88Comrade2000 Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/ I agree with assessment. Alas, how do we get this third party to really happen. I think a third party would eventually replaced one of the two current parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 I think two centrist candidates, say Joe Lieberman and John McCain, could drop the party lines and run together. They'd draw from the far left and the far right -- namely the people who have been PUSHED to the extremes against their will so to speak. Republicans were driven right by Clinton and Democrats have been pushed left by Bush. But I think there's a strong desire on both sides to reach some kind of middle ground. Give their new third party a catchy name, like the "Liberty" party or something and it would take off IMO. The nuts and bolts of forming a centrist "party line" would be harder than the initial presidential race, but it could be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 We need multiple parties, the 2 we have are too comfortable and too corrupt at playing the system, and put the party ahead of the good of the country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 not a chance for a third party till a centrist retakes the democratic party, thats the only thing that gave Perot any base. There was no fear of a looney left taking over, as much as righties want to hate on Clinton he was way to the right of dukakis, gore, kerry, any of the zannies the left has run or tried to run initially against clinton. If I thought the leftist voter had the nuts to vote third party I would agree with you, the time is right. The right will run a stomachable candidate in '08 to offset the dissent, and a couragous middle left third party guy could come in and sweep the whole election if the left had the nuts to vote out of party. They dont have the stones. Theres no need for a 3rd for the right cause they have controll, and its a middle control(thats why the far right is grumbling). Theres zero way an ultra-right winger is gonna grab any % of vote. The left is the group starving for a middle, just like the right when Perot ran. The left is unable to vote out of party so no third party next election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Republicans were driven right by Clinton and Democrats have been pushed left by Bush. But I think there's a strong desire on both sides to reach some kind of middle ground. this might be true of voters, but as partys Clinton drove Republicans middle and Bush well the democrats dont react and adjust they just keep on steaming ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 A third party has no chance right now, unless they get someone who has a large following and to switch sides right now. The last election was a perfect election for a third party to make noise since many did not care much about either major party candidate, the problem was the major parties dominated, and do not see that changing maybe ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlinginSammy HOF '63 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Give their new third party a catchy name, like the "Liberty" party or something and it would take off IMO. The nuts and bolts of forming a centrist "party line" would be harder than the initial presidential race, but it could be done. eh...here ya go: www.lp.org America has to get the two party mind set out of its thick skull. Many Americans would love to see a third option step up but they don't have the stones to vote for a third party or they're so uninformed about politics they just vote for one of the two names they see on TV. We had a great option in 2004 in Badnarik. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 eh...here ya go: www.lp.org Lets be honest here, libertarianism is not appealing to the vast majority of the American public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 not a chance for a third party till a centrist retakes the democratic party, thats the only thing that gave Perot any base. There was no fear of a looney left taking over, as much as righties want to hate on Clinton he was way to the right of dukakis, gore, kerry, any of the zannies the left has run or tried to run initially against clinton.If I thought the leftist voter had the nuts to vote third party I would agree with you, the time is right. The right will run a stomachable candidate in '08 to offset the dissent, and a couragous middle left third party guy could come in and sweep the whole election if the left had the nuts to vote out of party. They dont have the stones. Theres no need for a 3rd for the right cause they have controll, and its a middle control(thats why the far right is grumbling). Theres zero way an ultra-right winger is gonna grab any % of vote. The left is the group starving for a middle, just like the right when Perot ran. The left is unable to vote out of party so no third party next election. I know we had this discussion before, but I really think your assertion is wrong. The true left will vote out of party, and they have done so in places like California or Wisconsin where the Green Party has had a pretty strong showing in local elections.I am coming around to your suggestion that the Democratic Party won't ever split though. Most of the Democratic Party isn't composed of the ideological left; they are varied interest groups that have formed a coalition, and groups like the Pro-Choice movement, the NAACP, and labor unions are not leaving the Democratic Party anytime soon. The Democrats have survived for over 200 years by adding and subtracting interest groups with the changing times rather than shifting ideologies, and that's probably how it's going to be forever. The American system of government is not built for more than two parties, and anyone's dream about McCain/Lieberman or about Libertarians or Greens taking over is just a pipe dream. It is possible that some party could replace one of the major parties at some point, and that did happen when the Republicans replaced the Whigs in the 1800's. However, as long as we have winner-take-all voting, any third party will only be temporary, and I think it works just fine - if it was good enough for Jefferson and Adams, it should be good enough for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I know we had this discussion before, but I really think your assertion is wrong. The true left will vote out of party, and they have done so in places like California or Wisconsin where the Green Party has had a pretty strong showing in local elections. the reason you think my assertion is wrong is cause your misunderstanding my assertion. I dont doubt that the registered or voice declared democrat doesnt vote out of party, my assertion is that when they do take action to dissent from their party they do so by either dumping into further left or abstaining from voting. This sends no message to the DNC, cause theres no threat. If they would rally arround a centrist like the Repubs did with Perot, I think we would see a huge reformation of the DNC and that would have positive effects on the RNC that Ive been