous. That reminds me of a famous quote about America being great because America is good. When America ceases to be good, it will cease to be great. (I’m paraphrasing.) Well, I think we’re well beyond the point of America being good. And sadly, most of the electorate not only don’t seem to care about that, but they cheer on and enable the tyrants and frauds/ traitors. Which goes back to the original point.

Speaking of liberty, as I mentioned to you the other day, I think true liberty comes only from God. That’s a topic that I think is worthy of a thread of its own, but it goes along with what we were just talking about. When the public turns their back on God, they will inevitably end up in bondage. I think that’s true on an individual level, and on a national level. But again, that should go on a thread of its own. For now I’ll just post a relevant scripture.

“….where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 2 Corinthians 3:17

Those Mark Dice videos are hilarious... but truly disturbing! It’s hard to believe that anyone could be that ignorant or indoctrinated. But that brings up another truth…. “people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

 

[Blues Man]

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

Maybe a new party could actually stand for the people unlike the 2 we have now.

My message was meant to say too that a new party isn't any answer because it would just contain the same people.

Do you have any suggestions on what the new party would represent that could be attractive to enough Americans?

Why do you assume it would be the same politicians?

40% of eligible voters think a third party is a good idea.

Almost 40% of Americans want a third political party, even if they don't like the candidates

Even if they're down on the independent candidates being presented to them, nearly 40% of Americans think a third political party is needed to fix the political system and another 47% think it needs improvements, according to a new poll.

www.cnn.com

 

[Donald H]

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

Maybe a new party could actually stand for the people unlike the 2 we have now.

My message was meant to say too that a new party isn't any answer because it would just contain the same people.

Do you have any suggestions on what the new party would represent that could be attractive to enough Americans?

Why do you assume it would be the same politicians?

40% of eligible voters think a third party is a good idea.

Almost 40% of Americans want a third political party, even if they don't like the candidates

Even if they're down on the independent candidates being presented to them, nearly 40% of Americans think a third political party is needed to fix the political system and another 47% think it needs improvements, according to a new poll.

www.cnn.com

I meant the same people.

 

[Blues Man]

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,,,

I disagree

A third party with enough presence to prevent any one party from having a simple or super majority will be a stabilizing influence because for anything to make it though Congress a compromise must be made and no party can ram anything down our throats anymore

thats the short term effect,, but what about the long term?? the fed gov is supposed to be for the whole country not political parties,,,

Which is exactly why we need a party that actually represents the people unlike the 2 we have now that only represent the interests of their biggest donors.

I think you're starting to suggest a solution which can only be found in a rewriting of your Constitution. The issue of money buying the system is too large for an amendment.
And the people aren't showing any indication that they acknowledge the problem.

As for the politicians admitting the problem, that would be admitting to their criminal behaviour. No reason to drop the suggestion though, when it's spot on!

No changes need to be made to the Constitution since there is no mention of political parties at all.

We can change campaign finance laws without changing the Constitution.

 

[Blues Man]

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

Maybe a new party could actually stand for the people unlike the 2 we have now.

My message was meant to say too that a new party isn't any answer because it would just contain the same people.

Do you have any suggestions on what the new party would represent that could be attractive to enough Americans?

Why do you assume it would be the same politicians?

40% of eligible voters think a third party is a good idea.

Almost 40% of Americans want a third political party, even if they don't like the candidates

Even if they're down on the independent candidates being presented to them, nearly 40% of Americans think a third political party is needed to fix the political system and another 47% think it needs improvements, according to a new poll.

www.cnn.com

I meant the same people.

Which people?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

A Parliamentary System is far more likely to encourage multiple parties and coalition politics than a “winner take all” Presidential System like ours. Our Federal “presidential system” cannot be changed without amending the Constitution dramatically. I won’t discuss this because it is not practical at present.

Introducing local and state electoral changes like “Ranked Choice Voting,” however, will help correct the “all or nothing” duopolistic partisan party extremism that has taken hold at all levels in our Federal Republican system, and also make it easier for Third Parties to emerge, prove themselves, and become viable.

Also a “proportional” representation system for combined Congressional districts could be an important realizable reform that could help break the two party deadlock in Congress.

Such reform measures will also help our citizens become better educated and more critical voters, not just blind sheep easily led by demagogues or party professional partisans. There are many other aspects of this problem, but in my opinion these two reforms would make an important and realizable start in breaking up our duopolistic and disfunctional two party system.

See: www.fairvote.org
Also: The Fair Representation Act - FairVote

 

[Donald H]

A Parliamentary System is far more likely to encourage multiple parties and coalition politics than a “winner take all” Presidential System like ours.

How so?
I've narrowed your remarks down to one issue so that the question can maybe be entertained better. I'm not saying you're wrong but I can't imagine how one would be more likely to encourage multiple parties.

