independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sun 15th Dec 2019 9:24pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Is it time for a legitimate third party in American politics?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 07/02/14 6:56am

PurpleJedi

avatar

Is it time for a legitimate third party in American politics?

A few years back I posted about the need for a third political party in the USA, to cater to middle America. A party that could be moderate and shun the extreme Left & Right wing factions which are - undoubtedly - the most vocal & visible aspects of modern-day politics.

I have mentioned previously how I vote for the Working Families party in every election. Although they typically endorse Democrat candidates, occassionally they have their own candidate. But I do it more to prove a point, to boost numbers for the little guy in the ring.

Now, this country is polarized beyond anything I have experienced in my 43 years of life. Politics has gone from "you're wrong & I'm right" to "you're scum & I'm a true American".

Maybe it's as bad as it was during the McCarthy era, except we aren't "battling communists", we're battling each other...conservatives blaming liberals and liberals lambasting conservatives...blinded by their agendas so that in the end NOTHING gets done.

It doesn't matter if Obama, Romney, Clinton or McCain are sitting in the Oval Office, the same game is being played.

So again I ask - is it TIME for a legitimate THIRD PARTY to emerge from the chaos and shake things up?

I'm ready.

What say you?

By St. Boogar and all the saints at the backside door of Purgatory!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 07/02/14 7:04am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Not without a major amendment to the Constitution.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 07/02/14 7:23am

BombSquad

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Not without a major amendment to the Constitution.

utter ignorant shite from the under-informed. as ususal.

oh please do point out where the constitution prohibits other parties

oh, FYI, there already are other parties in the US. it is sad you see them as unconstitutional

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 07/02/14 7:27am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

BombSquad said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Not without a major amendment to the Constitution.

utter ignorant shite from the under-informed. as ususal.

oh please do point out where the constitution prohibits other parties

oh, FYI, there already are other parties in the US. it is sad you see them as unconstitutional

you missed the point and do not seem to understand the issue.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 07/02/14 7:33am

BombSquad

avatar

do you have voters? do some have brains? why would it need an amendment so that those with brains decide to vote outside your primitive and limited scope? a charismatic figure (unlike Perot with his boring charts and snooze lectures) could shake up things faster than you might think

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 07/02/14 7:48am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

BombSquad said:

do you have voters? do some have brains? why would it need an amendment so that those with brains decide to vote outside your primitive and limited scope? a charismatic figure (unlike Perot with his boring charts and snooze lectures) could shake up things faster than you might think

Perot was not a legitimate 3rd party. And again I am not sure you do not understand the issue. You must not have read the US Constitution or you might understand why we would need an amendment to make a 3rd party viable.

Sure we have other parties and they get listed on ballots and some win! But to get from that to what PJ (seems) to be getting at would really need a change in how things are done and that would need an amendment to be effective.

And (it is sad I have to explain this bit to you) I did not say it would REQUIRE an amendment. Just that it would need one to change things such that it would be able to compete to a substantial degree.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 07/02/14 7:56am

BombSquad

avatar



again, no need for changing anything in the constitution. a third party could have success. without an amendment. fact. even a historical fact. cause a third party already had success kicking the GOPs ass (thought they kinda fucked up for various reasons the years after and disappered again). but it is possible. documented fact, unkown to ignorant uneducated loons though. now google Progressive Party and Roosvelt and learn your history.

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 07/02/14 8:01am

BombSquad

avatar

it is sad I have to explain such basic things to you

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 07/02/14 8:13am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

BombSquad said:

it is sad I have to explain such basic things to you

the reason we would need an amendment is because of how we elect people. we elect by a majority of votes. So we would need, in the case of Representatives, something like a proportional system and then the parties would select who is seated. Otherwise there would be all kinds of run offs.


for president: that would not need to change on the the federal level but may on a state by state basis.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 07/02/14 8:18am

BombSquad

avatar

thanks so much. now please explain to how to post on prince.org, I don't know that either




Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 07/02/14 8:20am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

BombSquad said:



again, no need for changing anything in the constitution. a third party could have success. without an amendment. fact. even a historical fact. cause a third party already had success kicking the GOPs ass (thought they kinda fucked up for various reasons the years after and disappered again). but it is possible. documented fact, unkown to ignorant uneducated loons though. now google Progressive Party and Roosvelt and learn your history.

In very limited cases: and if you mean tea party? The tea party is not a legitimate 3rd party. Most others wins they ran as Republicans.

Independents are also not a legit party.

Now I assume PJ means a party that can consistently win better than 15% of the time and be a clear separate party. Unlike some independents and most tea party that once elected identify with one of the big 2.

[Edited 7/2/14 8:20am]

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 07/02/14 8:21am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

BombSquad said:

thanks so much. now please explain to how to post on prince.org, I don't know that either




so you agree the Constitution would need to be changed... cool

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 07/02/14 8:38am

BombSquad

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

BombSquad said:

thanks so much. now please explain to how to post on prince.org, I don't know that either




so you agree the Constitution would need to be changed... cool

no.

