Third Party & Independents: Archives

I think people pick political parties because they find one issue they agree on, and then they don’t have to think after that. They join a ‘team’ and it makes voting so much easier. Just pick the Ds or the Rs. The alternative is to actually research each candidate, figure out what direction they want to go, and decide if you agree. That is work. Considering that a lot of Americans (in many elections, the majority), can’t even be bothered to get off their ass and go vote, adding this extra work is certainly going to turn a lof of people off.

Mind you, I am not defending said people, simply pointing out a trait. Thus political parties are probably some form of least-resistance politics. It is also in the interest of both Dems and Repubs to keep voters at home a lot of the time. The party faithful is quite likely an avid voter. It is the independents that often don’t vote. Thus Dems or Repubs only care about voter turn-out if their cadre of faithful is looking smaller, and they want to swing a few indeps into the voting booths.

Combine this with the fact that any change from a 2 party system is essentially going to have to be change from without, against the prevailing wisdom in the government, and I am not optimistic. I really want to get rid of the two party system, but I will be very surprised if we ever do.

But I agree, the 2 party system is perverting our political system to the point that I worry America is not ‘America’ anymore.

Americans choose this system of government willingly. They vote, they choose and this is what you get. It is called a democratic republic. If you can’t handle that then what would you have as an alternative?
The only alternative to democracy is NO democracy.
That is because democracy is a pure ideal. It cannot exist without the purest and most unyielding standards to protect it.
If you want to pontificate as to its viability, you are questioning it’s validity. If you question it’s validity you want to change it. If you want to change it…..well, see above.

Ah, so what I said was implying that I wanted to abolish democracy? You are quite amazing, Pete.

Do I question the validity of the US democratic republic? You’re damn right I do. Do I want to change it? You’re damn right I do. I suspect that folks like Jefferson, Washington, et. al would too if they could see what we have done today.

If you think the system we have is the best we can do, good for you. I don’t.

I suggest you start your own party then. It is not illegal. DO THE RIGHT THING :>

While it is not illegal to start a new political party, the old parties do hold and use monopoly power over the ballots. So much so, that no third party or independent candidate has made it on Georgia’s ballot for US House since they used a Fidel Castro move to require unbelievable amounts of petition signatures to appear on the ballot.
Are our troops fighting in Iraq for a democracy that would allow the Shiites to make it 2,800 times harder for the Kurds to run for public office? 500 times harder for Sunnis to run for public office? No, that would be antidemocratic.

Yet that is the exact type of “democracy” many states in the US have. In Illinois, for example, to get an opposition party or independent candidate for statewide office on the ballot in 2004 it will take 25,000 valid signatures and 50,000 raw signatures. The two old parties only will need 3,000. To run for the 118 state representative races in Illinois, an opposition party would need to collect 326,000 raw signatures in 90 days, while the two old parties can “slate” candidates with just one signature per office or 118 total signatures for each party.

We DO NOT have a democracy in America because our ballots and elections are NOT free and equal. We are barely better than Fidel Castro with our elections. Cuba only allows one candidate on the ballot, the Republicans and Democrats in many states only allow two candidates on the ballot. For the Illinois State Senate 30 of 59 races were unopposed in 2002. 1 of the 19 US House races were closer than 60-40, mainly because of gerrymandering, which is another antidemocratic tool the Republicans and Democrats use to oppress democracy. But you got me started….

Well you have some valid points but i will draw the line at that Castro comment. That was way off base in my opinion.

I agree that the two party system is hurting the country and need to be changed. But attempts at creating a viable national third party with enough grass roots support to make a difference, have failed time and again; remember Ross Petrot?
I have in mind a third party that would design a platform that addressed issues from the middle, where studies show, most Americans live politically. Think it would work? I am putting together the platform now and it should be ready for primetime by the end of the summer.
The current system is near collapse, the most vexing problems facing the nation are being batted around Congress like partisan baseball and the ninth inning is everlasting. We are going to wake one day a third class nation and wonder what happen. Our path to self-destruction is paved by the now malfunctioning two-party system…

The Open Source President agrees.

http://www.dmbhosting.com/opensourcepresident/Summary.php

“The common cliché heard during election years is that you ‘throw your vote away’ when you vote for a third party. Just where exactly does this idea originate from?

“Not from logic. Logic dictates that those in power want to consolidate that power. For example, the first thing Hitler did when he became Chancellor was move to eliminate all opposing political parties. What this implies is that we may have the same situation today in the United States. Under the idea of a ‘2-party system,’ what we may really have is a one-party-system that has stage actors playing …”