POLL: How do we get out of this two-party debacle we're in now?

[BigK]

Someone pointed out in another forum that America needs to vote our convictions instead of voting for the candidate we think can win.

I'm dying to know what most people think is the most viable platform to challenge the status quo.

What do you do? Can you be wishy-washy enough to take the whole center and say to hell with the right and the left? Do you alienate the left and those left of center to pander to the right? Vice Versa?

Edited July 12, 2012 by BigK

[gjohnsoniv]

Vote out the incumbent.

[Oh Shoot]

The tyranny is set too deeply now. Nothing can really change until after a Big Pain.

I didn't see this as an option, so I didn't vote.

- OS

----------------

"The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt political party, which held a monopoly on power. The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike."

Dmitry Orlov

Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century

[jtmaze]

I think the Libertarians have the right idea about getting back to the Constitution. They are just going about it the wrong way. I have never seen a Libertarian candidate in any other race except for the President. If the libertarians want to have a chance of making a 3rd party they need to start slowly in smaller local elections and make successful communities(all over the country). Then focus on state governments and use the proven methods that worked in the local governments to make the state government successful. Then use the success of the state governments to built monentum for the national government. The problem is they are throwing up a candidate every four years and then not worrying about the local elections. The movement they are trying to make must be made in baby steps. If you take small steps and put your limited fund where they do the most good then you have a chance to make a difference. If you throw all your money at one big problem and not worry about the little problems then you are wasting your money.

[Guest bkelm18]

Revolution. Though it's not an option in your poll. By force is really the only way. It's too entrenched.

[tnhawk]

I don't like any of the choices we have, but what we've got isn't working too well for most citizens. The current politicians seem to be content with the citizens paying the bills while they accomplish nothing for us. I don't see any options available to make an improvement.

[RobertNashville]

We don't need a third party - what's wrong with the two parties we have is pretty much the same thing that is wrong with our society in general; the parties simply reflect that; so would adding another part to the mix.

If we don't change the culture we'll never change the party.

I think the Tea Party movement has started that process and it's made some progress but it's slow. Then again, we didn't get to this point overnight either.

[Guest PapaB]

I think the Libertarians have the right idea about getting back to the Constitution. They are just going about it the wrong way. I have never seen a Libertarian candidate in any other race except for the President. If the libertarians want to have a chance of making a 3rd party they need to start slowly in smaller local elections and make successful communities(all over the country). Then focus on state governments and use the proven methods that worked in the local governments to make the state government successful. Then use the success of the state governments to built monentum for the national government. The problem is they are throwing up a candidate every four years and then not worrying about the local elections. The movement they are trying to make must be made in baby steps. If you take small steps and put your limited fund where they do the most good then you have a chance to make a difference. If you throw all your money at one big problem and not worry about the little problems then you are wasting your money.

This.

[sigmtnman]

My belief is that we should do away with political parties altogether.

George Washington warned against political Parties.

One of the expedients of Party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions & aims of other Districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies & heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render Alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal Affection.

All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and Associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, controul counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the Constituted authorities are distructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force — to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modefied by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

in a country so extensive as ours, a Government of as much vigour as is consistent with the perfect security of Liberty is indispensable — Liberty itself will find in such a Government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest Guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the Government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction,

I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.

This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseperable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common & continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true — and in Governments of a Monarchical cast Patriotism may look with endulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate & assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.

~George Washington's Farewell Address

http://www.thirty-th...GW_farewell.htm

Edited July 12, 2012 by sigmtnman

[strickj]

What third parties?

We have Libertarians which are just far right Conservatives.

We have the TP, which I had high hopes for in the beginning, but have essentially turned into a Libertarian'esq party of another name.

And we have independents. Independents don't stand a snowball's chance because they typically are not far enough to the right for the Conservatives and not far enough to the left for Liberals.

Meh... I think I'll just vote for who's face I see on teevee the most like the rest of the country

[sigmtnman]

...

Meh... I think I'll just vote for who's face I see on teevee the most like the rest of the country

The most honest response here.

[RobertNashville]

...We have the TP, which I had high hopes for in the beginning, but have essentially turned into a Libertarian'esq party of another name.

I've been involved in the Tea Party movement almost since its inception and I've never considered it to be a political party and hope it never becomes one.

[sigmtnman]

The Tea Party started on tickerforum with a poster recommending sending tea bags to senators over TARP 1 and was erroneously pegged to the republican party by Maddow. Since then it has been associated with everything except what the cat drug in.

Edited July 12, 2012 by sigmtnman

[strickj]

I've been involved in the Tea Party movement almost since its inception and I've never considered it to be a political party and hope it never becomes one.

What would you call it?

We have candidates claiming and referring to the TP in their campaigns. We have some "TP endorsed" candidates.

