TallPine
Member
Well, considering that "the best government is the least government," that might not be half bad
What would it take to make a viable third party?
- Thread starter Fletchette
- Start date
- Status
thereisnospoon
Member
Revolution....
.....Not that I'd advocate that kinda thing
Really a couple ideas have already been presentd that are topnothch
1. Election Law Reform to take the money out of it (which will never happen-see above statement).
2. Convince enough people that voting for the lesser of two idiots is not a solid way to choose their leaders-that's gonna be about as tough as getting the $$$$ out of polotics.
I guess we're screwed!
.....Not that I'd advocate that kinda thing
Really a couple ideas have already been presentd that are topnothch
1. Election Law Reform to take the money out of it (which will never happen-see above statement).
2. Convince enough people that voting for the lesser of two idiots is not a solid way to choose their leaders-that's gonna be about as tough as getting the $$$$ out of polotics.
I guess we're screwed!
Thefabulousfink
Member
Recipe for a Third Party:
1. Have a sizable portion of voters disenfranchised by their parties.
2. Create a stong platform the echos the people's discontent.
3. Have one or more candidates charismatic enough to win national election.
4. Steal borderline candidates from the other parties.
In the 19th century there have been several single-issue parties that have had candidates in the House and Senate, the problem is that their platforms were not broad enough to last more than a few terms. Right now we allready have #1, there has been trouble creating a new platform that resonates with a large % of voters, and (even in the main parties) there has been a serious lack of good candidates.
But, if you can swing that, it is not un-heard of to have a third party candidate in Congress, the Senate, or even the White House.
1. Have a sizable portion of voters disenfranchised by their parties.
2. Create a stong platform the echos the people's discontent.
3. Have one or more candidates charismatic enough to win national election.
4. Steal borderline candidates from the other parties.
In the 19th century there have been several single-issue parties that have had candidates in the House and Senate, the problem is that their platforms were not broad enough to last more than a few terms. Right now we allready have #1, there has been trouble creating a new platform that resonates with a large % of voters, and (even in the main parties) there has been a serious lack of good candidates.
But, if you can swing that, it is not un-heard of to have a third party candidate in Congress, the Senate, or even the White House.
there is a serious lack of good candiates because of the political culture in this country. Who among us would want to put up with what happens to candidates at the statewide level, much less the national level.
I've come to the conclusion that the only way to fix things is a constitutional amendment for term limits. A constitutional amendment limiting the amount of time congress can be in session (we don't need full time legislators) and public funding of campaigns.
Once we had public funding, summary execution for anyone giving money to a candidate or taking money from a consiitutant or interest group ought to keep things on the up and up....
Jeff
I've come to the conclusion that the only way to fix things is a constitutional amendment for term limits. A constitutional amendment limiting the amount of time congress can be in session (we don't need full time legislators) and public funding of campaigns.
Once we had public funding, summary execution for anyone giving money to a candidate or taking money from a consiitutant or interest group ought to keep things on the up and up....
Jeff
I was gonna post a reply, but thereisnospoon beat me to it, so I won't even bother to quote him.
Current system revolves around money...So, it would take BILLIONS to even get a toehold (because you'd need it to be effective at all levels of government).
And, we need to change the system such that one persons vote really counts. (For example, I KNOW its pretty useless for me to vote in NY...There's simply no HOPE that we "upstaters" will overide the NYC vote.)
Personally, I think that ALL bills (national, state, even local) and such should be decided on the POPULAR vote, not by elected people who "owe" various groups that supported their election campaign. This could/would do away with another layer of government (that we have too much of already).
Current system revolves around money...So, it would take BILLIONS to even get a toehold (because you'd need it to be effective at all levels of government).
And, we need to change the system such that one persons vote really counts. (For example, I KNOW its pretty useless for me to vote in NY...There's simply no HOPE that we "upstaters" will overide the NYC vote.)
Personally, I think that ALL bills (national, state, even local) and such should be decided on the POPULAR vote, not by elected people who "owe" various groups that supported their election campaign. This could/would do away with another layer of government (that we have too much of already).
I've also thought that taking the vote away from legislators and subjecting legislation to referendums would be a good idea. Legislators would still be responsible for drafting the legislation, but then they would have to spend time educating their constituents about the legislation in order to get them to vote either for or against it.
The advantage of such a system is that lobbyists would have to persuade a substantially larger body of voters than under the current system. Now, they only have to persuade 51 senators and 218 representatives in order to get their special interests passed. The resources needed to do that pale in comparison to what would be needed to persuade half the U.S. population.
