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.
Heck forget the electoral college. So long as we have a first-past-the-post voting system we will have a two party system. The only way to have real third parties is a list system.
No, the only way to have a viable third party (and beyond) is money. It all comes down to money. Always.
No, the only way to have a viable third party (and beyond) is money. It all comes down to money. Always.
Money is important, but look at all the money Ron Paul or better yet Ross Perot had. It did not get them anywhere.
On the other hand if we had a list system for electing members of the House of representatives in each state then you would start seeing some third parties.
Money is important, but look at all the money Ron Paul or better yet Ross Perot had. It did not get them anywhere.
On the other hand if we had a list system for electing members of the House of representatives in each state then you would start seeing some third parties.
It did not get Ron Paul or Ross Perot anywhere because they were not tied to corporate interests (money) within their respective parties. So, they did not have the kind of backing that comes with being a Dem or a Repub.
I am not sure how a list system could be implemented, or how it would help.
The two-party political system that we have in the USA is defective. It doesn't work, it never has and it never will. It's just another way for Govt to keep us peasants divided and therefore under their control. By claiming loyalty to one team, oops I mean party, that creates a situation where you do not have to think on election day. All you have to do is look for the D or R lever. What kind of intelligence does that take?
When it comes right down to it, both parties are the same. They are both very very corrupt and they look out for and represent only the wealthy while ignoring the needs of the average working blue collar slob.
It is commonly known that:
1. Politicians are Whores
2. Corporations are Johns
3. Lobbyists are Pimps
4. Congress is a Brothel
Why do we have 52 choices to vote on for Mrs America and all are good choices yet we only have 2 choices for the most important job in the world and both choices suck? And those 2 choices always happen to be one party against another. Yea I know there are more then 2 parties. The 2 big parties conspire to make damn sure no other party takes the ropes. Even the media does not invite the 3rd party candidate to some debates (Ron Paul). The media tries to tell us the 3rd party is a spoiler vote (Ralph Nader).
I know it's only a dream but America would prosper quickly if we would abolish all parties.
While I agree at this time getting rid of these 2 parties would do the country some good, but I also realize even if they were gone something just as bad could replace them. Really with anything it is the idea of liberty that must shine to the people and they must see it for themselves with some help. I think most are tired of this current system with limited choices and the same results. But the more D and R fail the more people will just ignore congress and the president all together because they know the lies. I think people are fed up with government they just need something new and vote with a loud voice. The 2 partys are to strong and will not be destroyed unless they destroy themselves. I believe in 2012 you will see that because I think after Obama and Bush people will be tried of them all and that will be the independants.
While I agree at this time getting rid of these 2 parties would do the country some good, but I also realize even if they were gone something just as bad could replace them. Really with anything it is the idea of liberty that must shine to the people and they must see it for themselves with some help. I think most are tired of this current system with limited choices and the same results. But the more D and R fail the more people will just ignore congress and the president all together because they know the lies. I think people are fed up with government they just need something new and vote with a loud voice. The 2 partys are to strong and will not be destroyed unless they destroy themselves. I believe in 2012 you will see that because I think after Obama and Bush people will be tried of them all and that will be the independants.
Yes people are fed up with the govt but they still go ahead and pull that D or R lever anyway. I see that as patting them on the back and saying "good job" when we all know they failed at their jobs.
The more fed up people get, the more they will just stay away from voting all together rather then just pull any other party lever.
May I suggest that the best way to do that is to find some non-kooks to run as alternative candidates instead of the marginally sane ones that currently lead alternative parties, which could be a seemly insurmountable task seeing how most 3rd Party advocates are hardly non-kooks themselves (that goes for the left as well as the right).
The media tells us they are kooks and the sheep believe it.
Why? because the media is owned by the Democrats and Republicans.
It did not get Ron Paul or Ross Perot anywhere because they were not tied to corporate interests (money) within their respective parties. So, they did not have the kind of backing that comes with being a Dem or a Repub.
I am not sure how a list system could be implemented, or how it would help.
I could be implemented with the house of representatives. For example North Carolina has 13 congress people. In a list system there would be lists of 13 candidates from each party running numbered 1-13. After a statewide vote is taken the seats are distributed based of that vote. Thus if a third party only managed to get 7.5% state wide that would be enough for a seat due to the rules of proportional representation and you would start seeing third parties in the House. After a close election the major parties will have to ally with third parties in order to get a majority giving third parties more clout and say. If it is going to happen this is the most likely way.
You are obviously intelligent, good post, but maybe you also swallowed some of that poison your govt tells you. Abolishing parties violates the constitution? Well sheesh what do you think ol Bush the dictator has done for 8 years. He shredded that constitution to ribbons. I still feel Bush should have given our constitution to Iraq. I mean....what the hell we ain't using it anymore.
