What about a third party??

[operaman1]

Since coming back from my "vacation" I was wondering what people on this board thought of third parties, especially the Libertarian Party?

I mean with the large amount of special interest groups out there and high powered lobbyists it is almost to the point where a vote for either party is like voting for Satan. So what do people think about getting a movement to get another party in power? ( and yes, I am not naive. It would be difficult, but hey, we got to start somewhere)

It seems to be regardless if I specifically agree with everyone politically or religiously, we could agree that both parties pander to special interst and there is a need tp find a party which meets some middle ground between these two polarized extremes. What do people here think?

 

[conjur]

Ross Perot represented the only viable "third-party" candidate in my memory. Well, up until he selected Admiral Stockdale as his running mate.

A third-party candidate in the White House is going to have a rough time dealing with two other parties running the Congress. I think, perhaps, that third-parties should work up a bit instead of focusing on the Gold Medal. That might help them get more widespread support.

And, people like Cobb, Badnarik, etc. usually have a few items on their platform that make you go, "WTF?!" If they'd lose the extremist portions of their platforms, they might become more electable.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: operaman1
Since coming back from my "vacation" I was wondering what people on this board thought of third parties, especially the Libertarian Party?

I mean with the large amount of special interest groups out there and high powered lobbyists it is almost to the point where a vote for either party is like voting for Satan. So what do people think about getting a movement to get another party in power? ( and yes, I am not naive. It would be difficult, but hey, we got to start somewhere)

It seems to be regardless if I specifically agree with everyone politically or religiously, we could agree that both parties pander to special interst and there is a need tp find a party which meets some middle ground between these two polarized extremes. What do people here think?

Like conjur said, a 3rd party-candidate doesn't stand a shot at the White House right now - they should stick to the slow and steady growth in local and state government offices. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the LP has more elected officials in office than all the other 3rd parties combined.

I voted for Badnarik, but that guy is off his rocker. It's actually a pretty interesting read about how he managed to get on the LP Presidential ticket.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: operaman1
Since coming back from my "vacation" I was wondering what people on this board thought of third parties, especially the Libertarian Party?

I mean with the large amount of special interest groups out there and high powered lobbyists it is almost to the point where a vote for either party is like voting for Satan. So what do people think about getting a movement to get another party in power? ( and yes, I am not naive. It would be difficult, but hey, we got to start somewhere)

It seems to be regardless if I specifically agree with everyone politically or religiously, we could agree that both parties pander to special interst and there is a need tp find a party which meets some middle ground between these two polarized extremes. What do people here think?

i think it would be nice but it would practically require a revolution to amount to anything and once this 3rd party had some power it would very likely end up a lot like the 2 that we have now.

 

[bamacre]

I think we're more likely to see a reshaped Democratic party before a 3rd party finds success.

 

[CaptnKirk]

It would take 40 years with 5 '3rd Party' (if it's the same party) picking up elected offices, and keeping 3rd parties in those offices,
to accumulate the body count to make it a viable option.

You have to dilute the 2 party system by integrating the 3rd party to where membership has the clout to make it finction.

at least 30 in the Senate - with a 6 year election cycle.
Another 100+ members to even get the House to take notice that something is happening around them.

 

[operaman1]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
It would take 40 years with 5 '3rd Party' (if it's the same party) picking up elected offices, and keeping 3rd parties in those offices,
to accumulate the body count to make it a viable option.

You have to dilute the 2 party system by integrating the 3rd party to where membership has the clout to make it finction.

at least 30 in the Senate - with a 6 year election cycle.
Another 100+ members to even get the House to take notice that something is happening around them.

True, but we can always try...

 

[2Xtreme21]

3rd parties exist to take votes away from the Democracts.

 

[operaman1]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
3rd parties exist to take votes away from the Democracts.

Tell that to Bush Sr and to Dole when Ross Perot ran... It cuts both ways.

 

[BoberFett]

I vote libertarian whenever possible, but to be honest it is a fringe party. Too many single-issue wackos and anarchists in that group. Many simply see libertarians as the Legalize Pot Party. A lot of people also think that the LP wants to do away with government completely. In order to be more effective, they'd* have to be more organized and get their members to rally behind the platform. Unfortunately, organization and conformity is in direct opposition to many libertarians way of thinking.


* I say they because I'm not a member of the "Big L" Libertarian party but I do consider myself a "small l" libertarian.

 

[imported_Ant]

New Zealand was based on a "first past the post" system similar to the US until a referendum changed that fairly recently.
There were and still are two major political parties.

The big difference now under a system of proportional representation is that minor parties may actually have a voice in government.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur
Ross Perot represented the only viable "third-party" candidate in my memory. Well, up until he selected Admiral Stockdale as his running mate.