waiting for. As it is though the dems will only continue to let the dnc flow further and further left letting the RNC get less and less what I want it to be. My assertion is that the dem is unable to come center left candidate or in other words a productive third party. While I suppose one could argue going even farther left is productive to the cause they like, my assertion is that by being a party member and en mass voting center you demand your party begin to address your concerns instead of the retarded intrest groups. I dont have any love for clinton, but one thing I have to give him credit for is for 8 years the right had to get off their asses and make do. saddly the left didnt try to find another clinton but instead tried to pass off paltry imitations of his hip instead of his hop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 the reason you think my assertion is wrong is cause your misunderstanding my assertion. I dont doubt that the registered or voice declared democrat doesnt vote out of party, my assertion is that when they do take action to dissent from their party they do so by either dumping into further left or abstaining from voting. This sends no message to the DNC, cause theres no threat. If they would rally arround a centrist like the Repubs did with Perot, I think we would see a huge reformation of the DNC and that would have positive effects on the RNC that Ive been waiting for. As it is though the dems will only continue to let the dnc flow further and further left letting the RNC get less and less what I want it to be.My assertion is that the dem is unable to come center left candidate or in other words a productive third party. While I suppose one could argue going even farther left is productive to the cause they like, my assertion is that by being a party member and en mass voting center you demand your party begin to address your concerns instead of the retarded intrest groups. I dont have any love for clinton, but one thing I have to give him credit for is for 8 years the right had to get off their asses and make do. saddly the left didnt try to find another clinton but instead tried to pass off paltry imitations of his hip instead of his hop. Well, I personally am pretty confident that the Democratic candidate in '08 will be someone from the center. The 2004 primaries already exhibited some of this behavior; many people thought at the beginning that the candidates who voted for the Iraq War would be screwed, but we ended up with Kerry and Edwards, who both voted for the war. When I was on the phone lines, people liked Kerry because of his military experience and because he appeared moderate on issues like gay marriage. In the choice between Kerry, Dean, Clark, and Edwards, Kerry positioned himself as the MOST centrist candidate ... there's no problem with the Democratic voters; they just had sucky choices.From where you're standing, it might seem like Al Gore and John Kerry were from the far left, but both of them voted for War in Iraq, both of them support free trade, and neither of them support gay marriage. The Democrats aren't nominating Barbara Boxer or even Ted Kennedy ... these are moderate candidates, and I think that 2008 will bring even more centrist candidates like Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, or even Hillary Clinton (who despite her reputation is one of the strongest supporters of the Iraq War and Free Trade). Clinton's election in 1992 did send a shock through the DNC, and the real power within the Democratic Party is not with Daily Kos or Democratic Underground; every major candidate since Clinton has come from the DLC, and movements like the NDN and Third Way are pushing things more towards the center with each Democratic loss. I think you're looking at a very narrow window of history, and you really only have one example to point to in Perot, which was an extraordinary case. There is a window now for someone like McCain to pull a huge chunk of the Democratic Party away from the center, and it happenned back in 1980 when Reagan did the same thing. There are plenty of Democrats reaching for the center, and things are only going to move further in that direction in the next few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 IMO, two things will bring about not just a third party, but multiple parties, and political leaders whose beliefs and ideas will actually matter more than the letter following their name. 1) Public financing of national elections. This step is necessary for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the influence peddling which is chronic in Washington DC right now. When people of any party or background are able to compete with the Ds and the Rs, we'll see real centrists and cooperation in government. 2) Instant Runoff Voting. Allow voters to specify their first choice and their second choice on the ballot. This will reduce the burden on taxpayers to hold multiple elections for every office, will probably get rid of the negative campaigning they're spending millions on now, and give candidates other than the Ds and Rs a legitimate chance of winning. I'm very worried that our government is bought and paid for by large corporations right now. If we want a federal government that is actually responsive to the people, I think these 2 steps are crucial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Yes, Al Gore and Hillary are the #1 / #2 Democrats put up right now.. Totally Center ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Someone help me out here. What is it called when you can vote for your first choice and 2nd choice. If the first loses then your vote goes to #2. For some reason I just can't think of the word right now... anyway if that ever happens the US will have more political parties and more honest debate. Until then it would take a large group of ballsy centerists from both parties splitting off and forming a new party if a 3rd is ever to have a fighting chance. Remember the Republicans and the Democrats would be furious if a central party ever popped up and left them holding onto the wingnuts. They would do everything to stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlinginSammy HOF '63 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Third parties would be helped quite a bit if they were invited to presidential debates. That will never happen as the media wants 100% of the attention and air time to be focused on the two main parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Third parties would be helped quite a bit if they were invited to presidential debates. That will never happen as the media wants 100% of the attention and air time to be focused on the two main parties. you're right, they don't want to waste american's time with someone who has no chance of winning. If I have to choose between two guys, and I get the chance to hear them debate each other, I don't want to sit there listening to some third guy who has nothing to do with the process. It's a two party system. Unless we rewrite the consititution, it will be one forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.