A third party
 

Like many people, I have been dissillusioned by the two major political parties. To me, they seem to be pretty much the same anymore. Sure, they have a different outlook on a handful of issues, but they've become rock solid on so many, what were are voting on is really this trivial little frills, when we should be focusing on the meat and potatoes of our system. Bassically, I'm tired. I'm tired of this Big Brother bullshit thats been being pulled lately. I'm tired of my generation basically being ignored. Something needs to change, or something's gonna give.

What I think needs to happen is that a third party needs to become a serious contender. This way we will have a new choice to make, instead of "Abortion" or "Anti-Abortion" stands, we may be looking at economic issues, issues about the state of our rights and freedoms, and other rather important things. The system needs a good cleaning, a good reorganzing, and what better way than to throw new, viable opinions into the mix.

So, what's your take on this?
Do you think that the two party system is A-OK?
Do you think I'm overreacting?
Do you think that a third party would do any good?
Which party do you think would do the best job? (Most popular choices seem to be the Green and the Libritarian parties, but there are many others.)

Alrighty, have at it. But remember to keep it clean, folks!

It seems to me that even though the short-term ups and downs of politics tend to grab the attention of the American people rather than their long-term achievements, over the broad sweep of history the American political party system has shown extraordinary stability, especially compared to the countries (like Russia and Venezuela for example) that can't seem to maintain this stability in their governments. Not only has the United States consistently maintained a two party system, but since the Civil War it has been the same two parties that have dominated.

Two-party politics cannot be labeled the "ideal" government, simply because the ideal government is a paradox: either a non-existent government or one that manages to rule efficiently while bypassing individual freedoms. Political parties are designed as attempts to solve the inevitable problems that free individuals face. But there are still problems.

One is the problem of making decisions for the party as well as the nation. Those claiming membership to a political party may possess differing opinions compared to a member of the same party. The party leaders must make decisions based on the consensus of the entire party, a difficult task in itself, but also must appease the minority.

Another difficulty is party loyalty. With a changing society, issues come up (like abortion, economics, rights and freedoms like you mentioned BraveFencer) that split parties or even cause members to join the opposition. Party loyalty can also mean fanaticism, and a belief in tyranny of the majority.

Third parties are technically a "challenge" to the American political party system. However, they tend to be regional, often taking positions best characterized by that which they oppose. Despite this, Third Parties can cause another split in party membership or vote. The diverse conditions of historical eras and differing ideologies of America's people gave rise to the popular political parties of today, founded to advance specific ideals and the candidates who represented them. Therefore, existent Third Parties could possibly rise up as majority parties depending on the evolution of the United States.

Some might argue that there is no real difference between the ideals and political stance of today's parties. We've got compassionate conservatives, and moderate liberals, it all seems to be blending. What we really need is not for a third party to rise up, but to start voting on the issues and not on the party.

I dislike the two party too but it still works. I like to think of the two party system as a co-monopoly. A strong third party disturbs this monopoly and forces one of the parties to shift it's platform to reincorporate the lost voters. It still sucks quite a bit. One of the problems are that the laws concerning political parties cripple their ability to perform well.

The American two-party system is an inevitable result of the fact that elections in the United States are all-or-nothing affairs. Since unless you can get the majority of the vote you're left with nothing after the election's over, people of vaguely similar points of view tend to bad togeather, compromising their principles in order it have a better chance of winning. It's really just a result of the fact that, when the American democratic system was first being drawn up, the existance of political parties was not taken into account. Instead of accounting for this very real aspect of any kind of democratic system, the founding fathers chose to pretend that it didn't exist, which resulted in the seriously screwed up system you're stuck with today.

Um.... not exactly. The founding fathers, Washington in particular, assumed political parties(and a 2 party system specifically) were going to eventually be established. He just hated the idea of that happening, because Washington hated the infighting and political bitchery a party system would bring. He took a gamble that issues were going to be more important on every election level, and that the party system wouldn't neccessarily develop. Well, he was wrong. However, the fathers did realize that the government they had set up after the articles(cause the articles sucked, efficacy wise) had some decent safeguards against one party domination.

I think 3rd parties are a good idea, but it needs to be acknowledged that they will only have any impact as "watchdog" groups. Of course, thats most likely for the best..... countries that have too many viable political parties tend to be or become really screwed up.

Personally, I like the idea of third parties, and both the Democrats and the Republicans don't satisfy all the needs of the American people. They are both respecitively controlled by special interests.

However, to get a *REAL* viable third party in place, it'll take years, and it'll have to be created by politicians who have a real interest in their party's ideals, and not be sidetracked by the money of the other parties. The only way to gain power & respect, is the slow and painful process of working the way up through the ranks.

So no more jumping at the Presidential election 1st thing, eh!

I say work up slowly, like city councilperson & other minor positions. Then working towards state senate/congress, then US Senate/Congress. Once the third party has at least 5% of House membership, then maybe have a go at the Presidency.

Baby steps is the only way to go, and it could take as much as 100 years, to be perfectly honest. Sucks, but unless somebody has a better idea, I don't see any other way to go.

Sky Warrior Bob

I, an American in Europe, have seen every side of this up close, so I'll try to offer a small treatise on what I see.

2 Party System:

- As previously stated, there's no way a diverse nation can be adequately represented by 2 parties. Therefore, you get your "gap-bridgers" and various other ideological wimps, ie compassionate conservative. It's all about compromise on irrelevancies and maintaining a few disagreements over larger issues to look different, as a 2 party system inherently rewards concentrating on the centrists. The only time the 2 major parties ever look all that different is when a wing of a party (ie currently the far right of the republican party) takes prominence.

The multi party system:

This is the most fun, especially when watching. I personally prefer the system because it by necessity has to take views from around the spectrum: for example, if New York's representative districts were all won by the new Mafia Party, you'd have each side of the Republicrat Party kissing up on the pet issues of this new party in order to have their support on crucial votes like outlawing flag burning or tax credits for not using birth control, in exchange for Mafia Party stuff like price controls on tracksuits, you get the picture. In Britain the major 3rd Party are the Liberal Democrats, who can decide a lot of issues, especially when backbenchers of the currently in power Labour Party are upset, such as the current row over University Top-Up fees.

In short, the systems either force compromise to be elected (2 Party) or force compromise to get the manifesto passed (multi-party). Either way, the USA needs to have President's Questions, like Prime Minister's Questions. It's be fun. They could do it in Prime Time.

Why not have a third party? Also, why not have a system where you can put down which candidates you don't want for election instead of choosing the lesser of two evils?

I've seen those Prime Minister questions on CSPAN before. I thought it would be a cool idea; it keeps the executive branch on it toes. I think the major obstacle for a third party is the way voting is done in the United States. Instant runoff elections would weaken the "lesser of two evils" voting philosophy that many people tend to follow.

parties = conformity --(leads to)> conformists = bad