Would it be in “AMERICAS” best interest...

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Would it be in “AMERICAS” best interest to:
1) After your states primary have all REPS&DEM re-register as a third
party. (Do worry you can always register back to your old party if you
want)
2) And for every body to vote late and see if there is a clear winner in
your state to vote for a third party or write in candidate.

I think this would benefit all Americans that believe the Government/elected
officials are too corrupt and unresponsive to the average American voters.

For example G.W. Bush said something like:
Because of the record voter turn out and the record number of votes he got
it was a Clear sign that most Americans supported his mandate, and direction
he was taking America.

Now when ~98% of Americans are registered as and DEM or REP and ~98%
vote for a DEM or REP that is by default support for what those two parties
are doing!

Here are my reasons why “Americans” who are REPS or DEMS should do items
1 & 2.
For #1 if you re-register as a third party, the party you left will have to take
notice that you are not happy with what they have been doing in Washington.
If enough people Abandon those parties they will be more
inclined to a “GOOD JOB” and not just focus on being just a little bit better
than the other party.

For #2, we know that the popular vote does not count for squat, and the
Electoral votes are not legally tie to the pop-vote, so the pop-vote not
important for electing the Prez. But the popular will show “Broad-Based Public
Support” and this will allow third parties a chance to debate their political
case against the REPS&DEMS. (i.e. Ron Paul had a very popular “Get back to
the Constitution” message that the REPS&DEMS never discussed,
Nader tries to push the Corporate corruption issue that both parties don’t
truly address. etc…).
Also if your state is like 70% party A and you are Party B then you have no
hope of getting your party any electoral vote (assuming you are in a “Winner
Take All” state)
So instead of voting down party line you can vote for a third party as a
protest vote, as a sign that more Americans are ready to find a good party,
and as a wake up call to corrupt politicians, that the Status Quo is not
welcome any more.

Or do you think the way things are now is good for America?

[Buck Laser]

Dumb idea. Our political system has worked reasonably well for more than 230 years with two main parties. There's been a bit of shuffling, but the idea does work. Incidentally, I've been voting for almost a quarter of that whole 230 years.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Dumb idea. Our political system has worked reasonably well for more than 230 years with two main parties. There's been a bit of shuffling, but the idea does work. Incidentally, I've been voting for almost a quarter of that whole 230 years.

China's Government has been working "reasonably well" for many years too does that make it
good? Monopolies work very well too, but there are laws against those!
So you think that what the REPS&DEMS bring to the table is ALL Americans need?
You don't think that we can create a better political situation for America?
Let me slow down and rephrase for you. If some one you know had only been able to
eat dinner at McDonalds "OR" Burger King for there whole life. Do you think they would be
benefited by being taken to KFC, Long John Silver, a Taco Shop, a Chinese place, a
pizza parlor and a Thai restaurant etc...

You can't see that the REPS&DEMS have slowly morphed the US in to a lesser
Nation than what is should be?

You don't understand that the "America of 2008" has many new and different requirements
than the "America of 1776" ?

Do you approve of the bad behavior that both parties have shown while governing our
nation?

So it's a "Dumb Idea" for Americans to try and change a system that is not good ?
Let me introduce you to a little document that some apperently (to you) DUMB people
wrote about their need to stand against a bad form of government!
(Please focus on the second paragraph.)

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

[brien]

Dumb idea. Our political system has worked reasonably well for more than 230 years with two main parties. .

It's worked, but I wouldn't say all too well as evidenced by the state of the US and its politics today. Here is a short summary of the parties since 1789.


http://www.mury.k12.ut.us/MHS/apus/handouts/politicalparties.htm

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1486844

[Buck Laser]

China's Government has been working "reasonably well" for many years too does that make it
good?

So it's a "Dumb Idea" for Americans to try and change a system that is not good?


