topic posted Mon, November 5, 2012 - 10:59 PM by  Killa Cham
Moderated By Larry King

Sponsored by RT

Two party dictatorship

    Tue, November 6, 2012 - 10:28 AM

      Wed, November 7, 2012 - 3:55 PM
      Today's the time to start building support for a third party.
      Today. Now.
      Work for it. It can happen.
      Don't wait until six months before the next election.

        Thu, November 8, 2012 - 10:19 AM
        Third parties are simply not viable in our system of government and elections. If a third party begins gathering significant support, one of the two major parties will simply adopt the most popular positiions espoused by the third parrty and draw off their support. So a third party can have an effect on the two major parties, but cannot last long in competition. That is a shame, but it's simply part of the dynamics of American politics. In a parliamentary system, such as Britain's, third parties are better able to find a place in the mix, but this is unlikely to work in the US system. Sorry.

        With love under will,

        Bob, Adastra,
        The Wizzard of Jacksonville

          Thu, November 15, 2012 - 12:16 PM

          Second, vote for a major party candidate. Vote for the Democrat or vote for the Republican. Don't vote for any third party candidate, or an independent.

          We try to be nonpartisan at Mischiefs, but I have to take a stand here. The policies of the Green Party or the Libertarian Party might be great, but you're not helping realize them by voting Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.

          Why not? For one, even if they were elected, a third party candidate would have to deal with a Congress filled with Democrats and Republicans. The president doesn't get to just repeal Obamacare or implement single-payer health care. That's the job of the legislature. By definition, anyone running for president as a third-party candidate has decided that coordinating with members of the two major parties is too hard. If it's too hard in the nomination stage, why would it suddenly become easy at the legislating stage?

          And of course, no third party candidate is going to win. So your vote doesn't help. Meanwhile, there are real differences between Obama and Romney. Very big ones, in fact. Voting for anyone else means you give up your chance to voice your opinion on the divisions that are actually at stake in this election.

            Thu, November 15, 2012 - 10:17 PM
            Some states require that a party receive a given percentage of the vote in the previous election to appear on the next election ballot/primary as a party. California is one of those. Therefore, if you believe in there being alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats on the ballot on a regular basis, you MUST either vote for a third party candidate OR have a petition signed my lots and lots of people to get a new/reinstate an old 3rd party onto the ballot. So, vote third party if you believe in political long-term political diversity over immediate expediency.

              Tue, November 20, 2012 - 3:18 PM
              so, basically you are treading water. it's still a highly ineffective vote. that california law is highly undemocratic, at least how you describe it. however, if you can't get enough signatures to get on the ballot, then you probably have no business being on the ballot in the first place. personally, i'll sign just about any petition to get on a ballot. i just am highly unlikely to support their candidacy because i feel there are much more effective ways to campaign for your issues than running a futile campaign just in the hopes of treading water and being able to get on the next ballot.

              rather than spend millions (or thousands) of dollars on a 100% guaranteed failed run for office, why not spend and raise that money creating a foundation/organization or donate the money you'd raise to a current foundation/organization that represents the issues you are running on? obviously, it's nice to be in control of how the money is spent; political candidates are not necessarily known for their frugality and ability to spend money wisely.
              • Re: THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES

                Tue, November 20, 2012 - 9:42 PM
                >so, basically you are treading water.

                It depends really on how long term a point of view one takes.

                I do agree that any laws limiting which parties and candidates can be on a ballot are somewhat anti-democratic, the definition of 'democratic' being in the broad sense. However, in a large social organism, situated across a vast geographic area, it is more feasible, historically, to not use that sort of 'democracy' to get things done. Further, as there is already some agreement here, it is good to know that if you do come to political power that you have some sort of background in being organized politically in such a way as to be effective. Requiring a certain number of signatures to get on a ballot ensures at least some modicum of connection the process by which one will come to power in an election (we hope).

            Sun, November 25, 2012 - 2:05 PM
            >>Why not? For one, even if they were elected, a third party candidate would have to deal with a Congress filled with Democrats and Republicans.<<<

            You describe an independent, not a third party.

Recent topics in "Heated Debate"