How would a third party work?

[Blaze Duskdreamer]

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?

Exactly. In fact, if this country were only actually run by the Constitution, it would be a wonderful place to live. It is not.

Third party will never fly here, its been tried before many times.

But the reason it fails is because everyone assumes it will and the majority do not have the courage to vote for anything other than a Repug or Demo.

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?

As he said, people are slowly waking up to it. Eventually, they'll care enough to stand up to it. More and more are having the courage to vote 3rd party and independent. This takes time. Part of the problem to is often the 3rd party and independent aren't any better. All too often, they're rich crackpots with the money to run. What you say about money is true which is why campaign finance reform is needed. It's kind of a Catch-22. We need campaign finance reform to break the 2-party stranglehold and we need to break the 2-party stranglehold to get that campaign finance reform.

 

[WhatInThe]

Your vote is your vote. Your vote is NOT the strategist for the Republicon or Demorat parties vote. If one wants to rationalize their vote by saying it would've been thrown away that's their choice.

The old school old fart redundant same ole stuff parties have fed the public "two party system" for decades. It's in their own self interest from the campaign types to those needing favors. But it's not in the public's best interest

 

[Josiah]

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?

You're right that the Constitution provided a means to modify it. However it's really hard to envision an amendment passing that would significantly change how legislation is passed. I think the monied special interests are happy with having things stay exactly the way they are.

 

[Ralphy1]

Maybe Ralph has little gas left in his tank... (Sorry, I couldn't resist the gas & tank thing as I always associate him with the Corvair.)

 

[WhatInThe]

the myth

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?

Well put.

When one votes they(the individual) is voting for who they want: their choice their vote. THEIR CHOICE and not placing a vote based on the whims, wishes and/or desires of the old establishment parties perpetuating the myth that this a two party system only. There are three branches of government but "two party system" is spelled out where again?

One's participation in an election should be for themselves. If they want to vote like a robot or trained dog that is their personal choice but not a matter of fact or necessity.

To top it off so what if some one like a communist gets voted into office. There are still three branches of government and/or a system of checks and balances. And procedures that include over riding vetoes no matter how often it is used or not used. The system is designed for differing views and over coming objections.

 

[BobF]

i have proposed this before and not much comment. I think for on our ballots there should be no mention of party. All should only get to vote by name awareness. Back around 1950, plus or minus something, we changed from a party ticket to marking every vote. I am now saying we should go one more step and take party off the ballot. Party has changed over the years. Party of same name is not the same as that name was 100 years ago. We should always vote for the person and have them represent the people they are supposed to represent, not what some disconnected political party wants.

There is nothing in our Constitution that says we have to have political parties for anything. We have representatives for House and Senate by setup districts that we live in and our representatives also speak for. Nothing wrong with the original setup at all. Most of this worked fine until in the 1970's and beyond.

 

[Grumpy Ol' Man]

i have proposed this before and not much comment. I think for on our ballots there should be no mention of party. All should only get to vote by name awareness. Back around 1950, plus or minus something, we changed from a party ticket to marking every vote. I am now saying we should go one more step and take party off the ballot. Party has changed over the years. Party of same name is not the same as that name was 100 years ago. We should always vote for the person and have them represent the people they are supposed to represent, not what some disconnected political party wants.

There is nothing in our Constitution that says we have to have political parties for anything. We have representatives for House and Senate by setup districts that we live in and our representatives also speak for. Nothing wrong with the original setup at all. Most of this worked fine until in the 1970's and beyond.

Bob, I completely agree with you. Take the "R" or "D" off the ballots. Let us vote for the person. Today, too many people will simply mark the "R" or "D" candidate if they haven't taken the time to know who they're voting for. This would also mean a dissolving of the Pub and Dem parties. Otherwise, money would flow through those parties to the candidates behind the scenes as pay for future benefits.

Our local City and School Board elections have always been non-partisan. The Pub majority in our State felt they were losing too many seats to "liberals". Legislation this past year will now move the elections to November and make them partisan. The Pubs feel that folks will now be able to vote party over person... and for entirely too many... that's not a good thing.

 

[Lara]

I've alway voted for the person and not the party…just makes sense. Leaving off the R and D from the ballots is a great idea but will never happen.

 

[AZ Jim]

I vote as a senior for my best interest, thus I am a Democrat.

 

[NancyNGA]

I often hear people proudly proclaim they are an Independent and they vote for the "best" person, not the party. Often these people are not even very political, some probably couldn't tell you who their Congressman is. I wonder how in the world they decide who is the best person. With all the nuances involved in votes (e.g., sometimes an "aye" is really a "nay"), and legislation (e.g., did they really support this or were they backed into a corner), and carefully worded speeches (e.g., it may be what they *don't* say that counts), etc... They would have to be a full time political junky to really know if they voted for the "best" person, wouldn't they?

 

[Jackie22]

I vote as a senior for my best interest, thus I am a Democrat.

Yes, I agree.....had some Texas redneck ask me why I was for President Obama once.......I told him it was because I kept up with what was going on in Washington. I vote straight Democrat, don't ever try to tell me the parties are the same, I know better.