Ah, geez, where to start? Your example of the Chinese gummint is utterly inept. The communists took over around 60 years ago, which is hardly comparable to the 240 years of the US. China had been through many, many forms of government prior to that. And just as a matter of interest the communist government has shown a pretty amazing ability to adapt to changing times. They've made a transition to capitalism, provided economic freedom for most of the residents, and have enabled a heretofore unimaginable degree of intellectual ferment. They're having some pretty serious problems with freedom of speech right now, but everyone has been pleasantly surprised by how free Hong Kong has remained.

I've read the Declaration of Independence more times than you can possilblly imagine, and I've never been able to detect that it has anything to say about political parties. Would you care to explain that to me?

Yes, our party structure has some big flaws in it, but unless you want to abandon te constitution and move to a parliamentary system where multiple parties seem to work better, I can't see any cogent argument for dispensing with it. The best part of it IMO is the fact that there is such ideological overlap between the two major parties. If I were a reformer, I'd work first on the undue influence lobbyists have on the government process. They are, in effect, the fourth branch of government. Such power was never envisioned in the constitution.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Ah, geez, where to start? Your example of the Chinese gummint is utterly inept. The communists took over around 60 years ago, which is hardly comparable to the 240 years of the US. China had been through many, many forms of government prior to that. And just as a matter of interest the communist government has shown a pretty amazing ability to adapt to changing times. They've made a transition to capitalism, provided economic freedom for most of the residents, and have enabled a heretofore unimaginable degree of intellectual ferment. They're having some pretty serious problems with freedom of speech right now, but everyone has been pleasantly surprised by how free Hong Kong has remained..
The Chinese was an off the cuff statement. I had to do a little fill in the blanks for your
fisrt statement.
let's look at Greece and Rome they where around for longer than the US. has been, there are
a lot of similarities between what the REPS&DEMS have brought to the current US
Government and what was going on in Greece and Rome when they fell. We should learn
from history.

I've read the Declaration of Independence more times than you can possilblly imagine, and I've never been able to detect that it has anything to say about political parties. Would you care to explain that to me?
Replace your "Political Parties" thought with a "Governing body"
Politcal parties, that for all intents and purposes have a monopoly on our Government,
are the same a "Government". Substitute the REPS&DEMS for the British.


Yes, our party structure has some big flaws in it, but unless you want to abandon te constitution and move to a parliamentary system where multiple parties seem to work better, I can't see any cogent argument for dispensing with it. The best part of it IMO is the fact that there is such ideological overlap between the two major parties. If I were a reformer, I'd work first on the undue influence lobbyists have on the government process. They are, in effect, the fourth branch of government. Such power was never envisioned in the constitution.
Abandon the Constitution???????
That's already been done by the REP-DEM Monopoly! Go ask Ron Paul for all the
specifics on that one.
I would love to see the Constitution be used in Government that would have saved us
a lot of money and lives.
I'm basically just trying to push for better representation form our politicians. Right now
REPS&DEMS just have to do the bare minimum to be the "Lesser of Two Evils" choice
for Americans to pick from! Because there's no competition real for them to compete with!
Thus the American people loose! The lesser of two evils is still evil ! And as long as
nothing changes it will stay this way!
Now if you really think the system is just fine “as is” would you be willing to pay for my
portion of the US national debt ????????

[spirobulldog08]

Third parties do nothing except throw off elections. I can do some agreeing with both sides here. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about parties. Parties were invented after the construction of the Constitution and were actually warned against by the Founding Fathers. However, the Party system as we know it today is (conversely to previously mentioned) the only reason politicians do anything they say they will at all (however small of an amount that is). If parties were to disappear there would be no consequences for not doing what they promised once in office.

Back to the third party issue though. I see no real purpose of third parties other than to act basically as a forerunner for a powerful interest group. Their issues get pushed and often can make good steps toward their aim or push vital issues that otherwise might be avoided. However, their primary fault is a formidable one indeed! When a third party attempts to run for President, especially after previously being affiliated with one of the major parties, then they do nothing except throw off the actual election. It will be decades (if ever) before a third party gains enough of a following to make a good run for the President.

