We all have great ideas about changing the current system, but they tend to come out in crazy tangents on other topics that deserve their own discussion, without getting bogged down with this argument. Let's use this thread to discuss to our hearts content.

OK.

I say that voting for a "3rd Party" system in the US is neither a toss-away vote or a "vote for the Republicans."

It's not a "toss away vote" becuase currently it's the only way to tell the shitty Democrats what you think of them. The primaries are useless, otherwise, guys like Lierberman wouldn't keep getting picked as candidates. The primaries are a great smoke and mirrors show. And the smoke ends up right up your ass.

Also, voting for who you think is the best candidate for you is the true heart of democracy. If less people voted "because of the "D" by a guys name" and voted for who they thought would be best, there would be a lot more liberals in the system.

And I'm saying what you just described is a protest vote!



In other words, you would normally have voted Democrat, but yer pissed at them,
so yer gonna vote for some guy who can't win, to send a message!

And in doing so, the other side, those you would never vote for,
those who didn't cast any protest votes, the other 50 % of the voting population,
that other side that didn't split their voting block,

Well, they win! (Please refer to election 2000 and 2004, but especially 2000)

Hmm, I thought Lefty meant reasons why a multi-party parliamentary system would be a good idea.

First, a multi-party system means no one can get too comfortable. The Brits seem to have 3 strong parties, so let's go with a total of 3 for this example. With 3 parties vying for public approval, public opinion cannot be so easily ignored, as is happening here and now. With 3 parties, I am inclined to think that the majority party more often still has to co-operate with everyone else, instead of cutting out the other party, as is happening here and now. This might reduce corruption in the majority party, which both the Dems and the Repugs fall into when they get on top and get comfortable there. A sense of invincibility might not set in so easily.

I want there to be more opinions to choose from and more opinions heard. That is democracy. What we have now is winner-take-all and it's not working.

I also want a no-confidence vote mechanism.

I agree that we should move to a multi-party system. Many forget that our laws dictate it towards a two party system and not by tradition or culture.

I completely agree, it would be a great idea.

What I can't agree with is the idea that it could actually happen any time soon!
And as this is the case, this is what we have to work with. Learn to use it as well as it uses you!

Its funny how everyone would like Nader to win. Everyone would like people like the greens to win. Everyone would like more people in politics, yet no one is willing to do anything about it. Sounds like a typical democrat, all talk, no action!!!

what is it you call "Green Action?"

Voting for someone you know won't win?
Your comments amount to finger pointing.

Tell me how a Third Party candidate can win?
What would it take to make it happen?

The only way a 3rd party can be considered credible,
would be for this person to be viewed as having a real and credible chance of winning the election!

Perot was the last man who had that chance,
and he had to spend a whole lot of his own money to make even that happen,
and then he blew it by "going on vacation!"

Perhaps if less people simply blindly voted for the Dems, and voted for who would be best, it wouldn't be a "vote for somebody who you know wouldn't win."

Who says they are blindly voting?


Got links?

You say it all the time.

Vote for the Dems, regardless of who they run! Use primaries!

Don't play games sky.

So many people are brainwashed to believe that if they don't vote for teh Dems, they are wasting their votes.

If millions of people said "Fuck the two major parties, I'm voting for who I want" then things would change in America.

Right now, the two parties are nearly interchangeable, and people are tricked into thinking that they are the only two options.

I will say, historically speaking, voting for third parties has tended to swing the two main parties to either side. After the 1890's, the Democrats had to temper their party's message to bring the Populists into the fold, lest they risk losing the agrarian midwest to Republicans. In 1912 and after, Republicans had to pay lip service at the very least to Roosevelt's Progressive message, as did the Democratic Woodrow Wilson. In the 1920's, Democrats lost much of their traditional labor and immigrant base to the increasingly vocal Socialists--the result was the New Deal.

So if you want to Democrats to shift to the left again, if you live in a mostly "blue" area, maybe the best thing you can do is vote Green. That will alert the Democrats in your district that they can't take you for granted the next election around, so they'll usually extend an olive branch to their more left-wing members, because after all, it's far easier to bring in a Green to the party than a Republican, especially nowadays.

Third Parties CAN change America. Taft lost the 1912 election because of Roosevelt. Bush lost the 1992 election because of Perot... both those cases were far clearer than the hazy "Nader made Gore lose" debate after 2000; in fact, we now know that Gore actually won Florida, Nader or no.

In the end, the only way to keep your elected officials in line is to threaten them with unemployment. So if you want to liberalize the Democratic Party, start voting Green. And tell your righty friends that if they want to keep the Republicans away from "big government," they ought to start voting for Libertarians.