RealGun
Member
This ignores the very principle of representation by those with the task of studying and representing issues on the people's behalf. I think what is really needed is to dump more incumbents who aren't towing the line. One way to overcome the advantage of incumbency is to impose term limits. The best way is to have better informed voters, but I don't see that as very practical, as long as the job is left to a biased press. That press is more interested in stories that gain attention than having any mission to objectively educate the reader about the facts.
That pretty much proves my point. They, as elected officials, will have to examine the issues brought to them by their constituents...And actually DO what the constituants want, instead of what the "people with money", that helped get them elected really want. People will be MUCH more aware of what their representatives are doing, and unpopular ones will get voted out in short order.
Goodness! Are you under the impression that your senators and representatives do this now??? From an op-ed piece by Rep. Baird: We need to read the bills.
Politicians are more interested in studying methods of extracting more cash out of special interest groups than in studying issues they have to vote on.
[email protected]
Member
I have a two-part plan (niether of which will happen before airborne pork):
1. Have all Congressional committee appointments (including chairs) drawn for each session by lot. Remove the power of the parties, and they'll wither on the vine. All these folks are supposed to do is reflect the opinions of their constituents, right? Well, they should all be equally qualified to do that, and the voters from any one district should be equally qualified to opine about a paticular part of policy as those from another.
2. We live in a technologically advanced age. It's not 1806 anymore. There's really no need for all of Congress to be in one place. POTUS can do his job from a 747, there's no reason why Joe Congressman or Jill Senator can't do his or her job from his or her home district. Let each new Congress meet for a few days at the start of the term, and then for no more than five working days a year. Require each congressman to spend no fewer than 280 days of each year inside his or her district. Require each congressional district to provide the offices and staff for its representative, and give that federal money back to the taxpayers. Right now, special interest can influence the entire lawmaking body without even losing their parking spot, let's at least make them work for it. The primary concern for a legislator should be his or her constituency... it's time to re-immerse them in it, and let the voters exert influence daily instead of once every two or six years. Removing the "D.C. Club" would also severely curtail party influence and the "little deals" that get made on legislation that seems to appear out of nowhere. I want my Senator talking to me, not the Senator from some other state.
Okay, that went a little long, but I feel better. There's been some other good ideas espoused here too.
DanO
1. Have all Congressional committee appointments (including chairs) drawn for each session by lot. Remove the power of the parties, and they'll wither on the vine. All these folks are supposed to do is reflect the opinions of their constituents, right? Well, they should all be equally qualified to do that, and the voters from any one district should be equally qualified to opine about a paticular part of policy as those from another.
2. We live in a technologically advanced age. It's not 1806 anymore. There's really no need for all of Congress to be in one place. POTUS can do his job from a 747, there's no reason why Joe Congressman or Jill Senator can't do his or her job from his or her home district. Let each new Congress meet for a few days at the start of the term, and then for no more than five working days a year. Require each congressman to spend no fewer than 280 days of each year inside his or her district. Require each congressional district to provide the offices and staff for its representative, and give that federal money back to the taxpayers. Right now, special interest can influence the entire lawmaking body without even losing their parking spot, let's at least make them work for it. The primary concern for a legislator should be his or her constituency... it's time to re-immerse them in it, and let the voters exert influence daily instead of once every two or six years. Removing the "D.C. Club" would also severely curtail party influence and the "little deals" that get made on legislation that seems to appear out of nowhere. I want my Senator talking to me, not the Senator from some other state.
Okay, that went a little long, but I feel better. There's been some other good ideas espoused here too.
DanO
RealGun
Member
This seems to ignore the context of "dumping incumbents". That happens best during the primaries, not by voting for another party in a general election. We saw an example recently in Leiberman's defeat during the primaries. Never mind that he ultimately won the seat.
Arlen Specter, among others, just barely escaped getting knocked off in his last campaign, and more incumbents will find themselves in trouble. However, it will be for the wrong reasons. They can generally sail through the primaries and then hit a wall in partisan voting. The time to give them a message would be during the primaries. Otherwise it will just be attributed to whichever party is the most popular at the moment.
arthurcw
Member
I’m pretty sure a third party is doomed. Not that I don’t have fantasies about it. But it really is doomed from the get go. It’s like starting a marathon when all the other contenders are within a mile of the finish line. It’s a fool’s errand.
