The Time for a Strong Third Party in the US

You are free to believe whatever you desire, but I believe I am entitled to my own opinions when I say your solution to the Two-Party System is awfully one-dimensional and lacking in substance. Though there's a saying that it only takes a simple person to come up with a simple solution...

 

'"I propose we form a new party. A party that aligns itself not with ideology, not with policy or agenda, but for the People themselves! As a whole, we come from a wide range of the political spectrum, but is it not true that each and every one of us only wishes for the best of ourselves and our fellows? We should not allow those who have such clear lack of respect and dignity for the very people they serve to continue their reign any longer! No "Liberal" policy, no "Conservative" policy, only People Policy! For Politics is merely the making of policy for the people, and it is this fact that we must stand together against these Corruptions and truly revitalize America! No more gridlock, no more stalled legislation, no more infighting! For it is only when we recognize that we all fight for a Common Cause that we may put aside our differences and march together under Our Shared Flag"

You gave us meringue and whip topping but nothing to put it on. There is nothing there at all.

 

I don't think it's true that "each and every one of us only wishes for the best of ourselves and our fellows?"

I think there are lots of m/billionaires who don't care if people and kids live in poverty and squalor if they can suck out more $$ to stick in the offshore accounts.

 

A strong third party is America is impossible so long as we maintain a first past the post electoral system.

 

Torture for criminals would be a valid tool in the rehabilitation process. No wink here! A painful experience instead of a prison spa would be a game changer. Criminals need and deserve a logical balance between punishment and rehabilitation where punishment is integrated into rehabilitation. What we have lost in our criminal justice system is we no longer instill fear of going to prison.

 

Nothing there? Why, I believed you helped underline that for me! Vote in a new party and diminish the powers of both the GOP and the Dems. Simply holding that voting leverage in Congress is enough of a game changer. Is it not reasonable enough to say we both dislike the current Two-Party System and wish to see a change to that? Why would you be here exchanging thoughts on this thread otherwise?

 

Those who affiliate or identify with the our two major parties has been on the decline for a very long time. From roughly 1936 when party affiliation began to be tracked of until 1955, around 80% or above of all Americans either affiliated or identified with the Republican and Democratic party. From 1956 through roughly 1982 those who affiliated themselves with our two major parties were in the 70's percentage wise. From 1983 to 2006 those who affiliated with the two major parties were in the 60's percentage wise. In 2007 that dropped into the 50's and today Gallup pegs party affiliation for the two major parties at 56%. Independents have grown from 17% in 1936 to 42% today.

So I agree, a center or center right or center left party could pick up the vast bulk of that 42% of independents if our election system wasn't a monopoly. By that I mean the Republicans and Democrats write our elections laws as a mutual protection act. That they agree on, no viable third party will ever arise to challenge them. They love their monopoly. You see what their monopoly produced, two very horrible and two very disliked candidate by the electorate as a whole.

Then there is the financial aspect. Both parties get tens of million of dollars from corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyists, special interests, huge mega money donors that no third party has access to. In short both the Republican and Democratic Party owe their hearts and souls to those well moneyed elites that fund their campaigns and their very existence. Clinton says she will spent two billion dollars this to try to get elected in November, guess where most of her money is coming from. Now tell me if she is elected she won't owe those corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyist, special interests and mega money donors big time.

I haven't found what Trump plans on spending, so I didn't mention him. But he too will owe different moneyed folks his heart and soul just like Clinton, you can take that to the bank. That is unless Trump is willing to spend two billion of his own money to match Clinton. That I highly doubt, but he did say he would be self funding. We'll see.

Yes, we need a party that represents middle America, not just the left and right. A party that represents the average American, not the moneyed elite. I'm with you.

 

That's not really accurate though. A lot of people self-identify as "Independents" but they consistently vote either Democrat or Republican every election.

 

it does not diminish anything in those two parties if it does not stand for something besides diminishing two parties. The leverage will not go anywhere in unison because there is no foundation to hold its members together. Its a bunch of independent candidates than do not want to be called independents so they chose another name and waved a flag and threw the word 'people' all over their 'platform'. They have no clout if Rep Smith of your party says the people believe 'x' and Rep Jones in your party condemns that statement, and says the people believe 'y' and they both cancel each others vote.

your party has to have a set of ideological and political principles. It has to take stances on issues and demand its adherents do the same to have any discipline and leverage. The Green party and the libertarian party have something to say about education, jobs, abortion, voting rights, the environment etc. They have guiding principles that guide decision-making. That makes it a little less likely that their members will be all over the map when a piece of legislation comes up for a vote.