BECAUSE DOCUMENTED HISTORY PROVES OTHERWISE TO EVERYONE NON-IGNORANT OR AT LEAST NOT TOO DUMB USE GOOGLE



and thanks, but I am aware of your electoral shit system, and I bitched about this winner-takes-all nonsense more than once in this forum

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 07/02/14 8:43am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

BombSquad said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so you agree the Constitution would need to be changed... cool

no.

BECAUSE DOCUMENTED HISTORY PROVES OTHERWISE TO EVERYONE NON-IGNORANT OR AT LEAST NOT TOO DUMB USE GOOGLE



and thanks, but I am aware of your electoral shit system, and I bitched about this winner-takes-all nonsense more than once in this forum

nice and friendly as always... but again a few examples of a few other parties winning is not enough to make it a viable option.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 07/02/14 12:38pm

Stymie

Why would there need to be a constitutional amendment?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 07/02/14 1:02pm

Dauphin

avatar

The short answer to why we'd need an amendment is this:

If you have majority votes, then any party greater than 2 simply pulls votes from one party over another. Thus, the prevailing party rarely truly represents greater than 50.1% of the voting populace.

EX:

Democratic Party: 37%
Republican Party: 34%
Libertarian Party: 28%
Other: 1%

So, for every 1000 people, 370 are represented, while 630 are not.

We've had legitimate third parties and still do. However, the voters have learned that voting Green Party (for example) only serves to weaken Democratic nominees, and aids the alternative in the form of a Republican nominee.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 07/02/14 1:04pm

cborgman

avatar

it wouldnt take a constitutional amendment, it would simply take a third party that could actually get enough electoral votes to win, and wouldnt fold in with the reps or dems post-election... neither of which is likely to happen any time soon.


tea party is sort of a third party, but not really. theyre third party in theory, but almost always run as republicans, and fold in.

amending the constitution to end the electoral college wouldnt change those two factors (numbers and fold) in the slightest. if we went to a popular vote (which i am for), the third party would still be just as likely to not be able to get the numbers and just as likely to fold in with the reps or dems.

the rest is just the usual only nonsense.
...particularly saying perot wasnt third party. he was. he founded and ran as the nominee of the reform party in 96. when he ran in 92, he was also third party, because only is wrong about independent candidates; they are third party.


.

[Edited 7/2/14 14:07pm]

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 07/02/14 1:04pm

Stymie

Dauphin said:

The short answer to why we'd need an amendment is this:

If you have majority votes, then any party greater than 2 simply pulls votes from one party over another. Thus, the prevailing party rarely truly represents greater than 50.1% of the voting populace.

EX:

Democratic Party: 37%
Republican Party: 34%
Libertarian Party: 28%
Other: 1%

So, for every 1000 people, 370 are represented, while 630 are not.

We've had legitimate third parties and still do. However, the voters have learned that voting Green Party (for example) only serves to weaken Democratic nominees, and aids the alternative in the form of a Republican nominee.

SO are you saying having a third party is not feasible/a good idea?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 07/02/14 1:38pm

RodeoSchro

avatar

Absolutely! And it better be the Tea Party.

That way, the GOP will never win the presidency again, and will lose most state and local races.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 07/02/14 1:40pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Stymie said:

Dauphin said:

The short answer to why we'd need an amendment is this:

If you have majority votes, then any party greater than 2 simply pulls votes from one party over another. Thus, the prevailing party rarely truly represents greater than 50.1% of the voting populace.

EX:

Democratic Party: 37%
Republican Party: 34%
Libertarian Party: 28%
Other: 1%

So, for every 1000 people, 370 are represented, while 630 are not.

We've had legitimate third parties and still do. However, the voters have learned that voting Green Party (for example) only serves to weaken Democratic nominees, and aids the alternative in the form of a Republican nominee.

SO are you saying having a third party is not feasible/a good idea?

it is feasible however, like Daulphin said there are issues that need to be dealt with for some races.

However the states deal with those. Each can alter their laws to select their congress and senate--so i was in error on the need for an Amendment to the US Constitution.

There is no need to do anything about how the presidents are elected as that too is up to the states--but each state may need an amendment or change in state laws. A state can throw darts or just go with what some other state or states do....there is no requirement to let people vote so putting it to a popular vote is a silly idea SANS a 28.

However, enough states would have to change their laws to make it work well.

But as there is no such thing as a national election there is not apparent need to change the US Constitution.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 07/02/14 1:41pm

RodeoSchro

avatar

Dauphin said:

The short answer to why we'd need an amendment is this:

If you have majority votes, then any party greater than 2 simply pulls votes from one party over another. Thus, the prevailing party rarely truly represents greater than 50.1% of the voting populace.

EX:

Democratic Party: 37%
Republican Party: 34%
Libertarian Party: 28%
Other: 1%

So, for every 1000 people, 370 are represented, while 630 are not.

We've had legitimate third parties and still do. However, the voters have learned that voting Green Party (for example) only serves to weaken Democratic nominees, and aids the alternative in the form of a Republican nominee.



