I say, to heck with the Dems and the GOP....

[Disney1fan2002]

let's get a 3rd party in power. Maybe that is what we need? The Dems and GOP have run this country for too long. We are now at the point that it is getting ugly even out among the people. Look how heated these political threads can get.

Politics have always been ugly, but usually among the politicians. What happened the the days of not talking politics? Because we all know not everyone has the same opinion. Now it is just nasty.

Let's vote for the 3rd party, and see if it takes the country in a new direction.

 

[Mugg Mann]

I second that motion. A little more competition just might force both major parties to address their current shortcomings. One can only hope....

 

[JudicialTyranny]

Let's vote for the 3rd party, and see if it takes the country in a new direction.

What's the "3rd party"? What do they stand for? You can't just throw out a nebulous "3rd party" as a concept without establishing the positions on which that party stands.

The Libertarians have been trying it for years and have basically gone nowhere. Perot tried it in 1992 and 1996 and all it did was get Bill Clinton elected with less than 50% of the vote.

Political parties are organized consensus. Even within a party, you don't get people agreeing on things 100%. They are a way to organize so you can get things done. Inertia eventually splits things into just two parties in our system of government. There have been "3rd parties" in the past and they didn't last.

It's folly IMHO that a "3rd party" could think that electing a President will change much. For example, the Libertarians think they can elect a President (or even a member of Congress) and have an effect.

How would a 3rd party President get anything passed in Congress without gravitating towards one of the two major parties? The Democrats won't be on his/her side because they wanted a Democrat elected and the same with the Republicans. If that 3rd party President takes generally liberal positions, then the Republicans will work against him/her, and the Democrats will work against him/her if generally conservative positions are taken.

Third parties (minor parties) work in a parliamentary style of government, but our form of government doesn't lend itself to their success.

Personally, I don't see a problem with people being passionate about things on different sides of issues. It's not like we are killing each other over these issues like you would see in third world countries. We still settle them with elections and unless there is a big shift in positions one way or another, nothing major changes - and that's seems to be what a majority of people want - no big changes.

 

[Obi-Wan Pinobi]

I have to agree with JudicialTyranny. While it would be very interesting to see what the effect a President from a third party elected would be, I don't think it would happen.

Often the third parties center around one figure in particular -- Ross Perot, George Wallace in 1968, Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (who I think came the closest to being a third party candidate elected President under the Progressive ticket) -- and don't have any long-term staying power. Those that have been around a while are generally one-issue parties (like the Right to Life Party or the Green Party) or have a perception that they're farther from the mainstream than the big two (like the Libertarians or the Communists). They may see some local officials or state legislators elected, but don't succeed at seeing a member of Congress or a Governor among their ranks.

What bothers me these days is the sheer rancor between the left and the right. It's not just a matter of ideological differences, but it's borderline hatred. In some cases, it's over the border -- and I'm talking about both sides.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

What bothers me these days is the sheer rancor between the left and the right. It's not just a matter of ideological differences, but it's borderline hatred. In some cases, it's over the border -- and I'm talking about both sides.

This is so true and so very sad. Politics has gotten way to personal and winning has become everything. Neither side can lose graciously anymore. Very very sad.

 

[Galahad]

IMO, John Adams was one of our most underrated Presidents. His biggest lament is that he failed to prevent the rise of "factions" (parties). He felt that the existance of a "party" system would be a disaster. I think he was right. I don't want a 3rd party - I want NO parties.

 

[cardaway]

A third party would just mean a bigger fight.

 

[salmoneous]

I'm not sure the nastiness is a Democratic or Republican thing, or even a new thing. Take a look at what the Whigs were saying about Andrew Jackson.

 

[Robinrs]

There has always been a third party, it doesn't change anything it just gives unhappy people more options and less interest in fixing what is wrong with their own party.

I believe as long as there are people with free will and the ability to express it, there will always be division. Tragedy seems to be the only thing that unites people and we've had enough of that to fill a lifetime in the past few years.

 

[nliedel]

I am such a cynic. You could have 500 political parties and they would all be corrupt and self serving. Politics is ugly.

