How would a third party work?

Q

QuickSilver

SF VIP
Location
Midwest
So our govenment is loosely set up on majority rules. Majority has always meant greater then 51%.. If we had a third party.. would it still be required that a party get greater than 51% of a vote? OR could a candidate win with as little as 34% of the vote. Do you feel comfortable with that.. I don't.. I think that paves the way for all sorts of minority crazy... What do you think?
 

We have 3 parties here, plus some 'minor fringe ones'.However, for a lot of years we have had one major party ruling[either Labour or Conservatives.]At the last General Election the Lib Dem party joined with the Conservatives to make a Government, called a coalition, and this seems to have worked.We have a General Election coming up on May 7th, and who knows what will happen then.The consensus of opinion seems to think we will have another coalition of some kind.
 
The difference between your country and mine in this, is that the Civil Servants [Government Administration] don't change every election time but stay the same.So, they would work for a Labour Minister one day and then after the election would then work in the same dept but for a Conservative Minister. It makes things run smoothly.
 

No, it is not time for a third party. Third-party politicians are just as corruptible as Republicans and Democrats. They may sprout like innocent little flowers from the fertile soil of the Internet, but just like Republicans and Democrats, they will grow up groveling for big campaign donations, letting corporate lobbyists tell them how to vote, and walking through the revolving door to lucrative influence-peddling jobs when they leave office.
It would be better for Republicans and Democrats to try to reform their own parties and the campaign finance system than to indulge in wishful thinking about third parties.
 
Josiah09 said:
No, it is not time for a third party. Third-party politicians are just as corruptible as Republicans and Democrats. They may sprout like innocent little flowers from the fertile soil of the Internet, but just like Republicans and Democrats, they will grow up groveling for big campaign donations, letting corporate lobbyists tell them how to vote, and walking through the revolving door to lucrative influence-peddling jobs when they leave office.
The problem that has so messed up our political system is the way elections are financed by special interests. Unless we reform the way that powerful special interests can buy elections creating a third party will accomplish nothing but muddy the waters (remember how Nader cost Gore the election).
Click to expand...

I agree... overturning Citizen's United and campaign reform is the first step... I also think a third party is a useless idea.
 
An evenly divided 3 party system would be ideal. With 3 parties a 51% majority ( more in some cases) would still be required to pass legislation or get elected. Currently if one party sponsors a bill the other party will usually oppose it. The party with the majority can pass bills the other party can't. With 3 parties no one party will have a majority so one party can't pass a bill without support from at least one of the other parties. This should lead to better legislation.
 
Three or Ten parties wouldn't matter because the voting/passing rules for congress, the senate and president would remain the same. The only time a third party would come into play would be an election. Then yes 51% to be voted into office or a majority of the votes would be "an" issue. As long as the laws and procedures remain the same I don't see a problem. The minority or loser is always going to be there. The "majority" would still have to compromise with the minority to get legislation passed anyway. Today in current time many elections are perfunctory at this point. Unfortunately it still comes down to sneaking fine print in a bill, sneaking a late night or weekend vote, the back smoke filled room deal and biased politics.
 
Our parliament has benefited from the presence of principled independents and some small parties, not only when they hold the balance of power but also just by being an alternate voice that speaks fearlessly on issues that the big parties try to avoid mentioning.

One party that rose up (and has since expired) had as it's slogan "Keep the bastards honest". They were the Australian Democrats but they paid a heavy price for siding with the government that introduced a goods and services tax, even though through negotiation they softened the effect on low income earners by getting an exemption for unprocessed foods.

We now have a Greens party which is the only one that speaks out for justice for refugees and openly opposes Japanese whaling in the Antarctic. They are slowly making ground and they say they are not there to keep the bastards honest, they want to replace the bastards by winning enough seats to form government.
 
The party system really negates the "51%" rule.

In most of our elections since the war the party in power has not only not had more had 50% of the vote, but they have also had a total vote of less that the party in opposition.

Simply, the Conservatives get 210 seats with small majorities. Labour get 200 with massive majorities. Conservatives in power, but Labour with more votes.
 
We solve that problem by having compulsory voting using a preferential system and the electoral boundaries are adjusted by an independent electoral authority. They oversee the election process too. This limits opportunity for gerrymandering and vote rigging.
 
Canada has Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Parti Quebecois and Green Party. If a vote results in a minority government then the others can form a partnership to veto the vote on a proposal if they don't agree. If a majority government then majority rules.

And there have been a few times when a member from one party crosses over to the other side.
 
Lee said:
Canada has Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Parti Quebecois and Green Party. If a vote results in a minority government then the others can form a partnership to veto the vote on a proposal if they don't agree. If a majority government then majority rules.