It would be much easier to take over one of the parties in existence.
The Republicans are in disarray and a massive grass roots push from Conservatives could take it over. But sadly, I believe that will take at least 4 years. It’s just not enough time to stave off a liberal Republican Pres. or a VERY liberal Dem. Pres. The desire to keep Hillary out of office will most likely drive Conservatives to hold their nose and vote for McRomNiani. Putting another stinky RINO in the White House (and in charge of the party) will only make things worse (read: keep conservatism on life support for another 6 to 10 years).
The Dems have a fully vested and ordained Liberal leadership. They are not weak in any way and could not be ousted now. A win in the ’08 Presidential election will ensure a hard line Liberal leadership of the Dems for years to come. However, if they lose the White House and a part or the legislature, then there is a glimmer of hope. They could be taken over by the “New Conservatives” in the party, or at least become more conservative than the Republicans (not hard). It’s a long shot not even the most inveterate race track junkie would bet on.
So taking over a party depends on a few things. Will Conservatives be willing to wait and put in the time needed to take over a party? Do Conservatives have the stones to get up and fight for the Republican Party since it’s the best option right now? Will Republicans kill McRomNiani and risk the ’08 election for long term gains? Or if we see pigs developing wings, Can Conservatives, like myself, who have been life long Republicans switch parties if (big if) the Liberal Leadership in the Dem party is thrown out on its rear after an ’08 loss? And then, after switching, begin the process of taking over a party all over again?
Seeing how hard it will be to take over an existing party should give everyone who dreams about a viable third party (which is MUCH harder to make happen) great pause.
There is no magic bullet. We can dream of a new shiny spotless party full of virtue and honor all we want. It makes a great novel. But in the real world, it ain’t gonna happen. A long, hard, and bloody (metaphorical, I hope) battle for the Republican Party is the best hope. The Party won’t be beyond reproach. It will still have some squirmy little RINO’s in it longing for the “good old days”. But it will have the one thing a third party will never have. IT will have the political infrastructure to actually make a difference.
However, if you are driven by principles to the point where you can not stand to work with other’s who do not have the exact opinion you have, then by all means, form or join a third party. But don’t ever expect it to have much affect on the American political stage.
It would be much easier to take over one of the parties in existence.
The Republicans are in disarray and a massive grass roots push from Conservatives could take it over. But sadly, I believe that will take at least 4 years. It’s just not enough time to stave off a liberal Republican Pres. or a VERY liberal Dem. Pres. The desire to keep Hillary out of office will most likely drive Conservatives to hold their nose and vote for McRomNiani. Putting another stinky RINO in the White House (and in charge of the party) will only make things worse (read: keep conservatism on life support for another 6 to 10 years).
The Dems have a fully vested and ordained Liberal leadership. They are not weak in any way and could not be ousted now. A win in the ’08 Presidential election will ensure a hard line Liberal leadership of the Dems for years to come. However, if they lose the White House and a part or the legislature, then there is a glimmer of hope. They could be taken over by the “New Conservatives” in the party, or at least become more conservative than the Republicans (not hard). It’s a long shot not even the most inveterate race track junkie would bet on.
So taking over a party depends on a few things. Will Conservatives be willing to wait and put in the time needed to take over a party? Do Conservatives have the stones to get up and fight for the Republican Party since it’s the best option right now? Will Republicans kill McRomNiani and risk the ’08 election for long term gains? Or if we see pigs developing wings, Can Conservatives, like myself, who have been life long Republicans switch parties if (big if) the Liberal Leadership in the Dem party is thrown out on its rear after an ’08 loss? And then, after switching, begin the process of taking over a party all over again?
Seeing how hard it will be to take over an existing party should give everyone who dreams about a viable third party (which is MUCH harder to make happen) great pause.
There is no magic bullet. We can dream of a new shiny spotless party full of virtue and honor all we want. It makes a great novel. But in the real world, it ain’t gonna happen. A long, hard, and bloody (metaphorical, I hope) battle for the Republican Party is the best hope. The Party won’t be beyond reproach. It will still have some squirmy little RINO’s in it longing for the “good old days”. But it will have the one thing a third party will never have. IT will have the political infrastructure to actually make a difference.
However, if you are driven by principles to the point where you can not stand to work with other’s who do not have the exact opinion you have, then by all means, form or join a third party. But don’t ever expect it to have much affect on the American political stage.