To sum up, I wish that we lived in a perfect world and the policies and ideas of the Founding Fathers had been left in place and we hadn't actually formed political parties. But the fact is we did and now we're making the best of it. Our country has been trough tough times before and we always found a way out. This is no different.

I apologize for not quite arguing the same things as are being discussed but I believe this is something that is somewhat of a resolution to both sides. Our system is what it is and has kept us on top for a long time, we just have some work to do to get back to the strong country that we are!

[Sublimating]

Listening to popular talk show host Michael Medved you come away with the same conclusions expressed by spirobulldog08 "Third parties do nothing except throw off elections" Medved insist upon calling the Libertarian party the loosertarians and feel that third parties should give up.

The truth, as I see it ,is that third parties accomplish little more than throwing off elections because hitherto ,relatively speaking, very little effort has been put into creating a viable serious third party. There are a thousand reasons why this is the case, the question is what can we do about it. I believe this country could be revolutionized by a powerful viable third party. It would change the political landscape in ways we can't even think of and introduce some much needed uncertainty among those who know how to play the game all to well. What we need is a combination of grass root inspiration and perhaps a couple of political minded philanthropist to bank role a massive sustained effort at launching a third party. Right now America is a great country with and awesome system of government. If we could ever break free of the two party system it will hurtle us a hundred years ahead in the political arena by giving us a government that will work as though their jobs depended on their performance. Imagine that.

[Scribbler1]

If parties were to disappear there would be no consequences for not doing what they promised once in office.Are you serious? They don't keep their promises NOW, despite being in a party.Back to the third party issue though. I see no real purpose of third parties other than to act basically as a forerunner for a powerful interest group.Who would that group be? Can you expand on that a bit?

These parties, for the most part, seem to be interested in being advocates for the American PEOPLE. If they were frontmen for special interests they'd have a whole lot more money to work with, wouldn't they.

Parties like the Libertarian Party are perennial losers BECAUSE the big spenders don't give them money. They spend it all on the Democrats and Republicans. Care to guess why that is?

But you're right, "third" parties DO upset the election process. And it's a damned good thing they DO. We seem to be currently stuck with two parties and look what THEY have accomplished. I for one like an alternative.


And Medved is just another opinionated twit. He should have stuck to reviewing movies.

[Alonzo]

Find me a third party that's not run by crazy people first. Then find me one that actually has a shot at winning and has a pragmatic agenda.

[Scribbler1]

I have the sneaking suspicion that you're not likely to see ANY party/candidate that isn't another rehash of the people we've been putting in office for decades that you don't see as "crazy".

[spirobulldog08]

Are you serious? They don't keep their promises NOW, despite being in a party.Who would that group be? Can you expand on that a bit?

No, what I mean is, if, for example, the only strong party that existed was the Democratic party then whenever they lied about something the people wouldn't have anything to say about it because there was no alternative.

These parties, for the most part, seem to be interested in being advocates for the American PEOPLE. If they were frontmen for special interests they'd have a whole lot more money to work with, wouldn't they.

Parties like the Libertarian Party are perennial losers BECAUSE the big spenders don't give them money. They spend it all on the Democrats and Republicans. Care to guess why that is?That's not entirely true. You have your political parties such as those that are enviornmentally minded and don't care about any of the rest of the politics and are relatively uneducated about the other policies but only care about their enviornmental agenda. Even then your enviornmentalists are not going to give them money because they have no chance of winning an election. They give their money to Democrats who have a better track record of being enviornmentalist than the Republicans and who have a better shot at getting office. That's why third parties don't get money from interest groups. Why waste money on someone who can't win?