A third-party candidate in the White House is going to have a rough time dealing with two other parties running the Congress. I think, perhaps, that third-parties should work up a bit instead of focusing on the Gold Medal. That might help them get more widespread support.

And, people like Cobb, Badnarik, etc. usually have a few items on their platform that make you go, "WTF?!" If they'd lose the extremist portions of their platforms, they might become more electable.

I agree, the best way for a 3rd party to become viable is to start capturing seats in the congress. These people who run the 3rd party want it all right now. Even if they managed to get people to vote in a 3rd party candidate the candidate would have little support in congress. Instead of having to fight ~50% of the congress he would be fighting 100%.

 

[Cooler]

I voted For Nader my self last two elections. I feel that green party is more centreal then the Dems or Reps.
The Main Problem is that some states wont let you vote for 3rd party.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Hell, we can't get the 2 party system right the way that voter avoidance is, why would you trust them to do any better with still another choice ?

 

[MicroChrome]

I think we should have 10 party system minimum.

We should NOT allow any campaigning for these parties. We should spend about maybe 10 million give each party a million for advertising / radio ads etc... And give each part = air time.

We make way to big of a deal out of this. Then we would have somewhat of a fair vote...

Instead of the ultra rich ... Needing gobs of $$ to even think about running for prez... Everyone could be on a fair playing field. Hmmm, I doubt this will happen.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I vote libertarian whenever possible, but to be honest it is a fringe party. Too many single-issue wackos and anarchists in that group. Many simply see libertarians as the Legalize Pot Party. A lot of people also think that the LP wants to do away with government completely. In order to be more effective, they'd* have to be more organized and get their members to rally behind the platform. Unfortunately, organization and conformity is in direct opposition to many libertarians way of thinking.

* I say they because I'm not a member of the "Big L" Libertarian party but I do consider myself a "small l" libertarian.

I'm closest to being a "small l" myself. Here in Washington state the thrid party candidates are usaully more than a bit . . . odd, as in your list of typical fringe folk above.

They've been eccentric enough that I haven't wanted to pick them even though I don't agree with either of the two main parties.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur
Ross Perot represented the only viable "third-party" candidate in my memory. Well, up until he selected Admiral Stockdale as his running mate.

A third-party candidate in the White House is going to have a rough time dealing with two other parties running the Congress. I think, perhaps, that third-parties should work up a bit instead of focusing on the Gold Medal. That might help them get more widespread support.

And, people like Cobb, Badnarik, etc. usually have a few items on their platform that make you go, "WTF?!" If they'd lose the extremist portions of their platforms, they might become more electable.

I agree, the best way for a 3rd party to become viable is to start capturing seats in the congress. These people who run the 3rd party want it all right now. Even if they managed to get people to vote in a 3rd party candidate the candidate would have little support in congress. Instead of having to fight ~50% of the congress he would be fighting 100%.

Another vote for that approach. You have to work up from the bottom, not down from the top. Another good thing about that approach is that it would break up Congress a little bit more. With 3 or more parties there, lawmakers would need to make alliances and actually convince their fellow lawmakers for bills to pass. Right now, our system doesn't really discourage straight party line voting too much, and that seems like a bad thing to me.

 

[raildogg]

can a third party raise $1 billion?

I dont think so!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I vote libertarian whenever possible, but to be honest it is a fringe party. Too many single-issue wackos and anarchists in that group. Many simply see libertarians as the Legalize Pot Party. A lot of people also think that the LP wants to do away with government completely. In order to be more effective, they'd* have to be more organized and get their members to rally behind the platform. Unfortunately, organization and conformity is in direct opposition to many libertarians way of thinking.

* I say they because I'm not a member of the "Big L" Libertarian party but I do consider myself a "small l" libertarian.

I'm closest to being a "small l" myself. Here in Washington state the thrid party candidates are usaully more than a bit . . . odd, as in your list of typical fringe folk above.

They've been eccentric enough that I haven't wanted to pick them even though I don't agree with either of the two main parties.

I liked at least a few Libertarian candidates the last time around. Especially the guy running for Senator from Cali...his name escapes me at the moment for some reason, but he was a judge and seemed to have a more "normal" platform for someone who likes small government, but isn't ready to storm DC with an AK-47 and a doobie like some of these guys. Plus he was running against that idiot Boxer...a bonus.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: raildogg
can a third party raise $1 billion?

I dont think so!

Ah, God bless America and our super way of choosing our leaders...

Seriously though, that's why you start small. You don't need $1 billion to get elected to state official positions, and from there you actually have a decent shot at raising more money.