 

Indeed. I feel torn that our fellow citizens are becoming more and more polarized, both parties promoting this obsessive "Us Versus Them" mentality and causing this rift in what makes us united. No longer do we see America as simply America, but that of Republican America or Democratic America. We antagonize, we criticize, we curse, and spit at our own fellows, and for what? To gain satisfaction knowing that you've "beaten" the opposition? That opposition is your own people! If you consider yourself a Patriot, you would very well know that a true Patriot supports their Entire Country, not just whomever one likes. This proposal for a Third Party is not simply a means to end the Two-Party system that has for many years tainted our government, it is a call to Unity among the American People and a message to those who would choose to abuse their positions for their own corrupt self-interests!

There is a saying that "United We Stand, Divided We Fall." That could not be further from the truth anymore than it is today. But instead of merely standing, I say "Together We March." To a Better Future.

 

It is vital that a party that boldly claims to represent all people to principally do just that: represent all people. There is purposefully no set agenda until an assembly is given chance to voice itself on the issues. Once the decision has been made, all others are expected to follow without question. Unfortunately that sounds an awfully lot like the actual Congress because fundamentally the Party setup mimics that, being all-inclusive as it is. But the Party doesn't push forward policies. No, they don't simply say "Yes to..." or "No to...." The Party pushes forward an overall Stance of the people it represents, and likewise it tries to advocate for policy that best complements it. What the Party gives is a "However..." The Party's policies must be flexible and adaptable enough to respond to the ever-changing world and the many crises it faces. To be stubborn about anything and everything would be to court disaster in the future. If a Party wishes to represent its people, it must change to reflect that. Everything is open to the Party. Nothing is left out of consideration. It's relatively easy to bring together a group of like minded people and have them all agree on a certain issue without much trouble. It is hard to get a group of diverse and opposing thinkers to come to terms with each other. It is because of this diversity in thinking that often brings out solutions that no one else has never thought of doing...

 

Big Business
Big Politics
Big Media
Big Religion

These are you major obstacles to bringing about a serious third party.

I believe that 'party' should be banned from National Governance entirely. The business of the nation is simply too important to remain in partisan hands. Therefore, I call for a referendum to remove the current Federal Government and replace it with a Public National Management Consortium from all 50 states. No more Representatives. Across every state would would simply hire employees to manage the nation's business from Washington DC. No fanfare. No pomp and no circumstance. Nothing to blow-up anyone's ego. We would then have National Ballots and National Referendums for any and all National Government Spending. The entire country would essentially replace the current congress in that role. If you fail to vote for how you want the nation's tax dollars spent, then you have nothing to complain about later. However, the entire country would vote on all spending measures.

This way, we can all participate in national vote as to whether or not we wish to keep the Federal Reserve Bank, as just one of many good examples of things that would finally become under the power and control of We The People. No parties involved in that kind of process. This same model can be used at the State level as well.

Party Politics is destroying out country. Of that there can be nor should be any doubt at this point. Party Politics played in important role in our history and was useful for a time in that history. However, I think we have long outgrown the need for such juvenile thinking. It is time for this country to grow up and start taking genuine responsibility for being a full-blown Democracy, by taking off the training wheels of Representative Democracy. Pure Democracy is for a mature nation. We are 240 years old now. We should be old enough to handle our our destiny, without "Representatives."

 

I disagree. This is the smug, self-fulfilling attitude that has brought us to where we are today. Have the GOP and Dems done a good job of rigging things so that it's near impossible for a non- R/D candidate to gain traction? Absolutely. Heck, I've argued that neither Donald Trump nor Bernie Sanders had any business running under the GOP/Dem banners, respectively. Why did they go that route? Because there's nowhere else from which to run if you want to be taken seriously. Yes, that's just the way American politics works today, but it is not a requirement for how it must work tomorrow.

For right now, your third statement is true to some extent, although I would replace the words "wasted vote" with "inconsequential vote". But here's the thing: if enough people start waking up to the fact that not every state is a competitive electoral state, and if enough people in non-competitive states start casting votes for non- D/R candidates, we will eventually reach a tipping point, after which the D/R parties will no longer be able to rely on the "we're not as bad as them" argument. I myself fall into this category: being a resident of California, I know exactly how the state will vote. So were I to cast a vote for Gary Johnson, is my vote "wasted"? Not at all, because by casting it I'm stating two important things: (1) for some reason, I cannot cast a vote in support of the Democratic candidate, and (2) I am a voter who would like to be presented with viable third options in the future. Is the vote inconsequential to the outcome of this election cycle? Yes, it absolutely is, but because of item 1, it would be that way no matter what. Is the vote wasted? No, I don't believe so, because item 2 is an important point to get across. In any event, that's my reasoning on the subject.

 

The problem that's inherent with pure democracy is the fact that issues are often complex and intertwined with so many little details that it makes it difficult for the average citizen to fully comprehend the consequences of going one route or the other. That, and the fact that many of us has better things to do than to vote on a daily basis, such as going to work and getting a good night's sleep. Who would have the time to mull over every little detail and make an informed decision on that basis? At worst, you could have people literally checking boxes for the sake of just getting the vote done. That defeats the purpose of having a democracy in the first place! The reason we have a representative democracy is so that you don't have to cry your brains out over every single detail in a 500-page bill. Representatives are practically dedicated voters. And then some. Unfortunately that "then some" part has led to quite a twisted mess in our system...