It's no longer just a "movement" but it's not yet an official party.

[RobertNashville]

What would you call it?

We have candidates claiming and referring to the TP in their campaigns. We have some "TP endorsed" candidates.

It's no longer just a "movement" but it's not yet an official party.

I disagree; I think it is a movement...it certainly has political clout but that doesn't make it a political a party; I don't even know how it could be a political party since the whole thing is actually made up of hundreds of individual groups; I don't see any "party" structure to it. I know there are those who want it to be a party but I hope it doesn't go that route as I think doing so would be big mistake.

In my observation, its primary mission (or at least its primary benefit) has been getting people involved in the process; in many cases, people who were never before involved in the political process. As far as I know (there may be exceptions), all the "Tea Party" candidates that have run were actually running in a primary to become a D or R nominee.

Edited July 12, 2012 by RobertNashville

[zapfbroad]

Id like to read jess ventura's new book 'Democrips & Rebloodicans'. I heard him on the radio talking about likening the two parties to the rival gangs & how their allegiance is 1st to the party, 2nd to their own reelections... & somewhere down the list possibly 4th or 5th was the people

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I can't click any of the four items in the poll because they don't seem even close. Am not being critical because I don't know any better solution. Just that none of those four options look remotely likely.

Everybody with a hobby horse tried to take over the Tea Party. Maybe it will remain relevant somehow as a populist anti-incumbent force but it doesn't look likely that new tea party incumbents will be an overall improvement. Maybe half will be better and the other half worse, yielding an overall wash? If the tea party had been able to remain a one-issue movement on small gov and fiscal responsibility, but unfortunately not. Too many people managed to co-opt the movement for social issues which diluted the movement. Nowadays Tea Party might as well be an alternate name for the Constitution Party. I'm not saying that is bad. Merely that the Constitution Party doesn't win any more elections than Libertarians or Greens.

On the question of how a third party can win elections, Dr. Carl S. Milsted Jr has thought about and written extensively on the topic. I don't agree with everything he says and the web pages are a few years old. Nontheless Mr. Milsted has given it a great deal of thought and makes an interesting read. Not bad for a nerdy physics perfessor.

The stack beginning here is most-directly-relevant to the question-- http://www.holisticp...s.org/NewParty/

Here is a wider assortment of his essays-- http://www.quiz2d.com/essays/

Edit-- This one is short and interesting-- http://www.quiz2d.co...ilstedChart.pdf

So which is a better reflection of the political map, the Nolan Chart or the Milsted Chart? A political map should reflect the passions of the players. Those close together on a political map should be those who get along while those far apart should dislike each other. Applying the principle of revealed preference, we can objectively measure the emotional impact of political differences by noting who is shooting at whom.

The Nolan Chart places communists and fascists next to each other. Yet these two factions have killed each other by the tens of millions. Ergo, the Nolan Chart is overlooking some important aspect. The Milsted Chart, on the other hand, places the communists and fascists far apart -- in the left-right direction at that. QED. (That’s Latin for nana nana naa naa.)

Edited July 12, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[eapking]

A third party will split the Republican vote. Neither will win. And this question is pretty moot in my opinion. People better swallow it and get behind Romney.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There are several(enough) Tea Party candidates running for the Senate and are good possibilities to make the

Senate much more conservative and take the majority. Jim Demint must still be wasting his time, strickj, but he is

gaining momentum and winning battles. Freedom Works is doing a lot of stuff for Tea Party candidates. The Tea

Party movement is trying to improve the process within the parties, and if that doesn't work, may end up destroying

one or more parties.

Maybe it's just that I hang out where I hear stuff about the Tea Party Movement. I wish more people would join

the Tea Party crowd. they haven't gone anywhere, unless you hear the media minimalize us. Stuff like this takes

several election cycles. This ain't American Idol.

[wjh2657]

To paraphrase the juror at the Jack McCall trial in Deadwood, SD "Somebody get a rope!"

[kieefer]

I think the Libertarians have the right idea about getting back to the Constitution. They are just going about it the wrong way. I have never seen a Libertarian candidate in any other race except for the President. If the libertarians want to have a chance of making a 3rd party they need to start slowly in smaller local elections and make successful communities(all over the country). Then focus on state governments and use the proven methods that worked in the local governments to make the state government successful. Then use the success of the state governments to built monentum for the national government. The problem is they are throwing up a candidate every four years and then not worrying about the local elections. The movement they are trying to make must be made in baby steps. If you take small steps and put your limited fund where they do the most good then you have a chance to make a difference. If you throw all your money at one big problem and not worry about the little problems then you are wasting your money.

Dead on

This is one reason why "they", Ron Paul in particular, look crazy to average folks and aren't taken serious. Like you said, they show up in a debate and spout ideas out of left field. People blow they off because they may have never heard of such ideas. Again, expand their message locally and see IF it builds from there.