I don't advocate voting for someone just because they are a Democrat. I do value my vote to the degree that I will cast it for the best VIABLE CANDIDATE, and by the time the general election rolls around it's apparent who thwy are. If I didn't, I would by any reasonable argument be wasting my vote to the benefit of the candidate I favor least. Primaries should be an opportunity for both parties or a third, to cull incumbents who have not served them well but they're not. Public funding of elections would go a log way toward producing more desirable candidates and reducing the advantage of the incumbancy.

Without at least a third party candidacy, the two main parties will become less viable all the time, or less accountable, I should say.

Sure, there will be a period of time in which we might have to suffer more Democrat or Republican Presidents and majority in Congress'. But an evolution like this will happens slowly, but it will happen. And we can force the two monopoly parties to pay attention, and to get serious as a third party begins to capture more votes.

Twenty years ago, who thought an Indi could possibly be elected as the governor of Minnesota? There is nothing wrong with voting third party if you think that person is the best candidate for the job.

Sky, I accept your point about wasting your vote in protest, but if you don't like the D or the R, why not? I'd rather vote in protest than to vote for the lesser of two evils, even if I had to write in my vote. But someone has to be the trend setter, why not us? If we allow the D's and R's to continue to monopolize the process nothing will ever improve, it will in fact, continue to get worse.

It also means more democracy in the republic and the imperative of coalition building.

I always thought you were supposed to vote for the best candidate. Not who will win.

Sadly, how many people say" My Daddy voted Democrat, my Granddaddy voted Dem...I vote Dem. It became a tradition on both sides of the fence. And, parties became pandering idiots promising to "do more for the citizens". It became an issue of "Ill give you more than the other guy". A third party can work and while it hasnt on a major scale, I think it could and is probably more viable than trying to get one side or the other to face reality and do the right things for the right reasons. Jesse Ventura did it...though he wasnt a huge success in the role of Gov.

Well, many social advances came about because of third parties. For example, third parties started the ideas of: the abolition of slavery, women's right to vote, social security, child labor laws, public schools, the direct election of senators, paid vacation, and the formation of labor unions.

Imagine how fast these thing would have happened if we would have just elected THEM instead of waiting for the major parties to adopt their ideas.

True that.

Not exactly true.
The abolition of slavery was an idea first held and vocalized by Quakers in the Colonial period.
Antislavery thinking & abolitionism became formalized with the founding by William Lloyd Garrison of The Liberator, 1831.
Abolitionism was directed first at ending the slave trade. Our nation ceased to trade slaves in 1808.
Then the possible expansion of slavery to settled territory became the issue.
Antislavery and abolitionist thought pre-existed the founding of the Republicans & the Whigs.
Even though Republicans first espoused the idea that slavery and polygamy were uncivilized, they were free neither of racism nor of anti-feminism.
Abraham Lincoln was a moderate on antislavery issues.
In American history, the third party (populist, free-soil, etc) gives expression to pre-existing thinking and sentiment, the institution does not generate the faction spontaneously.

Well, almost every idea starts outside of "politics" Its was saying that the first political movements didnt really take any hold untill third parties brought them to attention. Its obvious that political parties are not the only vault for social change. Most often it starts with a group of people who start their OWN party! (ie the womens party and other single issue parties)

But your last statement sums it up well.

Or, in the case of that movement called "right to life," and another movement to boost the case of Israel for aid & legitimacy, the group of people start their own political action committee or lobbying organization. The creation of PACs and lobbying organizations has become more prevalent and insidiously damaging in the democratic process.

Do they? Shouldnt people be able to get together and combine their voices? Should only individuals be able to go to the government? For my college me and a group of students got together to lobby our state congress for some consideration about funding and such for our school. Would that be considered wrong?

This is something that im sort of torn about. I like liberal pacs, but not conservative ones!!!

Unfortunately, it isn't a matter of should or shouldn't. People are doing this.



No. I wouldn't consider it either right or wrong.
It was either effective or ineffective.



Ditto.
Although I wouldn't participate in such an organization because I'm not a joiner.
Yes, I'd prefer a world in which individuals simply spoke. But that's too . . . American.

But isnt being "united for a common cause" ALSO american? Isnt this why we value things like labor unions and such? E Plurbis Unum?

(please dont think im being "confrontational", i am honestly intrested in this and really cant figure out what is/should be right! I hope the opinions/input of others can help me decide!)