 

[dcentity2000]

Three party politics would be amazing but unlikely.



Rich::

 

[Tigger_Magic]

IMO, John Adams was one of our most underrated Presidents. His biggest lament is that he failed to prevent the rise of "factions" (parties). He felt that the existance of a "party" system would be a disaster. I think he was right. I don't want a 3rd party - I want NO parties.

I don't think this is possible because politics is inherently polarizing. People will colasce around differing views on issues and eventually develop into alliances and political parties. It would be nearly impossible to prevent this from occurring.

For a 3rd party to flourish, they would have to stake out positions that appeal to a majority of mainstream Americans on a wide slate of issues. Those positions would also need to be relevantly different from the positions taken by the two primary parties -- something that's not likely to happen.

I wouldn't expect to see any new political party take center stage until/unless one of the two major ones implodes. But then anything's possible.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

I don't think this is possible because politics is inherently polarizing. People will colasce around differing views on issues and eventually develop into alliances and political parties. It would be nearly impossible to prevent this from occurring.

For a 3rd party to flourish, they would have to stake out positions that appeal to a majority of mainstream Americans on a wide slate of issues. Those positions would also need to be relevantly different from the positions taken by the two primary parties -- something that's not likely to happen.

I wouldn't expect to see any new political party take center stage until/unless one of the two major ones implodes. But then anything's possible.

How about the "moderates" creating a party? The moderates seem to be in between liberal views and conservative views.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

How about the "moderates" creating a party? The moderates seem to be in between liberal views and conservative views.

I've never thought of "moderates" as having any views. They sort of strike me as wishy-washy -- not being able to commit fully to one side or the other. Sort of like a group of people, all wetting their thumbs and sticking them into the air to see which way the wind is blowing before they make a so-called decision.

 

[Aidensmom]

I've never thought of "moderates" as having any views. They sort of strike me as wishy-washy -- not being able to commit fully to one side or the other. Sort of like a group of people, all wetting their thumbs and sticking them into the air to see which way the wind is blowing before they make a so-called decision.

Wow, I wonder what you say about the other party.

I see moderates more as people who make up their own mind on issues based on how they feel on each individual issue, rather than towing a party line.

 

[minniecarousel]

Yeah, we have a third party (Nader) to thank for Bush being re-elected.

 

[Galahad]

I've never thought of "moderates" as having any views. They sort of strike me as wishy-washy -- not being able to commit fully to one side or the other. Sort of like a group of people, all wetting their thumbs and sticking them into the air to see which way the wind is blowing before they make a so-called decision.

I used to think that. I don't any longer. I believe it is quite feasible to steadfastly articulate and defend a position that is neither "right" nor "left". If moderate is not the right word for that then give me a new word.

 

[brerrabbit]

Call them moderates, independents, or swing voters, that "wishy-washy" group in the middle is the group that decides who our President will be every four years. All the campaigning, mudslinging and huge amount of money spent every four years are to convince that group how to vote, not the party loyalists. What I fundementally disagree with is the fact that even though we believe that anyone can grow up to be President in this country, its just a load of hogwash. By the time a candidate earns his stripes and makes their way through the process and finally gets the nod from the party via their primary process, that candidate is so beholding to the party that they have effectively been neutered as any kind of real candidate for change.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Wow, I wonder what you say about the other party.

I see moderates more as people who make up their own mind on issues based on how they feel on each individual issue, rather than towing a party line.

I don't believe that simply because someone choose to affiliate with a particular political party, whatever party it might be, necessarily means they cannot and do not make up their own mind on issued based on how they feel/believe on each issue. Certainly, every political party has its share of "sheep", but that hardly applies to everyone.

I simply don't believe moderates could survive as a functional political party simply because of the constant volatility of their stands.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I used to think that. I don't any longer. I believe it is quite feasible to steadfastly articulate and defend a position that is neither "right" nor "left". If moderate is not the right word for that then give me a new word.

I agree. Call them whatever you want. I prefer the term wishy-washy.