Are you maybe only thinking of the US presidential system as opposed to some of the others? I think there are some peculiarities with the US system that would answer for what is practice in your country.

And speaking for Canada's system, it's mostly a two party system with a negligible third party and has never formed government. Keeping in mind that Quebec is a wild card that can't be included in total.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

A Parliamentary System is far more likely to encourage multiple parties and coalition politics than a “winner take all” Presidential System like ours.

How so?
I've narrowed your remarks down to one issue so that the question can maybe be entertained better. I'm not saying you're wrong but I can't imagine how one would be more likely to encourage multiple parties.

Are you maybe only thinking of the US presidential system as opposed to some of the others? I think there are some peculiarities with the US system that would answer for what is practice in your country.

And speaking for Canada's system, it's mostly a two party system with a negligible third party and has never formed government. Keeping in mind that Quebec is a wild card that can't be included in total.

As I said this issue of Parliamentary vs. Presidential systems is not one easily changed, thus not now relevant to the U.S., given our Constitution. There are many versions of each system. and my remarks were only general. Please excuse me if I decline to discuss it here, as it is complex and would take too much time.

I would point out though that another advantage of Parliamentary systems is that they tend to make impossible the sort of deadlocked government that arises frequently these days in the U.S. when Congress and President disagree — for the very simple reason that a Prime Minister loses his office if he loses a vote of confidence in parliament under a Parliamentary system of government.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Same here, in regard to the first thing you said. It can be challenging, because as the saying goes, ”If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention”… but if a message is shared in the wrong way, you can’t reach people. So that’s something I try to be mindful of, how to get a message across in the right way, the way that actually works. If we can’t do that, then we’re no better than the ones we criticize, and it’s fruitless. (Is that a word?)

Most anything I talk about these days, I do so for the benefit of casual passers-by, to be honest. I'm rarely interested in debating or trying to change someone's mind. The most vocal people aren't going to change their minds anyway. I find that the ripest fruit to come from those exchanges is for the casual passer-by to observe just how little so many actually understand about a given topic of discussion. It's what I meant when I'd mentioned that the loudest are so often the weakest. So it's important to invite that to be demonstrated. At the same time, the information stage has almost run its course. For the time being anyway. We're back to a transition to a phase of action, much like what were doing back in '07/'08, if you recall. Which I know you do.

About the gradual erosion of virtue, I’m glad you bring that up on threads because almost no one talks about that and it’s such an important topic. I believe it has been by design. In the same way the the PTSB have purposely dumbed down the populace over the last several decades (they want dumb, compliant little serfs) they have also intentionally and gradually destroyed virtue. Apparently they understand that liberty depends on people being knowledgeable, aware and virtuous. That reminds me of a famous quote about America being great because America is good. When America ceases to be good, it will cease to be great. (I’m paraphrasing.) Well, I think we’re well beyond the point of America being good. And sadly, most of the electorate not only don’t seem to care about that, but they cheer on and enable the tyrants and frauds/ traitors. Which goes back to the original point.

Yeah. It's kind of been indoctrinated into people's minds that laws will dictate the virtue of society. But that's not how it works. Society has to resolve its moral problem itself and then that will reflect on the laws. That's a deep discussion actually, we get into liberty-responsibility there.

Speaking of liberty, as I mentioned to you the other day, I think true liberty comes only from God. That’s a topic that I think is worthy of a thread of its own, but it goes along with what we were just talking about. When the public turns their back on God, they will inevitably end up in bondage. I think that’s true on an individual level, and on a national level. But again, that should go on a thread of its own. For now I’ll just post a relevant scripture.

“….where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 2 Corinthians 3:17

One of my favorite scriptures is Proverbs 28:1. "The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion."

Here's a snip from a very good book on the topic of responsibility and Individual liberty. Which I'll link as a courtesy, since your thought here reminds me of it.

The American Ideal Of 1776

Anyway...

1. The Spiritual is Supreme

". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." (Declaration of Independence)

The Principle

1. The fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme--that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.

Religious Nature

2. This governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.

The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.


An Indivisible Whole

3. The American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.

The Individual's Self-respect

4. The concept of Man's spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual's self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual's. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual's maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential-- spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.

Some Things Excluded

5. This concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.

It excludes disbelief in--even doubt as to the existence of--God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought--however ethical and lofty in intentions--which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.


The Truly American Concept

6. Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American--judged by traditional belief.

This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic--neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.

Mark Dice videos are hilarious... but truly disturbing! It’s hard to believe that anyone could be that ignorant or indoctrinated. But that brings up another truth…. “people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

Yeah. I used to believe that it was hard to believe that people could be that dumb. But the long march through the Institutions have effectively ensured it.

It's why it's so important to demonstrate it, going back to what I'd mentioned earlier on in this communication.