 

[WhatInThe]

Bob, I completely agree with you. Take the "R" or "D" off the ballots. Let us vote for the person. Today, too many people will simply mark the "R" or "D" candidate if they haven't taken the time to know who they're voting for. This would also mean a dissolving of the Pub and Dem parties. Otherwise, money would flow through those parties to the candidates behind the scenes as pay for future benefits.

........

I like the idea but the only reason I would keep the party on the ballot would be a form a disclosure ie who butters their bread with how much. And behind the scenes dark money would be a problem because the lobbyists would still know who to go to. Campaign Finance reform would have to accompany an idea like this.

Nancy also has a point but then again being informed is an individual voter's responsibility even in the current format.

 

[BobF]

Lots of inputs so far. For me some were very good and some not so good. Some were actually not so good at all.

Right now we have no majority party in the US and it has slowly been getting worse and worse for the parties we have been talking about. We have roughly about 30% for Democrats and a bit less for the Republicans and the larger group then is the non declared voters. There have been years when there were different parties also running candidates. Use the link to see just how small the party shares have fallen. On July 8th, both were under 30% with Republicans at 23% and Democrats at 28%. These numbers do change but that is today's count.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

We don't need parties to make our Constitutional structured elections work. The parties are only good for specific groups thinking and when the thinking of the people change the parties can disappear or change their ways.

Use these charts to see how things do change over the years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

 

[tnthomas]

We have a bunch of political parties to choose a third party from:

America First Party

America's Party

American Constitutional Party

American Independent Party

American Party

Americans Elect Party

Conservative Party

Constitution Party

D.C. Statehood Green Party

Democratic Party

Ecology Party

Grassroots Party

Green Independent Party

Green Party

Independence Party

Independent American Party

Independent Party

Justice Party

Labor Party

Legal Marijuana Now Party

Libertarian Party

Liberty Union Party

Moderate Party

Mountain Party

Natural Law Party

Pacific Green Party

Party for Socialism and Liberation

Peace and Freedom Party

Progressive Party

Reform Party

Republican Party

Socialist Party

Socialist Workers Party

Tea Party

U.S. Taxpayers Party

United Citizens Party

United Independent Party

Veterans Party

Working Families Party

Source

 

[WhatInThe]

We have a bunch of political parties to choose a third party from:



Source

The myth of the "two party system" becomes a reality too many won't give up. Three branches of government I get. But where is it said "two party system"

 

[Ameriscot]

I vote as a senior for my best interest, thus I am a Democrat.

A very different system in the UK, but if I were to vote for the party that benefits my husband and I the most we'd have to vote Tory. And that's about as likely as me voting Republican! (never!) We vote for those who are likely to, among other things, help those who need help the most.

 

[BobF]

A very different system in the UK, but if I were to vote for the party that benefits my husband and I the most we'd have to vote Tory. And that's about as likely as me voting Republican! (never!) We vote for those who are likely to, among other things, help those who need help the most.

In the US we don't need 'party' in order to vote. That is an added on bit of nonsense to make our government more controllable than just depending on the people to vote for their choice of all running for office.

 

[Josiah]

The two party system is not a myth. Whenever there's a third party candidate who garners more than 1% of the popular vote he/she ends up spoiling one of the major party candidates in a closely contested swing states. I will never forgive Ralph Nader for spoiling Al Gore's win over GWB. That's what 3rd parties do in our political system. If you want to create a 3rd party, I suggest you name it the UCP, the Unintended Consequences Party because that's what it will be.

 

[AZ Jim]

The two party system is not a myth. Whenever there's a third party candidate who garners more than 1% of the popular vote he/she ends up spoiling one of the major party candidates in a closely contested swing states. I will never forgive Ralph Nader for spoiling Al Gore's win over GWB. That's what 3rd parties do in our political system. If you want to create a 3rd party, I suggest you name it the UCP, the Unintended Consequences Party because that's what it will be.

Nader was an ass...

 

[Ameriscot]

In the US we don't need 'party' in order to vote. That is an added on bit of nonsense to make our government more controllable than just depending on the people to vote for their choice of all running for office.

Why do you go on and on about not needing parties. Of course you need parties. I have never and will never vote for a republican because of their core views.

 

[WhatInThe]

The two party system is not a myth. Whenever there's a third party candidate who garners more than 1% of the popular vote he/she ends up spoiling one of the major party candidates in a closely contested swing states. I will never forgive Ralph Nader for spoiling Al Gore's win over GWB. That's what 3rd parties do in our political system. If you want to create a 3rd party, I suggest you name it the UCP, the Unintended Consequences Party because that's what it will be.

The perception that elections are an either or choice is the myth not that it can shift votes. I understand thinking like a party strategist that those third parties ruined a lot of predictions and plans. I'm more worried about why voters go to a third party and less about the party or candidate themselves. Yes traditional but not legally required voting patterns and analysis have shown would 'could have' happened IF a third , fourth or fifth party wasn't there.

There was a lot of crap in the 2000 election and to be quite frank neither candidate overwhelmed me. But rather than contemplate what if Nader didn't run I'd more worried why Gore struggled to get half the votes, there was no mandate other than a winning number in the popular vote. Same for 92/ Perot although my question was why couldn't Perot win. A sitting president couldn't get re-elected? Where were the mandates.