But you're right, "third" parties DO upset the election process. And it's a damned good thing they DO.I hate to take you on on everything you say but it's just not right. Third parties upset the election process and it's NOT a good thing! Let me once again go back. If an enviornmentalist joins the race, he or she is most likely to take votes away from the Democratic party, which defeats the whole purpose! The Democrats are who they should choose second to their own party because they would be the more enviornment friendly group. I've used the enviornment interest a lot because it is a great example of a reputible third party.

We seem to be currently stuck with two parties and look what THEY have accomplished. I for one like an alternative.There I actually agree with you mostly. The problem once again is that there ARE two parties and the change back and forth from one party to another being in charge nullifies our ability to make good changes that are necessary. If we had listened to our Founding Fathers and stayed away from division then we would be a stronger nation.

We as Americans have lost our sense of national pride because of all the influences we have to be "individuals" if I may. In the struggle to survive wouldn't it be better to work as a team (or in our case as a nation) than to have everybody working against each other? I know we don't live in a perfect world but as long as we have division websites like these will prosper from people bickering with each other and America will continue to be a hated nation. I must say I would hate America too if their view of my country and it's people changed every time a new party took control of office.

I've rambled a lot and said a lot of random, off subject things so I'll just go now. :)

[Scribbler1]

No, what I mean is, if, for example, the only strong party that existed was the Democratic party then whenever they lied about something the people wouldn't have anything to say about it because there was no alternative.There are many people who believe that the two parties in power are in reality more like ONE party with two public faces. It happens all the time with governments. They form coalitions with smaller parties to get the power of government. What makes it so unlikely that the Ds and Rs might do that themselves?
They both now have half the pie each, so why would they NOT indoctrinate people with this "two party ONLY" nonsense? They like the way it is now and they don't want to split that pie any more.

And as for lying, their lies are publicized NOW and the people don't do anything about it. They are so ideologically wedded to their party's rhetoric, they don't SEE the lies their own people spout but focus only on the "enemy".
The American political process has become more "US vs. THEM" than "WE the People".That's not entirely true. You have your political parties such as those that are enviornmentally minded and don't care about any of the rest of the politics and are relatively uneducated about the other policies but only care about their enviornmental agenda. Then it would be up to an educated, informed electorate to make sure these parties never GET any power. Single-issue politics is inadequate for governing a country, but far too many people like it that way and the parties in power like it that way. So called "hot button" politics isn't just for third parties, either. If a Democrat candidate addresses, for example, the Sierra Club, do you think he'll be speaking about economic policy? Even then your enviornmentalists are not going to give them money because they have no chance of winning an election. They give their money to Democrats who have a better track record of being enviornmentalist than the Republicans and who have a better shot at getting office. That's why third parties don't get money from interest groups. Why waste money on someone who can't win?That's a good point, but I think it's based on faulty logic. You first need to understand that most people give large sums of money to political candidates and parties thinking "what's in it for me". They are not about to support a political philosophy that hurts them.
In other words, not only will I get something back for my money if a certain person or party wins, I will NEVER give money to a party or pol who will not likely win, because that WOULD be a waste of my money/influence. It's a self fulfilling prophesy that you don't support a loser and by not supporting him you guarantee he will lose.I hate to take you on on everything you say but it's just not right. Third parties upset the election process and it's NOT a good thing! Let me once again go back. If an enviornmentalist joins the race, he or she is most likely to take votes away from the Democratic party, which defeats the whole purpose! The Democrats are who they should choose second to their own party because they would be the more enviornment friendly group. I've used the enviornment interest a lot because it is a great example of a reputible third party.Actually, the Libertarian Party is the largest of the "third" parties and it doesn't come NEAR to being a single-issue party. It's just that the big money people don't WANT a viable third party. They want a party which does things for THEM, and thay have that already in the Republican and Democratic parties.There I actually agree with you mostly. The problem once again is that there ARE two parties and the change back and forth from one party to another being in charge nullifies our ability to make good changes that are necessary. If we had listened to our Founding Fathers and stayed away from division then we would be a stronger nation.Agreed. And another thing that points out the sameness of the two major parties is that, no matter what direction the pendulum of national opinion swings to, the division between the two parties in Congress is always quite small.

