Is it time for USA to have a 3rd party?

[faded glory]

Would you like to see a third party?


I heard Pat Buchannon on MSNBC the other night. He made a good point that our political system should be more like Europe's, in that smaller partys have more influence. And coalition's should be built. He said the Democrats and Republicans should not be allowed to monopolize politic's the way they have. He said both parties are like a rotten apple(corrupt inside, juicy outside) thats outsides are still red and juicy. I actually found myself agreeing with him. Because we know that absolute power corrupts. Theres no one to challenge the conservatives or liberals... so both wings are becoming extremely corrupt. (business, promises, immigration, favors)


Theres that whole issue like what Gore said on the campaign "Dont throw your vote away to Nader, there is no chance he can win...". So Ameircans tend to vote for the lesser of two evils.



Firstly, what do you think of the 2 party system.

Do you want to see a European model used in America?

What do you think of Pat Buchannon?

[Stefu]

Well, let's face it - with your first-past-the-post electoral system, you are not going to have a viable third party. People just don't want to risk splitting the vote of their ideology and allowing someone anathema to their values to take the seat. This goes for House and Senate as well as Presidency. I consider first-past-the-post to be one of the less attractive electoral systems, considering it allows people to get in office with less than 50% of vote (Clinton in 1992, Bush in 2000).

What you ought to use is the French system where, if no candidate gets over 50% of vote, second round is held between top two vote-getters. Single Transferrable Vote system also sounds interesting, but I'm too lazy to explain it properly.

[Stefu]

Oh, and Pat Buchanan, from what I've seen, is a nut and a half.

[Kyle]

Firstly, I think we should do away with political parties. As our government was intended to be.


Second, I don't really like the European Party model, because it allows for single party (or coalitions) rule that can last for over a decade.


The Euro political scene seems to fragment with every cause imaginable. The US parties are coalitions of various platforms that come together under one banner. But, that being said, a viable third party (NOT the Green or Reform parties) should be created. I have a feeling that eventually, centrists from the Dems and Republicans will create a new party. And I'd be up for looking into different ways of getting people elected (like the one Stefu mentioned, though not necessarily that one).


As for Buchanan, he's changed quite a few of his political beliefs since leaving the Republican party.

[Juggernaut]

What you ought to use is the Swedish system.

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Juggernaut
What you ought to use is the Swedish system.

which is what? you think americans know wha kind of government swededn uses? most of us probably couldn't even find it on a map

[Stefu]

What you ought to use is the Swedish system.

Do you still have parties deciding which guys are at the top of the list? Because that, man, that is the definition of democracy.

Finnish system, which allows some control at what kind of nuts they let in parliament (they could be wrong kind of nuts!) is bättre än svenska, eh, hmm, systemet?

Second, I don't really like the European Party model, because it allows for single party (or coalitions) rule that can last for over a decade.

Like Democrats ruling both the executive and legislative for 20 years almost continuously between 1932 and 1952?

[ZoboZeWarrior]

France political system is different from USA.

Our election system is direct, not indirect. So lotof party are necessary to allow democracy to work. So choice of people on the first round oblige parties to make alliance which are not statics and influence who will be ministers after the election.

[Jon Miller]

what I don't like about some systems is that you vote for the party instead of the individual

I would liketo do away with parties but think that that will ni=ever happen

in the maen time the US system does allow for more partyies, the reform party almost made it in but infighting and weakness has caused it to sink back in

in large party will need to be centrist (which is good)

the fringe parties make the centrist parties that lean there way react to them and so they are still usefull

the person is more important then the party over all (There are a lot of people who are independents or break party lines (there needs to be more))in the US and it need s to stay that way

Jon Miller

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Stefu



Like Democrats ruling both the executive and legislative for 20 years almost continuously between 1932 and 1952?

I could've sworn Republicans had control of at least one House during most of that time. Anyone know for sure?


Anyway, there's only absolute control, if the majority party can control ~2/3 of the Senate. That's why when the Republicans had control of Congress and the White House (and the current Democratic control of the Senate) didn't mean much. Plus, with the Parties being coalitions of ideals, not everyone will always vote on party lines. Several cross over votes occur.


In Britain, for example, Labour can almost literally do anything it want.

Our election system is direct, not indirect.

How do you mean; in comparison to the US system?

[Juggernaut]

Originally posted by H Tower
you think americans know wha kind of government swededn uses? most of us probably couldn't even find it on a map

It's funny you're dissing your fellow countrymen.

Do you still have parties deciding which guys are at the top of the list? Because that, man, that is the definition of democracy.

We introduced candidate-election in 1999.

[Bereta_Eder]

faded glory for President

[Stefu]

We introduced candidate-election in 1999.

Not a moment too soon, either.

[Guynemer]

What we need is Instantaneous Run-Off Voting. Here's how it works.

Rank every candidate, from #1 to #whatever, with #1 being your choice for President.

They look at the results. If one candidate got the majority of #1 votes, they are declared the winner. If no one got the majority of #1 votes, you eliminate the candidate with the LEAST number of #1 votes, and on those ballots where he/she was ranked #1, you go to #2. Repeat the process until one candidate has the majority of votes.

This way, liberals couldn't make that bullstool excuse of "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." (It wasn't, jackasses.) They could rank Nader #1, and if he had the least number of #1 votes, you'd go to #2 on the ballot (presumably Gore, although he wouldn't have been #2 on my ballot, that's for damned sure).


If McCain were to run as an independant/third party candidate in 2004, he could very well be the one to beat the system.

[DinoDoc]

While were on the subject of the French political system, could someone explain to me why France still has a President considering the fact that comparatively he probably has less influence on French policy than the Queen of England, IIRC?