Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't answer one of the choices you've provided.
We would need a constitutional amendment to not have a two-party system. I don't think we've "embraced" a two-party system, it's just what naturally develops with our constitution.
Multi-party really wouldn't be different anyway. Merkel is clinging to power in Germany despite both her party and her coalition partner losing ground in the last election.
That is because the two parties have done a good job at brainwashing people like you and controlling the outcome of the elections.
LOL
So is it the chicken or the egg?
I have no problem accepting your view whether it is correct or not. The reason I say this is because I am speaking of reality, not dreams or fantasy.
So maybe we would be better off with 3 or even 500 parties, but that is just not in the cards for the foreseeable future.
Heck, aside from the two historical examples I gave in the last 100 years, if that is not enough to knock some sense into the dreamers, try this on for size.
One would think that with such poor choices in 2016, if ever a 3rd party candidate could gain traction, it would have happened this year. Few other than the hardcore partisan zealots loved their choices in Hillary & Trump.
Yet did any of the 3rd party candidates (yes they are out there and run every year) going up against those two have even the remotest chance?
So pontificate all you want as to why, but I am pointing out what is reality.
And here in lies the problem. People like you who actually believe voting for a party other than the two in power is throwing your vote away. In no way is it meaningless. It is your vote, and you should vote for who you think is the best candidate for the job. The fact that most vote for candidates they don't actually believe in just because they want their vote to "count" would seem to me to be the meaningless effort you spoke of. It's akin to simply "going with the flow" or "don't rock the boat". Your vote has MEANING when you use it to vote for the person who represents the values that YOU believe in. And I'm sorry, but that's not throwing your vote away. In fact, it's the very definition of why we go out to vote. The reason 3rd party candidates don't have a chance is because they are held down by the established parties and voters who are scared to step outside the two party lines. Nothing will ever change if people continue to think as you do.
Hello McFly, what are you missing in the detailed, factual reply I posted?
In close elections (think Bush v Gore) and even this last one, if enough people who favored Trump voted 3rd party, we would have Hillary instead.
The same is true in reverse.
So yes, all your votes these many years for president, whether they have been for Lyndon Larouche, Ralph Nader, or Pat Buchanan have been a total waste.
Strangely enough, Bernie was a 3rd party candidate pretending to be a (D) for the simple reason that he is not stupid.
Had he ran 3rd party as a socialist, he would have been a minor footnote at best. Had Hillary or Trump run 3rd party, neither of them would have gotten anywhere near the WH.
Thus I have no problem with you starting a thread and wishing things were different as that is your prerogative. I might find it fun to engage in myself depending on if people can keep it real or not. But don't try to convince me that voting for Joe Blow of the six pack party has any chance in hell of actually winning, because that is just not reality.
Heck, if the DNC does not implode based on all the exposed corruption and shenanigans they perpetrated against Bernie & Trump, what gives you any hope the two major parties will ever be unseated?
The most qualified candidate in 2016 was Gary Johnson, the Libertarian. He actually ran a state and did it well. His track record made Trump and Clinton look like buffoons. But if all the people who kept caving into the "A third party can't win" idiocy actually voted for the guy, the election might have gone to the House of Representatives.
WT?
Gary Johnson was and is a kook. I wouldn't vote for him as a dog catcher.
The libertarian party is also full of offbeat types who remind me of the outcasts in HS & college. Some are undoubtedly nice people, but they are and always have been socially awkward. They are dreamers, not grounded in reality.
Not all of course, but enough to make them a laughing stock.
I vote YES, we need the option of third parties and independent candidates.
The two party system worked for a long time because historically the two parties were not totally one sided into the 100% left or the 100% right side of politics. Both parties had a liberal wing and a conservative wing and the issues that divided the parties were more to do with issues like trade tariffs, the income tax or civil rights etc. Because of this, the liberal and/or conservative wings of one party could sometimes compromise with the wings of the other party on a particular issue.
We lost this today with the extreme partisanship of both parties, one extreme left and the other extreme right. Our party is always correct 100%, the other side is the evil enemy and there can be no compromise. People do not even attempt to listen to the other party anymore because whatever they are saying is little more than biased propaganda.
We need to change this and one way is to open it up to new parties that might be able to attract new voters with different ideas instead of what we have now, two parties that are run by the extreme left or the extreme right.