And there have been a few times when a member from one party crosses over to the other side.
Click to expand...

With our system, third party candidates have only gummed up the works.. Americans can't seem to get behind one.. All they have done is syphon votes away from one of the major parties... If by chance an Independent gets elected to the Senate, they STILL have to choose which party they will caucas with.. Bernie Sanders comes to mind.. He caucases with the Democrats..

IMO the only way a person with significantly different ideas will have to run either as a Democrat or Republican to even have a chance.
 
QuickSilver said:
With our system, third party candidates have only gummed up the works.. Americans can't seem to get behind one.. All they have done is syphon votes away from one of the major parties... If by chance an Independent gets elected to the Senate, they STILL have to choose which party they will caucas with.. Bernie Sanders comes to mind.. He caucases with the Democrats..

IMO the only way a person with significantly different ideas will have to run either as a Democrat or Republican to even have a chance.
Click to expand...

That's very true QS. I'm saying it would be a lot better IF there were three parties that were more or less equally divided. In other words a whole new system. A true 3 party system.
 
SeaBreeze said:
I agree QS, right now a vote for anyone except a Democrat or Republican is a throw-away vote, IMO.
Click to expand...

This is why the Teaparty has aligned themselves with the Republican party rather than forge off on their own.. NOW... the Democrats have their "Progressive" wing led by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
 
I am forced to vote for A or B. I don't think either one is worth a flip.


I vote C because I rally like. I may not have voted a winner but I voted my choice.


Which vote was thrown away?
 
Sid said:
I am forced to vote for A or B. I don't think either one is worth a flip.


I vote C because I rally like. I may not have voted a winner but I voted my choice.


Which vote was thrown away?
Click to expand...

Yours because it didn't matter to the outcome of the election except to take that vote away from another candidate. If a libertarian runs.. they generally take that vote away from the Republicans. If a Green Party runs, that vote is usually siphoned from the Democrat. Your candidate will not win, but maybe you are enabling a candidate you REALLY hate to win.

IMO.. NO candidate is 100% perfect. One can only look at them and determine which one is more closely alligned with your idealogy.
 
In The United States Of America the power is supposed to be in the people. It is not supposed be in the Democrats or Republicans.
 
Sid said:
In The United States Of America the power is supposed to be in the people. It is not supposed be in the Democrats or Republicans.
Click to expand...

A society must find ways to govern itself or anarchy would prevail. This is how our Founding Fathers set it up.. Don't see it changing unless the entire Constitution is thrown out and we start over. How do you think that would come about? You might as well try to work within the system....
 
We already do. Now if only more people had the guts to vote for those running (more than one other party and more than one independent in most elections in populous areas anyway) who were neither Repugs or Demos. It would make a world of difference. The reason all it does now is syphon votes from one or the other is because most do not have the guts to vote third party or independent because they believe it's a throw-away vote. They are, in short, well-trained by the two parties to vote against their own interests.

I'm not sure how it would vote if none of the parties were a clear majority. Is it 51% or is it just the one with the most votes and it two (or more) or too close, then we hold a run-off.

Let's keep in mind that the popular vote doesn't even elect the candidates directly but rather it goes to the electoral college. A thing that should be done away with in my opinion. It should be the popular vote. For all we know, a lot of people are voting 3rd party and independent and the electoral college just takes it upon themselves to translate that into whichever party.

However, that said, also remember we are not a true democracy -- thank the Founding Fathers -- but a Democratic Republic. A true democracy, majority rule, would utterly suck. No one's rights would be protected as the majority could just vote them away. My grandson would soon be forced to learn to pray in school that's for sure. His Jewish, Wiccan, Bhuddist, Hindu and Muslim classmates would also be forced to recite Christian prayer. This would be a very, very bad thing. And, no, the schools would not be less violent. School violence has existed in America's public schools since they began. In fact, there was at one point a riot between Catholics and Protestants over which version of God should reign supreme:

http://candst.tripod.com/boston3.htm

We really, really, really don't want that! In a pure democracy, the majority would just ride rough shod over the minority, not just on religion but on anything. Democratic Republic protecting all our rights rocks!

Dame Warrigal said:
We solve that problem by having compulsory voting using a preferential system and the electoral boundaries are adjusted by an independent electoral authority. They oversee the election process too. This limits opportunity for gerrymandering and vote rigging.
Click to expand...

While, ideally, I think everyone should vote, I'm against compulsory voting simply because that's the very opposite of freedom!

Sid said:
I am forced to vote for A or B. I don't think either one is worth a flip.