RealGun
Member
That could change in literally a heartbeat, if one of the Supreme Court Justices died. They also are finishing up their annual session, and one or even two could announce retirement. Suddenly the GOP could appear quite "unified".
arthurcw
Member
RealGun you wrote:
Please explain. I'm not disagreeing. Just trying to follow and I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Please explain. I'm not disagreeing. Just trying to follow and I don't want to put words in your mouth.
RealGun
Member
There would suddenly be a bright red line between Republican and Democrat, and the Democrats would be on the defensive, if they tried to force an unpopular result. That would be especially true if rejecting more then one nominee or making it all a very ugly side show.
I am not saying the Dems would represent the "wrong" position. What I am saying is that it will once again mobilize the very significant pro-life segment of the electorate, trumping all other issues for those who believe in that position.
MrDig
Member
To create a viable 3rd party you need to convince the Gray area Republicans and Democrats to leave their parties. Gray area is the middle ground not the Black and white extremes, of the platform if either party. If you found a canditate that could pull 25% from both side a 50/ 25/ 25 Majority would happen. I Know I'm dreaming But stranger things have happened.
Problem with gray is there is no sensational media appeal to write about. no clear and definite answer, so they continue to force feed the public about one side or the other and expect us to believe that there are only two options to vote for.
Problem with gray is there is no sensational media appeal to write about. no clear and definite answer, so they continue to force feed the public about one side or the other and expect us to believe that there are only two options to vote for.
arthurcw
Member
Realgun,
I see what you are saying. That would have to be a grass roots effort because I don't see that there are any Conservatives in the party leadership that would lead the charge.
Ultimately, at best, it'd be a one hit wonder and carry no lasting impact unless it was framed in the larger context of States Rights as Scalia frames it. That is the ONLY way it could unify all Conservatives and not just the "values voters".
You could only have a unifying issue if a REAL Conservative took up the challenge of supreme court nominees and said,
"Hey, what we need is the Federal courts out of your lives. We want Judges that will put these issue back you your hands. No more fiats. Are you with me?"
I don't see it being a winning issue ultimately. By winning I mean really pushing the party leadership toward a Conservative mind set. Worst case, it would just be used as a bogey man to scare the "values votes" who are already voting Republican for Federal offices no matter what.
I guess it's time for full disclosure. I guess the media would put me in the camp of a "Values Voter". I'm a Christian who is not real happy with the moral decay of the society. However, I don't want to see Fed.gov "ride in and fix" the problems. So from a Federal Point of view, I don't think I am a "VV". I want Fed.gov OUT of the questions all together. Those issues are State and local issues.
It is perfectly fine with me to have a bunch of states that are very lax on moral issues like abortion and several states that are not. You can then vote with your feet. Fed up with the way NY handles it's State's rights issues? That's cool. I'm sure you will find somewhere in flyover country that fits your bill. You may not have the best job in the world. But hey, life ain't fair.
Unification takes leadership. Leadership takes a willingness to be smacked in the face and be made to look like a pariah in the MSM. Who do the Republicans have that has that quality? Not even the McRomNiani’s have that. I guess that, in itself, is a kind of blessing.
I see what you are saying. That would have to be a grass roots effort because I don't see that there are any Conservatives in the party leadership that would lead the charge.
Ultimately, at best, it'd be a one hit wonder and carry no lasting impact unless it was framed in the larger context of States Rights as Scalia frames it. That is the ONLY way it could unify all Conservatives and not just the "values voters".
You could only have a unifying issue if a REAL Conservative took up the challenge of supreme court nominees and said,
"Hey, what we need is the Federal courts out of your lives. We want Judges that will put these issue back you your hands. No more fiats. Are you with me?"
I don't see it being a winning issue ultimately. By winning I mean really pushing the party leadership toward a Conservative mind set. Worst case, it would just be used as a bogey man to scare the "values votes" who are already voting Republican for Federal offices no matter what.
I guess it's time for full disclosure. I guess the media would put me in the camp of a "Values Voter". I'm a Christian who is not real happy with the moral decay of the society. However, I don't want to see Fed.gov "ride in and fix" the problems. So from a Federal Point of view, I don't think I am a "VV". I want Fed.gov OUT of the questions all together. Those issues are State and local issues.
It is perfectly fine with me to have a bunch of states that are very lax on moral issues like abortion and several states that are not. You can then vote with your feet. Fed up with the way NY handles it's State's rights issues? That's cool. I'm sure you will find somewhere in flyover country that fits your bill. You may not have the best job in the world. But hey, life ain't fair.
