America is Ready for a New Party

I think doing it in a partisan manner isn't a good idea though, we need to encompass all Americans regardless of partisan leanings. It should be a non-partisan movement.

Dr Pepper is owned by the Dr Pepper-Snapple Group, which is a publicly-traded company, in Europe, they're distributed through the Coca-Cola Company though.

 

Sounds nice in theory, but there are a few potential problems. There are still going to be tons of wedge issues that will separate people and prevent them from working together. For instance, I don't see people on the left giving up their fight for same sex marriage even if they could fix a lot of other things by doing so. And people like me aren't ever going to support a party that's not pro-life.

 

Fine by me. However we can break down barriers between all of us and settle on some common goals that neither party is willing to meet. I'm pretty sure direct democracy won't go over well (yet) but it's what I personally favor. At this point I'd trust all of us to run our country over our traditional wealthy and/or well-connected crowd. They can vote, too, of course. But their money and backroom influence won't be able to anymore.

 

Exactly!!

Money... the way we've allowed it to affect politics (especially lately), has tainted and corrupted our Democracy.

It's time to deal with that, NOW!

- - - Updated - - -

You're very likely wrong about that.

And there is no such thing as the "Democrat party"; though, there might be a "Republi-con Party" (I have seen some possible evidence that it exists).

 

Amen!! (Corporations are NOT "people".)

 

Exactly. More parties with equitable chances of having a vote in Congress will actually make the political system less monetized and corrupt by default.

That's why I've been saying to keep it to the single issue of democratizing the system. After that, we can go off on our separate ways on the other issues.

*wave of Patriotism hits because I'm writing this as America, The Beautiful is playing on Family Guy*

The issue of democratization is bigger than any other issue. We are supposed to be a country that has a government by, of, and for, the people. We don't have that, so honestly, the other points are irrelevant until we come together and demand our government reflect the views of all Americans. Once that happens, we can go about our business championing other issues.

 

if the current two party system is a "do nothing, fix nothing" government, then don't expect anything better from a moderate party.. if anything I'd argue the issue is the two party system repeating the same poor policies, being in the middle of this system is no solution.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the two party system either, but I have no interest in a moderate party

 

I'm fond of that one. Another I'd like to see people agree on is that everyone should be able to participate in our democratic process, but not with their wallets.

 

Both parties could resist the urge toward corporate welfare and pointless wars in the Mideast.

I'd also like to see the Democratic party shorn of the limousine liberals who love transgender activists as much as they hate working folk.

 

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

We already have over 30 parties

The problem seems to be they are not getting their message across
Or most people do not like their message

 

That is because the Constitution is against more than two parties thanks to the first-past-the-post system.

 

I have to respectfully disagree here. The Republican party was originally founded as an abolitionist party. It recognized slavery as the worst issue facing the country. Because if all people aren't equally free, then what else is there? You're already starting from a broken paradigm.

This is where I (and many other conservatives) stand on abortion. Until everyone has the right to live, then everything else must be secondary. Because if you don't even have the basic right to life, then what are you really fighting for? How can anyone complain about something as trivial as economic inequality when millions of people don't even have the equal right to exist? Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

 

Re: Post #63

I'm good with that.

 

When the Republicans were founded, I agree, they were a single-issue party, but as they were founded during the downturn of the Whigs, many Whigs defected to the Republican Party because of the growing strength of the newly-formed party. The Whigs brought with them their already-established platform and combined it with the abolitionist stance of the Republicans. Had the Whigs been strong, there would not have been room for the Republicans to grow.

The difference between now and the 1850s is that in the 1850s, no party had really lasted more than forty years. Up until the 1960s when Kennedy was elected, the Democrats started to liberalize away from their segregationist stances, a process which was not fully complete until fairly recently.

The only reason there hasn't been a new major party take over from either the Democrats or the Republicans can be traced to some time in the 1850s. During that decade, the United States Congress allowed the states the power to charter corporations, that increased the number of corporations drastically. With more corporations, which are the most efficient way of organizing business to maximize wealth. The increase of wealth then allowed the nouveau-riche to begin financially supporting their political candidates. The candidates, wanting to cultivate this new-found cash cow, began granting favors to their new benefactors in exchange for more favors. This trend continues virtually unchecked.

Backed with money, neither party failed, and when the ideological shift started in the 1960s, a long and difficult process started where the parties shed their geographical associations in favor of a pure platform system. With that process concluded, it was only a matter of time before extremist and moderate factions formed in each party.

What caused further headaches is now one political faction has found itself capable of attracting financial supporters of their own, which has already caused a bit of a rift in some races. I do believe the number increased from 2010 to 2012, and it looks to increase again in 2014. By 2016, a Tea Party candidate may find themselves a viable candidate for President during the primaries. If the Tea Party candidate wins the nomination, I have a hard time seeing the Tea Party candidate winning the White House. Either way, it will only serve to build animosity between the Tea Party and mainline GOP.

There will not be an easy collapse, the Republican mainstream and the Tea Party faction will throw as much money at each other in the primaries that they won't be able to effectively fight the Democrats, causing the Democrats to increase their share of the parties. At that point, the American conservatives will have two choices, reconcile or play a blame game. I doubt the Tea Party's pride will allow them to cave, so they will keep fighting until there is an ugly divorce, leaving the kids with the neighbors that weren't quite friends, but were better than seeing the parents fight.

 

I disagree as a Centrist-rightist. I can offer a balance between more and less, in other words: An efficient and powerful government, a government whose will is indomitable and whose spirit will never waver in the face of obstacles.

 

"An efficient and powerful government, a government whose will is indomitable and whose spirit will never waver in the face of obstacles."

Taxcutter asks:
The USSR?

 

Actually, I think he was paraphrasing Hitler.

 

No, that's what most Government workers desperately want to believe.

 

Yes, indeed!!

- - - Updated - - -

What's wrong with "transgender activists"? They're people too.

 

Problem is fat cat money dictates everything, especially in politics. That's not going to change without total failure of the current economic system. The super wealthy, have won, and they own everything, including the political system.

 

Not necessarily will it be as you suggest. If we don't make the wielding of money (in politics, as it now is) virtually illegal... whatever form of representation we might devise, would become corrupted in very little time.

Get the money out, then we'll have a decent system.

 

Tell me one group of 'non-rich' people that the GOP represent, and and I'll be happy to consider your comment's validity.

 

Under the current system, we cannot really make big-money donors illegal. But what we can do is propose a PR system with equitable access. It's somewhat complicated how I envision it, but the complexity should allow for the smaller parties to compete with the big parties. Plus, if we go for a Saint-Lague method of PR or a system based off of it, campaign corruption will go down with the rise of more parties.

That's an unrealistic goal to have money-free elections. What we should consider a win is to discourage as much as possible the big-money donors. I believe the proper PR system can do just that. Those wishing to corrupt the system would have a harder time achieving their goals in a PR system that favors small parties because those parties would dilute the strength of the money's coercive power. We will more than likely see a snowball effect where the more seats aren't held by the two parties, the less money will be exchanged in backroom deals.

 

Maybe you should stop making assumptions.

I'm FAR from a leftie. Ask anybody who has had a discussion on here with me.

 

Ask yourself if you really want to convince the Far Leftie Loons that their current level of power and influence is about to go through a sudden plunge into obscurity?

-