I vote C because I rally like. I may not have voted a winner but I voted my choice.


Which vote was thrown away?
Click to expand...

Thank you. Not yours.

QuickSilver said:
Yours because it didn't matter to the outcome of the election except to take that vote away from another candidate. If a libertarian runs.. they generally take that vote away from the Republicans. If a Green Party runs, that vote is usually siphoned from the Democrat. Your candidate will not win, but maybe you are enabling a candidate you REALLY hate to win.

IMO.. NO candidate is 100% perfect. One can only look at them and determine which one is more closely alligned with your idealogy.
Click to expand...

No, the only vote thrown away is the vote for someone you didn't really like but picked because they're the lesser of two evils. Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil.
 
QuickSilver said:
A society must find ways to govern itself or anarchy would prevail. This is how our Founding Fathers set it up.. Don't see it changing unless the entire Constition is thrown out and we start over. How do you think that would come about? You might as well try to work within the system....
Click to expand...

Well as long as it seems to be a discussion, I have more.

I see no need to throw the Constitution out. Remember provisions were made to amend it, and it has been amended over the years. As to how overthrowing it would come about, I would hope it would be a bloody mess. By that I mean I hope enough people would feel strong enough about it that we would be willing to die if needed to preserve it. As for now I will keep going to the ballot box and vote my choice, whether it be Dem Rep or whatever label is tacked on to it. Isn't that working in the system?


Does the constitution call for Republican or Democrat choices only? Does it call for any political party at all?
 
The President and VP... ie the Executive branch is the only election that utilizes the Electoral College. The Legislative Branch is elected with a 51% majority of the popular vote. It would mean that a Senator or Representative could be elected with as little as 34% if three parties... OR only 25% if four parties. This is NOT democratic.. which operates on Majority Rule.

The Constitution would have to be changed and we would have to adopt a system more like the UK that allows for a minority rule. A constitutional amendment would require that 2/3 of joint house and Senate vote in favor of the amendment.... THEN 3/4th of the State Legislatures have to vote in favor for it to be ratified. OR 2/3rds of the State legislatures have to vote for a Constitutional Convention. Do you foresee ANY of this even within the realm of possibility?

I do not believe there will ever be a way for a viable 3rd party to come into power. I believe many States have a run-off system.. but to my knowledge, that applies to the Primary election where one candidate MUST reach 50% to be the winner, but to my knowlege, not in the General.
 
The Most Encouraging Thing I see happening lately, is that more and more people are waking up to the FACT that our government is owned and financed by the 1%. Very few of those in positions of leadership really give a rats behind about what the average person thinks. They tell us whatever lies are necessary to get elected or re-elected, then go right back to spending most of their time with the Lobbyists on K Street. With a little luck, eventually, the majority of people will wake up and face this reality, and perhaps, then, we will see some action being taken to reverse this trend. Term Limits, repealing Citizens United, and a major overhaul of our campaign finance laws will be necessary if any progress towards restoring "Government Of, For, and By the people", is ever going to be made. Until then, the best we can hope for is that the 1% continue to drop enough crumbs off their tables to keep the country from descending into anarchy.
 
Don M. said:
The Most Encouraging Thing I see happening lately, is that more and more people are waking up to the FACT that our government is owned and financed by the 1%. Very few of those in positions of leadership really give a rats behind about what the average person thinks. They tell us whatever lies are necessary to get elected or re-elected, then go right back to spending most of their time with the Lobbyists on K Street. With a little luck, eventually, the majority of people will wake up and face this reality, and perhaps, then, we will see some action being taken to reverse this trend. Term Limits, repealing Citizens United, and a major overhaul of our campaign finance laws will be necessary if any progress towards restoring "Government Of, For, and By the people", is ever going to be made. Until then, the best we can hope for is that the 1% continue to drop enough crumbs off their tables to keep the country from descending into anarchy.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree.. A third party would do nothing to address what you have outlined.

As it stands now... NO party can be elected without VAST amounts of money... much of this is "dark money" that is given to Super PACS anonymously.. This money pays for TV and radio ads that blanket the airwaves to saturation before elections. These Ads are less to get someone elected than they are negative and about NOT getting someone elected. Why does this work so well? Because the majority of American voters are LAZY and uninformed.. They don't want to bother paying attention to what has been going on in the House and Senate.. They have NO clue about the voting records of the candidates.. they don't listen to debates and they form their opinions based solely on what the special interest groups pay for them to hear in 30 second sound bites..OR how the candidate looks rather on anything of substance.. So how do you change that? How to you get people to pay attention?
 


Back
Top