I realize that is the liberal rhetoric, but it rings of partisanship drivel every time. Particularly when all you can do is pontificate that the US Constitution is being violated, without being able to describe where and how. The vast majority of people have never bothered to read the US Constitution. Particularly Democrats judging from the unconstitutional laws they are enacting these days. Such as the ex post facto retroactive AIG Bonus Tax, the unconstitutional Stimulus bill, and the unconstitutional healthcare bill about to be introduced. Democrats are the LAST people to criticize anyone about abiding by the US Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertsun41
I also strongly disagree with you that we have the right to peaceful assembly. Well at least it is written but go ahead and try it. The pigs will trump up some unlawful assembly charge and chase or arrest everyone.
That depends on the place of the assembly. If you are going to occupy public places, then you need to obtain a permit first. If you are on private property, no permit is required. Law enforcement will not harass you if you are abiding by the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertsun41
We do no have the right to free speech either. See my thread from 2 days ago. Just go ahead and post some real truths and see what happens to you. Go march and call Obama a nice name and see what happens to you. Go print a cartoon depicting some one with a hand grenade and see what happens to you. Go put a picture of Jesus on your desk at work and see what happens to you. Go see if you can find anymore statutes or stone monuments in front of state buildings depicting a prayer.
Every freedom comes with the responsibility to not use it to infringe on the freedoms of others. The freedom of speech is not absolute. You cannot slander or liable without suffering the consequences. Your freedom of speech protections also only apply to government. Corporations can do whatever they please with regard to restricting your freedom of speech. Your constitutional protections do not extend to the private sector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertsun41
You are right it would involve an amendment to the US Constitution that rewrites the 1st Amendment and it will never happen. And that sucks. This govt just does as they please and to hell with the constitution. As Bush the dictator said: Oh it's just a G-damn piece of paper.
Personally, I think it is a good thing. The 1st Amendment does not need to be rewritten. It is perfectly adequate as it is now. We can chose to have one or more political parties, political action committees, and other political organizations as we, the people, see fit.
You might have more credibility if you didn't spew empty rhetoric and hollow accusations.
Some real good discussion here. I think that all of you have some good ideas but don't see what really does exist.
More than two parties could easily lead to such even splits that you have to have Congress governed by coalition and the least of the parties could swing back and forth from issue to issue changing that coalition. Where would this leave us if the weaker party was purely green? What happens when people get tired of that changing coalition but can't do anything about it to stop the swinging?
The same is also true with just one political party, as in the Democratic-Republican Party. Take the 1824 election as an example. There were four contenders, all from the same party - John Q. Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William Crawford. If was also the first time a popular vote occurred for President in the US. Andrew Jackson won the most popular votes and the most Electoral College votes. However, he did not have 50% + 1 of all the Electoral College votes cast. Therefore, as the US Constitution requires, the House of Representatives determined the President. Henry Clay, the third most popular candidate, also happened to be Speaker of the House at the time. Which meant he got to determine the President, and he liked Adams more than Jackson. Naturally, Andrew Jackson was not pleased with Clay's choice and started the Democrat Party as a result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Whoever suggested that multi-party systems have to exist in parliamentary systems and ours, by the Constitution, is Presidential. In parliamentary we would see the first coalition picking the Prime Minister and then the next formation having to pick another one and so on.
The founding fathers did not want a parliamentary system with a weak Prime Minister. They wanted a Congress with a strong President as head of state. Which is why the President is determined by the State Legislatures through the Electoral College instead of a popular vote by the people. Only the House of Representatives would be determined by the people. Of course that was changed with the ratification of the 17th Amendment.
The founding fathers wanted to give the States (and to a much lesser extent, the people) the ability to determine the composition of the federal government. The federal government only exists because of the powers the States gave them when they ratified the US Constitution and joined the Union. So it makes sense that the States should have a say in the composition of the federal government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Folks, I may not like Obama but I would rather have him for a sure 4 years than to never know who might be there from week to week. I sure would rather have Obama than McCain and I am one of those who held his nose and voted McCain going against Obama.
I did not vote for either McCain or Obama. It did not matter which one got elected, it would still be a disaster for the nation.
The media tells us they are kooks and the sheep believe it.
Why? because the media is owned by the Democrats and Republicans.
The "media" doesn't tell me anything! One way or another, I have been involved in politics since 1968. I've worked with libertarians, old school Republicans, members of the all three brands of communist (Stalinist, Trots and Maoist) black nationalist, pan-africanist, and social democrats of all flavors. Some are very well intended, but whacked out when it comes to electoral politics, hence the kook label.
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.