Unification takes leadership. Leadership takes a willingness to be smacked in the face and be made to look like a pariah in the MSM. Who do the Republicans have that has that quality? Not even the McRomNiani’s have that. I guess that, in itself, is a kind of blessing.
Just_a_dude_with_a_gun
Member
-Pro2a, CCW nationwide, no state or local prememption
-lock down the borders, prosecute, and deport, establish very limited
"documented only" worker program, and only for those that have never crossed the border illegally
-End eminent domain provisions.
-End welfare, in favor of a resident only "day labor" program, ie: if you don't lay bricks/mow municipal lawns/paint the firehouse today, you don't get payed or eat today.
-End free 'anything' social tax revenue redistribution.
-Eliminate foreign or foreign funded charities or interests from operating in the US, unless reciprocation is present.
As far as everything else is concerned, I prefer not to get into anyone's business.
-lock down the borders, prosecute, and deport, establish very limited
"documented only" worker program, and only for those that have never crossed the border illegally
-End eminent domain provisions.
-End welfare, in favor of a resident only "day labor" program, ie: if you don't lay bricks/mow municipal lawns/paint the firehouse today, you don't get payed or eat today.
-End free 'anything' social tax revenue redistribution.
-Eliminate foreign or foreign funded charities or interests from operating in the US, unless reciprocation is present.
As far as everything else is concerned, I prefer not to get into anyone's business.
rogerjames
member
I am an independent and a proponent of a third party. I am equally annoyed and frustrated with both parties. I wonder why most third party proponents here assume or suggest that the creation of a third party would necessarily be some evolution or transformation from the republican/conservative camp. I believe that a third party with a steadfast platform, unwilling to be critical and independent thinkers will simply succumb to the same 'ol partisan mumbo jumbo that we have now. I understand that it is difficult to create a movement or a campaign without a platform and a set of ideals, I just feel that partisan politics has lead to ineffective governing on both sides of the aisles. Maybe a third party would force both republicans and Democrats to vote on issues instead of always towing party lines.
It would take one of two things:
1. A complete and utter implosion of an existing party. Last happened in the 1850s with the Whigs.
2. The US is mostly glass after a massive nuclear strike, and the eighteen people left alive organize a rudimentary government. That wouldn't really be a third party.
Face it: whatever the purpose of the Federal Government might be, the two parties exist mostly to feed money and power taken from you and me, to those who get them into office.
1. A complete and utter implosion of an existing party. Last happened in the 1850s with the Whigs.
2. The US is mostly glass after a massive nuclear strike, and the eighteen people left alive organize a rudimentary government. That wouldn't really be a third party.
Face it: whatever the purpose of the Federal Government might be, the two parties exist mostly to feed money and power taken from you and me, to those who get them into office.
There is actually a way for a third party to succeed. It has to actually try to succeed.
Most third parties exist to make statements. They find candidates to run for president, senator, etc., as a social statement, almost a protest of the system from within the system. They know it's impossible for them to win, so they don't really worry about it.
I don't see many third party candidates for dog catcher, city council, etc. No one wants to take a shot at building up support slowly by being better than the Reps or Dems in the menial jobs, and being trusted to do more. I don't see them passing on the good will they developed to others in the party.
Most third parties exist to make statements. They find candidates to run for president, senator, etc., as a social statement, almost a protest of the system from within the system. They know it's impossible for them to win, so they don't really worry about it.
I don't see many third party candidates for dog catcher, city council, etc. No one wants to take a shot at building up support slowly by being better than the Reps or Dems in the menial jobs, and being trusted to do more. I don't see them passing on the good will they developed to others in the party.
Borachon
Member
I want a nice centerist party. I want to keep my guns, but I wouldn't mind socialized medicine. After all, every other 1st world nation has socialized medicine and does wonderfully. The US is great enough to do it as well IMO.
Right now I have to choose between my pocket book and my values. So far, I've gone with the values. It would be nice to have a party that I didn't feel the need to compromise on.
Edit: And from now on, I think my vote should go to the party that promises to REPEAL some gun laws, not just hold the line.
Right now I have to choose between my pocket book and my values. So far, I've gone with the values. It would be nice to have a party that I didn't feel the need to compromise on.
Edit: And from now on, I think my vote should go to the party that promises to REPEAL some gun laws, not just hold the line.
- Status
