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

[Transcend]

There are three ways on how candidates are voted into a parliament.

One way is what the US and UK are using: divide up the country in districts, winner of each district gets everything while the losers get none. This type of election system usually favors only 1 or 2 parties, and rejects smallers parties.

The other way is what Israel and German Weimarer Republic uses: the percentage of each party received in national election determines the make-up of the parliament. What you get here is that even the smallest party has a chance to show up in the national parliament. Both Israeli and Weimarer parliaments has or had over 30 parties.

Then there is the hybrid solution which is employed by Germany today: half of the parliament is made up from candidates from winners in districts, while the half depends on the votes parties received at the national level. If you want multiple parties and to avoid splintering of votes at same time, this is the way to go.

[rah]

I'd like to see a viable third party.

And like others, I believe that the only chance would be a centrist type party. (ONE THAT HAS NO CONNECTIONS TO EITHER EXTREME, and doesn't feel the need to throw them a bone every now and then)

Then maybe the TWO tradional parties could shift a bit away from the center and truely represent their constituancy. Then Americans would have a real choice instead of the current, same ole and more of the same ole. Right now, I support choice on the abortion issue. Being a republican, most of the candidates that I vote for, don't support choice. But I like most of the rest of the party platform. Oh well.

RAH
I wrote this in full knowledge that this type of thing will never happen because of the negative repercussions to the existing parties. They'll just keep pretending to move closer and closer to the middle of the road to confuse and attract the most voter.

[Jon Miller]

umm'

no

parties suck

anything that gives them power is bad

Jon Miller

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by 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?

It's the same in Greece. The one with power is the PM. The President is the «guardian of the institutions and democracy». He doesn't take part in everyday business of running the country and his presence is more for ethimotypical purposes.

But he does have the power to bring a government down I think although I don't think that ever happened (as long as I am alive at least). And he can also represent the country in foreign travels.

For example our president resendly visited Syria where we reaffrimed are very good relations and strengthened trade. He can carry the national agenda in his travels.

Inside the country he is respected as the paramount empersonator of the hellenic democracy.

The matter of how much power the President must hold is sometimes debated. But mostly he remains «decorative»

He is also an indication of the power each political party holds if there is no unanimity about which one would be the President the party. But eventually the majority of the parliement must agree for him which means at least the two major political parties.

The present Presidentof Greece is one of the most succesful of all. He truely serves his part which is to «embody» the values and principles of the Nation by the way he acts and speaks. He has something like 90% acceptance of the Greek citizens. That's extraordinary.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by paiktis22
It's the same in Greece.

Greece has a President???? That's almost as suprising as the fact that Isreal has a President as well.

[uh Clem]

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

A lot of people have said that what the US needs isn't a third party, it's a second.

[Bereta_Eder]

Yes my dear Monneypenny it does

He is Kostis Stephanopoulos. He is really doing a good job.

He doesn't accept the salary of the President of Greece (which is significant) but he choses to live with his pension. He gives the money of his salary back to the State.
He doesn't live in the Mansion of the President but in his own house.

And many, many other things as well. His actions and values are truely those of a great man. One of the most loved and propably best Presidents.

[Transcend]

America needs a third party, but the current election system gives them no chance.

[Kyle]

Isn't Chirac the French President, and Jospin the PM? I though Chirac had a good deal of power in that system.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kyle
Isn't Chirac the French President, and Jospin the PM? I though Chirac had a good deal of power in that system.

It all depends on the man. The office itself is pretty weak.

[Az]

For example our president resendly visited Syria where we reaffrimed are very good relations and strengthened trade. He can carry the national agenda in his travels.

[political advisor in Civ 3 ]
didn't I already tell you they're evil?
[/political advisor in Civ 3]

yes , we also have a president. I met him a month or so ago. he's a good guy. This is probably a good time to contemplate the fact that we have one of the ugliest , and cheapest presidential residences in the world. ...

[Shi Huangdi]

First off, the Republicans and Democrats are sucsessful for a reason- they manage to bring in most of America into their either one or the other party tent, with one party of the right and one party of the left. More political diversity is seen through conflicts that can regularly take place within parties, and with extremely weak party discipline. The United States government is more pluralistic then most if not all European countries-- a member of the House of Representatives has more power individually then a member of the house of commons(Unless that member is a minister). Power is distributed throughout the various parts of the Federal government and then spread out even further throughout the Federal system as a whole(I.E; States have some power).

While electoral reform could make it easier for third party candidates to get elected, it will probably never happen. The government right now is dominated by two parties, and so it would be against their interest to change their rules to help third parties.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by 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?

President have few power on internal policies. But He choose the headline of the international policies. He command too to all french army.

The president choose his first minister, who choose his ministers which will compose the gouvernment. The gouvernment will propose new law or propose law modification to the assembly.
The assembly will accept or reject the proposition.

In general he choose a first minister from his party. But his party have better to be majoritar in the national assembly. If not the gouvernment will have trouble to work.

The president, if not happy of the members of parlement could disolve one time the parlement, and hope french people will vote for parlement member of his party.

Chirac did it, but french people voted for the socialist party not the RPR (Chirac's party). So he was obliged to choose a new first minister from the socialist party (He wasn't really obliged, but if he didn't his gouvernment would have been unable to work).

So our gouvernment is in 'cohabitation' state. Which means that our gouvernment is from a party opposed to the President party.
In this case, the president have merely no power on internal policies.

I hope I was enough clear ... :/

---

Note :
I call 'direct election' when people votes directly for their President or their first minister.

I call 'indirect election' when people vote for senator who will vote for a President.

[orange]

Sadly, I think getting rid of political parties would cause people to vote absolutely based on looks personality etc. which is not a good thing. Political parties give the average person a general idea of what the person is going to be for, and they can decide which party they give their support too.

Ideally though, everyone would be much more informed about government and political candidates and no one would belong to any political parties.

[Kyle]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior


Note :
I call 'direct election' when people votes directly for their President or their first minister.

I call 'indirect election' when people vote for senator who will vote for a President.

Ok, but so you know, the President and Vice President are pretty much the only elective office in the US that isn't determined by direct popular vote.