I don't believe in union as much as I believe in the possibility of creating a community of common interest. This is the condition that must exist before any republic can even be conceived.
Ex pluribus unum is an ideal.
I'm not a political person, but a historian who is quite fixated on Enlightenment and Romanticist literature, people and effects. I am more passionate than doctrinaire.
I have argued in the past that republics are created through deductive processes and democracy is most often the product of inductive processes. In our history, certain reactionaries, Daniel Webster to name one from the Early National Period set the mold, have distrusted democracy, have distrusted the people in effect. One of the tensions in the American nation is the struggle of the people to trust themselves, to trust their reason and good sense. If the community of common interest arises therefrom, then a rational republic is made.
If the community of common interest is one centered on reaction, religion, and the irrational, if it is based on racism and aggression, then a terrible republic is made.
The practice of democracy and the rule of law are the only checks on the powerful community or communities of common interest in the U.S.
Democracy arises as a result of inductive processes.
Slavery was deductively enshrined by omission in the Constitution, as the result of a powerful community of common interest.
It was dealt with by way of a civil war & the 13th Amendment (which still is not completely enforced).
The struggle against slavery and other forms of coercive labor is a continuing struggle between a powerful community of common interest and the majority of the American people.
The fact the voice of the majority has been silenced or ignored indicates that democracy must struggle again, that the inductive process that produces it is far from over.
Now that is a bare bones outline of my ideology.
I spend my time studying Hawthorne, Melville, Fern, Poe, Irving, and Cooper.
I also study the Shakers and various other socialist experiments & come-out communities in the Early Republic.
I study the maritime world of the Early Republic also. This was when our country was acquisitive rather than affluent.
This was when democracy meant the voice of the individual dignified-- not needing to coordinate, plan or create tactics.
I suppose you could call me unsophisticated. But I'm committed to creating this vision in my fiction and history.
And I hope that helps you understand me. I'm a heretic to trust-me republicanism. I despise elites; the more static they are the more I despise them.
I don't give a damn about philosopher kings.

The first thing you have to do is get the MSM off the payrolls. That would lead to (hopefully) more coverage of third party candidates. The next thing would be for ALL candidates to be included in debates--by law if possible; and for those debates not to be scripted question and answer sessions. The last 2 presidedntial campaign "debates" left me somewhere between wanting to laugh or cry --pathetic is the word that comes to mind.
Perhaps the hardest part *surprise* would be removing the legalized bribes the big 2 candidates recieve. But theyv'e got the death grip on their money purses stronger than an old lady getting mugged.

The sad thing is, the only way to bring about these changes would be for a third party candidate to be elected to make the changes. I also don't agree that a vote for third party is a wasted vote ... Democracy is about voting isn't it?. Perhaps the biggest change would be in this messed up winner take all Electoral system. Either trash it or give the Electorals out by percentage of the vote. That way even if say the Green party got 5% of the vote, in a state with 20 electorals they'd at least get 1 , and if they came up with 10-15 for the nation and the Libertarians also got some in the same range, there would have to be some deal making going on in a tight race.

Of course , I'm still waiting for some wisenheimer Jackass or Elephant to point out that Hitler came from a third party too...

Oh well , I'll go back to dreaming now........

Multiparty-systems stink!

It what we have in Norway, and we end up with hopless coalitions of parties that are uneble to do annything at al - and that nobody realy voted for.

That is one of the reasons for why I stopped being a fascist, and became a republican innstead! The other reason is because capitalism works exelent, and because al these socialist idiots blame everything on jews and americans, and think everything will be so much better as soon as we al become racist muslims.

I believe that a multiparty system would have greater stability than a 2-party system as America is about ideas and by eliminating the opportunities of other ideologies we're missing the opportunity to solve a lot of the problems that plague america. The 2 parties in power today have more reason to not solve problems and thereby use the problems to remain in power.

Right now, I'm just fucking pleased to have a two party system again!
Tomorrow I'll consider a multy party system.

And how would the presence of multiple parties keep any one from maintaining power by failing to solve problems, assuming, of course, that failing to solve problems is a valid means of holding power?

Right now the checks and balances are limited to 3 branches of government and 2 political parties. Accountability in our political process is limited simply to the 2 parties and the Supreme court. If we were to add additional parties to the system then the parties would be forced to be accountable to additional groups which would not allow any one or in our case 2 parties to maintain power. The reason I say that the parties use problems to maintain power is due to the fact that many of the major problems we have in our system are played out over and over in the political sphere. Obviously, if they intended to truly solve the Social Security problem, the drug importation problem, the trade deficit, the national debt, and so on and so forth then don't you think that these issues would have been solved many years ago. These 2 parties have been in power for many years and to show for it we have the highest prison population, largest drug problem, the largest deficit, the largest debt and so on. And when we are running elections these issues and many more continue to be used to elect politicians who obviously don't plan on resolving the problems. See I don't blame any one party because both parties are responsible. Sure I could say that Bush is a neocon and is destroying America through his foreign policy but I could also say the same for Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Ford, especially Nixon but why should I accept either of these parties as responsible figures when they play chess or monopoly with the common citizens of the United States. From research, I know that the problem extends much farther than the borders of the United States. And I know that there are hidden forces in the world manipulating all the governments because the information is out there. Will any of it change anything? Only if the people choose to realll change things. As I've already stated in this forum: It doesn't matter that the democrats now have control of the house and senate since Bush, the House, and the Senate passed the military Commissions act of 2006 thereby seriously limiting the power of both the Legislative and Judicial branches of government. So the change in cast members means nothing it's just another act in the ongoing saga of a nation being sold.