Case in point: The majority of people don't like Bush and this war (and Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush), and the Republicans supported both. You would then imagine the next few years will show a HUGE majority in Congress, as well as a Democratic president.
I'm willing to bet real money you won't see that at all.We as Americans have lost our sense of national pride because of all the influences we have to be "individuals" if I may.What's wrong with individuality? You can still be an individual and support a decent government. In the struggle to survive wouldn't it be better to work as a team (or in our case as a nation) than to have everybody working against each other? I know we don't live in a perfect world but as long as we have division websites like these will prosper from people bickering with each other and America will continue to be a hated nation.Don't you think people in government have known this too? Congress, in particular, knows all of this, but their primary agenda is getting and KEEPING power. And the old term "divide and conquer" is extremely appropriate here. Look at their campaigns. If you take away the pandering and disposable promises, along with the focus on how bad the OTHER side is, what do you have left? Not much, I'm, afraid. They can no longer point to their track records to get votes. They don't need to sell you on THEM, but only need to get you to hate the other guy.I've rambled a lot and said a lot of random, off subject things so I'll just go now. :)No, they were all good points you brought up. I may disagree but that doesn't mean anything in a discussion. That's what these forums are all about.

And as far as them being just for "bickering" goes, you're right. That IS the nature of these forums.
But as long as we realize we are not changing the world here, and that it's all good fun, everything's cool.

Good second post, newbie.

[spirobulldog08]

I appreciate your nod of approval and admit a lot of it is over my head. I will live and learn as I pay attention to the news and involve myself in discussions like these. I am thoroughly interested in politics and have followed this race very closely. We all have our opinions and I'm thankful we're in a country that we have the freedom to express that opinion. I guess if we all agreed then we would be robots, it takes all kinds to move a country forward. :)

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Third parties do nothing except throw off elections. I can do some agreeing with both sides here. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about parties. Parties were invented after the construction of the Constitution and were actually warned against by the Founding Fathers. However, the Party system as we know it today is (conversely to previously mentioned) the only reason politicians do anything they say they will at all (however small of an amount that is). If parties were to disappear there would be no consequences for not doing what they promised once in office.

Back to the third party issue though. I see no real purpose of third parties other than to act basically as a forerunner for a powerful interest group. Their issues get pushed and often can make good steps toward their aim or push vital issues that otherwise might be avoided. However, their primary fault is a formidable one indeed! When a third party attempts to run for President, especially after previously being affiliated with one of the major parties, then they do nothing except throw off the actual election. It will be decades (if ever) before a third party gains enough of a following to make a good run for the President.

To sum up, I wish that we lived in a perfect world and the policies and ideas of the Founding Fathers had been left in place and we hadn't actually formed political parties. But the fact is we did and now we're making the best of it. Our country has been trough tough times before and we always found a way out. This is no different.

I apologize for not quite arguing the same things as are being discussed but I believe this is something that is somewhat of a resolution to both sides. Our system is what it is and has kept us on top for a long time, we just have some work to do to get back to the strong country that we are!

OK, Now let's think about this. Right now Third parties don't have a chance to do anything
in terms of changing the Government Right! The REPS&DEMS have had control of the US
Government for more than 100yrs! So are we stuck in having these two known
corrupt parties rule America? The Land of the Free, The Greatest Democracy in the
world,The country that goes to War to Bring Democracy to other countries!?

Dictatorship = 1 Party Rule, right.
USA = 2 Party Rule!
We are half way to a dictatorship!

Now I don't want "Parties" per say, I just want to have a country that is not blackmailed
in to having to vote for the lesser of two corrupt parties. The lesser of two Evils is
destroying America, or many of the great things that the Forefathers gave to America.