I don't think we need another party. It's obvious that the Donks are going to take the far left even further, the Tea Party sees we need to reform the Republican party and that's the direction I think we should take.

The Libertarians can pick things up in between.

Besides, there's several parties out there already, if one don't suit you, make one up.

[TMF]

As much as I would welcome the demise of both big parties, I understand that this is something that just won't ever happen. This has nothing to do with the parties; it has everything to do with my fellow Americans. I realize that not enough Americans will ever vote for their convictions but they will vote for whomever is most likely to win that supports the majority of their ideals. I tend to always vote Republican because my priorities start with fiscal conservatism and there will never be a Dem candidate that will want smaller government. I would absolutely love to vote my concious in the primary, but I know that most Americans won't. Conservatives are most likely to vote on beliefs which is why the Dems will always sweep an election with a third party candidate. Not to say that Dems aren't capable of standing by their beliefs, but they're much better at closing ranks than the Republicans.

Since the average voter makes their decision on either media coverage, commercials or "that's how daddy voted" I don't see any hope of ousting our two party system. The only possible way to reign them in is to send a clear message to Washington that they're going to be fired if they don't work together to pick this country up out of the gutter. I think this is a very possible goal to achieve. A very small percentage of voters can sway an election one way or the other. If only 10 percent of voters agreed to vote out every incumbent on the ballot it could change the race by a margin of up to 20 percent. In a two party race 20 percent will decide who goes to Washington and who doesn't, since we know everyone else will vote party lines. Of course, that would presuppose that all those votes would be coming away from one side or the other, but even a 5 percent defection from one party could be a nail in the coffin, and could you imagine in a 50/50 split presidential election with a sitting Republican if 10 percent defected and voted Democrat making it a 60/40 landslide? What clearer message could be sent to the Republican party to get their sh!t together and stop with the career politicians and pandering?

I dunno, this model I consider the "knock some sense into them" model. Perhaps it would be messy at first, but it would remind the two parties that we are still in control. Many folks would consider this to be "too messy" as voting in Dems would compromise so many conservative gains but these are the same folks suggesting some kind of armed revolt. Well, which do you think would be more messy? At least if the two parties had to deal with 8 years of 100% non-negotiable turnover they'd get the picture. At that point they'd have to realize that it doesn't matter what party you belong to or what commercials you put on the TV.... you're getting fired at the end of your term. It'd be a lot easier to clean up that mess than one that would involve revolt or a coup which would be 10 times more corruptable in the unlikely event they were successful. Use any modern day revolution or coup as a model and see how well things went when they were successful at attaining their goals. The most successful ones involved a tyrannical dictator taking charge in the end.

Edited July 13, 2012 by TMF 18B

[Dennis1209]

If you read the stated Republican platform, sure sounds conservative to me!

But in practice, it's just a bunch of propaganda to mislead the mass.

Very few people run for high elected office to improve the country, it's all about ego, money and power. There's only two types of people who run for office, those that want to participate in the plunder, and those that want to end the plunder. Guess which one will get elected? The one who promises the most out of the public treasury.

How about taking the oath of office, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States? Then do everything you can to destroy it? What does that say about the character and morals of that individual and political party?

It's more efficient and logical to take over a political platform and change it from within, rather than destroy it and build a new one.

[Jonnin]

I said less extreme. The republicans need to stop trying to enforce religion and morality, which scares away a large number of voters. Some examples are losing 10% of the voting population (homosexuals) over the fight against gay marriage (pointless, the only valid argument against allowing people the freedom to marry who they want is enforcement of morality/religion). It includes giving up the abortion fight (we lost already--- beating the dead horse just forces a number of women voters away).

That is the top problem with the rebublicans right now and the tea party is just as bad (cannot stop trying to enforce morality).

The second problem with the republicans is allowing people to run under the party hat who do not belong. This includes our last two presidential candidates (romney and mccain are neither one conservative). The party allows big liberal states a full vote for the candidates in the primaries which eliminates the valid choices and then the conservative areas of the country are forced to swallow a turd.

The third issue is just basic corruption which is a major problem for both sides. Sneaking in pork on every bill to feed the campaign contributers. Flopping around on issues as they follow the money. Epic failure to listen to the voters. Complete incompetence about management of money. Lack of any backbone to stand up to the machine. The same old same old that has been going on since 1900 at least, maybe longer.

[personDJ]

I would vote for almost anyone that would promise to destroy the two party system. I can not believe people support anyone conservative . It can never work and A so called democercy can never work. it never has and never will. It is just the same as playing monopoly an we know how that ends. One person ends up with it all and everyone else gets not one thing. Why don't folks see that is where we are headed. Every year the rich get a bigger percentage of everything and the rest get less. How long can this go on ?

I remain ashamed of us all.

Danny