 

A system like that would utterly fail. The government would end up devolving into votes on whether we should allocate money for votes on whether we should allocate money for...

If every expenditure requires a vote and elections cost money to organize and carry out...

 

Your first priority should be to change election rules to include preference voting, i.e. ranking the candidates and then eliminating the lowest ranked candidate until you have one left. Otherwise you will get nowhere, because there's no way I'm going to vote 3rd party and risk letting my enemy win. While that sentiment is not universal, it's going to be common among people who see a difference between republicans and democrats.

 

A party of the majority rules ?

That wouldn't be politically correct.

 

It's time get rid of the corrupt, bloated government in Washington. Jefferson would heartily approve.

But it won't happen for another 200 to 300 years. We'll be long dead.

 

LOL. You are kidding right? Its going to take a stance somewhere along the way on something and everyone is going to sing the chorus together? As I said you have no way to define what people want, refuse to establish a method by which we can learn if any two members agree on anything and you want to call it a 'strong party?' You are herding cats except you don't even know if there aren't more birds, rodents and dogs than cats.

 

Sure, if you want to break independents down to lean Republican and lean Democrat along with the no leans or what I refer to as pure or true independents. But a lot of the independent vote falls into the line of buying into the two major party propaganda. Voting for a third party or independent candidate is a wasted vote because they can not win.

So most independents hold their nose and vote for a Republican or Democrat. You know, the lesser of two evils or the least worst major party candidate. It like the Libertarians which actually make up between 5-8% of the electorate. But they hardly ever vote for their own candidate. Why? Because they would rather vote in the lesser of two evils since they have determined their candidate can't win.

The Libertarian vote can be decisive though. A few years back their candidate received 8% of the vote in one of our senator races. The Democrat won on election day something like 48 to 42% with the Libertarian candidate receiving 8%. But here in Georgia we have a runoff law. If not candidate receives 50% plus one vote we have another election 4 or 5 weeks later between the top two candidates. This time most of those Libertarians voted for the Republican and he won rather handily.

You're correct, most independents vote for either the Republican or Democratic candidate. But that doesn't mean they do so happily, it just means they fell for the self fulfilling propaganda that voting third party or for an independent is a wasted vote. As long as independents continue to do that, hold their nose and vote, there will be no viable third party.

 

I am old enough to remember when both major parties had their conservative and liberal wings. When not every vote in congress was a party line vote. I am old enough to remember when we sent Americans to Washington D.C. who just happened to be Republicans and Democrats. When compromise was a dirty four letter word. When both parties would play a little give and take for the betterment of the country.

Today we send Republicans and Democrat to Washington D.C. who are Republicans and Democrats before they are Americans. Who put loyalty to party over loyalty to country and the good of the party over the good of the nation. Today our politicians forget politics is the art of the possible. That means working together to get things done, even if it means you give A to get B. Compromise on some things. This my way or the highway has to go. This either I get everything I want or nothing at all has to end.

Eisenhower accomplished a lot with a Democratic House and Senate. But IKE had LBJ over to the White House three times a week to discuss how to get his, IKE's agenda through congress. LBJ was the Democratic senate majority leader then. JFK work closely with Everit Dirksen when he was president, Dirksen the Republican minority Leader in the Senate. LBJ when he became president did the same with Dirksen. More recently there was Ronald Reagan working very closely with Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neal to get things done. Even Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich worked together to advance lowering the deficit.

I think when Hastert took over from Gingrich that was the beginning when cooperation came to an end. In the Senate first Mitchell and Dole work together as majority and minority leaders followed by Daschel and Lott doing the same. All of that was lost when Reid and McConnell replaced them. Reid and McConnell both put their party above country. I am getting long winded here, but you have already got the idea.

 

I didn't say you liked Hillary, merely that most likely you would line up with the Democrats:

"The conservatives propose tossing out all the illegal aliens and shutting the borders close. The liberals propose allowing illegal aliens to stay and ease them into society. The more practical solution would be to simply strengthen the border control enforcement we already have and provide the resources to speed up the process of legal immigration. Complete documentation, planning, citizenship, the whole batch. However, because of the lack of resources invested into already-enacted immigration policies, you have this massive influx of undocumented immigrants."

That sounds like the spin for the gang of 8 proposal.

 

Our political parties have been doing exactly what they are supposed to do--attempting to assure that we have competent leadership.

Additionally, a two-party system is optimal because it means one or the other will have a clear majority.

 

Anymore than 2 would confuse too many people.

Trump or Clinton - Some choice!

 

I'm betting a "strong" third party would eventually end up turning just as corrupt, as the two we have now.