We have that option, and have always had it. In November 2016, there were four presidential candidates representing four parties on the ballot for president in all 50 states. Presidential candidates from the Constitution Party, the Reform Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and one Independent were on at least some state ballots. https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2016
It's the states that control access to ballots. Some states make access easier than others. If your state makes access difficult, then you need to get off your butt and do something to change that. No one from outside your state can do it for you. Quit bellyaching and get to work.
Then you'll need to work harder to convince your fellow voters that they need to support those other parties.
Yes, the Big 2 do what they can to control ballot access, and they have an institutional advantage. But still - voters do have other choices. They just don't make use of them.
Hello McFly, what are you missing in the detailed, factual reply I posted?
In close elections (think Bush v Gore) and even this last one, if enough people who favored Trump voted 3rd party, we would have Hillary instead.
The same is true in reverse.
So yes, all your votes these many years for president, whether they have been for Lyndon Larouche, Ralph Nader, or Pat Buchanan have been a total waste.
Strangely enough, Bernie was a 3rd party candidate pretending to be a (D) for the simple reason that he is not stupid.
Had he ran 3rd party as a socialist, he would have been a minor footnote at best. Had Hillary or Trump run 3rd party, neither of them would have gotten anywhere near the WH.
Thus I have no problem with you starting a thread and wishing things were different as that is your prerogative. I might find it fun to engage in myself depending on if people can keep it real or not. But don't try to convince me that voting for Joe Blow of the six pack party has any chance in hell of actually winning, because that is just not reality.
Heck, if the DNC does not implode based on all the exposed corruption and shenanigans they perpetrated against Bernie & Trump, what gives you any hope the two major parties will ever be unseated?
`
The same could be said of Trump.
Trump ran for president before, you know - the Reform Party in 2000. Because of various internal party upheavals, Pat Buchanan eventually secured the Reform Party nomination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald...campaign,_2000
So you actually support a two-party duopoly that is meant to limit voices and choices for the American people and is perfectly designed for an oligarchy?
Are you seriously suggesting that two parties—Democratic and Republican—have emerged as the two dominant parties specificallymeant to intentionally limit voices?
You don't think these two parties emerged on top over time?
Strangely enough, Bernie was a 3rd party candidate pretending to be a (D) for the simple reason that he is not stupid.
Had he ran 3rd party as a socialist, he would have been a minor footnote at best.
Because of Bernie's pretense at being a Democrat and trying to take over control of the Democratic party when he had no chance of being elected in 2016 since he is too far left of center, average Americans are suffering mightily from all the despotic shenanigans of Donald Trump.
If Bernie cared more for the country instead of his own ego, we might not be suffering—as we indeed are suffering—under the worst President in U.S.history.
Bernie Sanders was destined to lose one way or the other in 2016, but by riling up a base to his viewpoints (views that may be popular in the future, but are too drastic a change for 2016-2026) and becoming a cult figure, he handed us Trump on a platter.
He was the gift that keeps on giving to the Republican party.
Last edited by SFBayBoomer; 12-23-2017 at 12:26 AM..
The most qualified candidate in 2016 was Gary Johnson, the Libertarian. He actually ran a state and did it well. His track record made Trump and Clinton look like buffoons. But if all the people who kept caving into the "A third party can't win" idiocy actually voted for the guy, the election might have gone to the House of Representatives.
Do you mean Gary "What is Aleppo?" Johnson, who wanted to be President but came so unprepared he could not speak about it or Gary "Who is Harriet Tubman?" Johnson?
Gary Johnson is incompetent to be President, just like Donald Trump is.
I voted yes but the party that would deserve more coverage doesn't even exist yet! For years I've kept an eye out for new parties forming that I may like more than the ones that already exist, but haven't found a viable third party up to this point. Politics1.com does a good job of listing parties, and I've looked at other sources also.
We are at such a critical stage in our country's history I believe we need a new party that will virtually wipe out both ruling parties of today. Having one party rule could be dangerous long-term, as its likely to stray from its original idealistic intentions as corrupt politicians worm their way into top leadership positions, but short-term it may be the best option to get things straightened out. When you have a multi-party system like we do now so much gets watered down thanks negotiations between parties. If Republicans and Democrats are relegated to small enough members in the House and Senate, the new third party could actually get good legislation through, while getting rid of bad laws and regulations.
Sad thing is, the younger generation is gravitating towards Socialism and Communism, not fully understanding it for what it is. Another reason we need a viable third party, to catch their attention before its too late and they become full-fledged members of those movements.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gary Johnson is incompetent