No, for every 1,000 people, 1,000 people are represented. It's just that some might not like their representative.

Take me, for example. My Congressman is Steve Stockman. He is the biggest freaking idiot ever elected to Congress. I am represented, albeit by an idiot. But I am represented.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 07/02/14 1:46pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

Absolutely! And it better be the Tea Party.

That way, the GOP will never win the presidency again, and will lose most state and local races.

and that is why it may take some major chages by many states to make it happen. I am still thinking a 28th amendment may been needed. To make popular elections for say president required and to make how congress and senate are elected so that all parties have a fair chance.

One issue would be run offs. If a majority is needed to win (which I think is how most states do it) then the top 2 go head to head which could lead in many cases a tea party vs republican.


the president issue would may be the same issue. Depending on how the states choose to select their electors it could be a big mess.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 07/02/14 1:51pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

Dauphin said:

The short answer to why we'd need an amendment is this:

If you have majority votes, then any party greater than 2 simply pulls votes from one party over another. Thus, the prevailing party rarely truly represents greater than 50.1% of the voting populace.

EX:

Democratic Party: 37%
Republican Party: 34%
Libertarian Party: 28%
Other: 1%

So, for every 1000 people, 370 are represented, while 630 are not.

We've had legitimate third parties and still do. However, the voters have learned that voting Green Party (for example) only serves to weaken Democratic nominees, and aids the alternative in the form of a Republican nominee.



No, for every 1,000 people, 1,000 people are represented. It's just that some might not like their representative.

Take me, for example. My Congressman is Steve Stockman. He is the biggest freaking idiot ever elected to Congress. I am represented, albeit by an idiot. But I am represented.

well the state could do it where 37% of seats open would go to the dems, 34% to Reps 28% Libs. But that is a state by state issue.

For president it is really set up for 2 people... that as I said and as i keep going back and forth may well need an amendment.



No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 07/02/14 2:03pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

well the state could do it where 37% of seats open would go to the dems, 34% to Reps 28% Libs. But that is a state by state issue.

all T, no shade:

that is seriously one of the worst ideas i have ever heard in my life.

.

[Edited 7/2/14 14:05pm]

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 07/02/14 2:08pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 07/02/14 2:32pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

and?

explain to me how we could have 2 senators if the rep numbers are:
Democratic Party: 37%
Republican Party: 34%
Libertarian Party: 28%
Other: 1%

??


.

[Edited 7/2/14 14:40pm]

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 07/02/14 2:38pm

cborgman

avatar


which brings me to a point i was about to type out before i got distracted by the PR...

your comments on electors:

"but each state may need an amendment or change in state laws. A state can throw darts or just go with what some other state or states do....there is no requirement to let people vote"


you are fear-mongering in a huge way here, and somewhat erroneously or deliberately only speaking half the truth.

we had this discussion once before some years back. at which point i recall pointing out the same thing to you;

while there is no current law governing electors, 48 states have successfully, and without fail honored the institution of their electors by honestly repping the people. main and nebraska do it slightly differently only in the way the electors are chosen.

no one has ever "throw darts" or "go with what some other state or states do".

now, if you want to set a law to combat something that clearly hasnt/wont happen, so be it... but it does kind of mark your comments about being for less govt intrusion as a sad joke when you are advocating more law on basis of nothing other than your billion-to-one odds of an example.

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 07/02/14 2:39pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 07/02/14 2:42pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

i am aware. i support a national popular vote, thank you.

i am also quite aware that you are dodging questions and points by chucking up links.

how would we have 2 senators if the PR numbers are 37%, 34%, 28%, and 1%?


also:
you are advocating pointless unneccesary law based on nothing but a possibility the odds of which happening are well below .0001%. how can you say you are for less govt intrusion when you are clearly advocating more govt intrusion based on absolutely nothing but your desire for unneccesary law?

.

[Edited 7/2/14 14:49pm]

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 07/02/14 3:00pm

Dauphin

avatar

Stymie said:

Dauphin said:

The short answer to why we'd need an amendment is this:

If you have majority votes, then any party greater than 2 simply pulls votes from one party over another. Thus, the prevailing party rarely truly represents greater than 50.1% of the voting populace.

EX:

Democratic Party: 37%
Republican Party: 34%
Libertarian Party: 28%
Other: 1%

So, for every 1000 people, 370 are represented, while 630 are not.

We've had legitimate third parties and still do. However, the voters have learned that voting Green Party (for example) only serves to weaken Democratic nominees, and aids the alternative in the form of a Republican nominee.

SO are you saying having a third party is not feasible/a good idea?


No, I'm saying that in order to have better multi-party representation, we'd need to have changes to our voting and representative structure. I mean, Minnesota did have Gov. Ventura, who was registered Independent. And once in a while we have I Senators and House Reps, but if we're looking for a "legitimate" third party, we'd need to address how it slants towards one party over the other.

There's a specific political term for this, I always forget what it's called.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Is it time for a legitimate third party in American politics?