Sky of mind---I know, I know your just dying to respond to this post by writing something that has absolutely nothing to do with the content. So have at it....

And the people. Remember us? Elections, haven't been abolished in the last two days, have they? The accountability trump card comes in the vote of the people.



Parties accountable to other groups? What the hell are you talking about? Regardless of their number, the parties, which are made up of the people, are accountable to the people. You keep speaking as though these groups and parties are something separate from the collective we.



Do you honestly think these problems are sufficiently simple that they will have one answer that resolves all questions for everyone?!? You've highlighted some extraordinarily complex issues, jmbrewr, each of which can be addressed in multiple ways, but with each answer having significant benefits and drawbacks that impact wide and varying segments of the population!

So, no, I do not think these issues would have been solved years ago. We will wrestle with these issues for the rest of our lives.



To blame our two party system for the problems outlined is truly, staggeringly ignorant.



You've drawn a stunningly depressing picture, then capped it with nothing more than the pithy line of "only if the people choose to really change things". Turn off the theme music, ratchet down the emotional rhetoric, and tell me what changes you suggest the people make and how they accomplish them.

You seem to lack the understanding that these are not finite problems with defined solutions. They are ongoing, dynamic issues faced by all societies. A solution that suitably addresses the need for the majority today disenfranchises a signficant minority and may fail the whole a few years down the road. We will always face these issues, they will always stimey us, but we will continue to address them as best we can. I honestly cannot imagine what more you expect.

I'm sorry, jmbrewr, but Pappa Smurf will never be in office and we will never have a society that meets all of the needs of all of the people equally. We can dream, but even dreamers must wake sometimes.

To true a statement, forever we will be cursed to find our own Camelot.

I'm surprised that no one's brought up the ellectoral college in this thread yet... If we elected on the vice of the populace, than bush wouldn't have happened in the first place. I don't truely believe that doing away with it will give third parties a chance immediately, but over time the real numbers in support of third party candidates will come to light. Over time, red and blue states will have different hues to them, and it's in the interest of our freedom of speech to allow for this. if we truly want freedom of speech, than we have to give equal weight to every vote, and the electoral college doesn't allow this. The electoral college should be removed in an amendment to the constitution (will this happen? I doubt it, unless there's a third party president and majority in congress... anyone wanna play catch 22?)

Remove the electoral college
Publicly funded campaigns with zero private money
Paper trail and verifiable elections
All polls nation wide open and close at the same time. (24 hours)
News blackout on vote day.



Any other ideas?

News Blackout's a good idea... hadn't heard that one yet.

So in other words, do everything the Green Party has already suggested.

Yep, and have a real party that can win a national election and doesn't take money from Republicans,
but yep, that's pretty much it.



(never said I didn't like the Greens Platform. I just can't suport the way they do business or their lack of membership or their lack of electability)

The way they do business? You must not follow much of the democrats. You complain about greens taking donation from republican individuals, but ignore the many special interest and corporate donations the dems take. Talk about hypocritical.

You talk about electability but fail to ever elect any people who will ever bring about the change you desire.

What would everyone think of Instant Runoff Voting as a means to improve our electoral system and potentially get minor parties involved?

I'm all for it. It would eliminate the Electoral College too.

I wouldn't mind regular runoffs either. That gives the early losers an opportunity to throw their support to a stronger candidate, and the voters get to evaluate that.

Eliminate the electorial,
Make campaigns public and fund them publicly, banning any private money, (cut k street in half)
Require truth in advertising, in that making a false claim that you KNOW to be false should have consequences,
Paper trail for every voter.


That doesn't address a multi-party system, but does address a basic problem.
I don't believe there is anything in the constitution that eliminates multi-party.
I suspect though that over the years, because of deals and unions between parties,
that the practice simply winnowed it's self down to the 2 parties.

This means, even if all things were in place to encourage a multi-party system,
the natural forces that work to create a two party system will still be in place.
Look at Canada's Multi-party system. Lots of also rans, but when the campaign heats up,
only a few remain, And of those, deals and agreements between parties are quite normal and expected.