Posted on 09/03/2004 9:24:59 PM PDT by IndieKid
What are people's thoughts of trying to steer away from a two party system? I think Americans are smart enough to choose a person from a list of 5, 10, or 15 candidates. It happened in California. Somebody can run on an anti-war platform but pro-choice or for the war but for gay rights. And I mean a real multiple party system, not like Nader, where people think if you vote for him you vote for Bush.
In maybe 2-3 more elections, the Democrat party will be splintered, leaving lots of opportunities for new parties to step into the breach.
Who are YOU trying to kid?
And the GOP, by the way things are going.
I've heard of this arragiment on FR
Consertive/Constutuion
Rino/MainStream Demo
Green/Kennedy liberal.
Think Italy and call us back.
It's worked real well in Europe. /sarcasm
Now, go to bed before your mom finds out you are still on the Internet.
If you can't work within one of the two major parties, you're wasting your time and your vote.
Let's say that when you vote for president, there are 20 people on the ballot and you get to vote for the 10 you think are best. In that case, multiple parties would be fine.
However, as long as it's one person = one vote, any 3rd party is splitting the vote.
I think KID is the key word here don't you?
I see no reason why we need to be wedded to just two parties, especially wehn the very premise of the two-party system, that the parties offer meaningful alternatives, is being violated.
How does locking in the two-party system serve the public interest?
The place to start building a multiparty system is to make sure states set the same standards for ballot access and for remaining on the ballot, as well as nominations, for all parties. If they hve tough access standards for the constitution, libertarian, and Green Parties, tehn they must hve similarly tough stnadards for the Republicans and Democrats. Or if they have easy standards for the Republicans and Democrats, then the same easy standards must be applied to all parties. The standards are set by the state, but they should be consistent.
Also, what are your views on cross-endorsement, i.e., allowing a candidate to run on more than one line? It seems to work in New York, which has (at the moment) 5 permanent parties.
The best way to figure out if another multi-party system would be better is to really read and watch American politics for another 10 years.
Believe me, I have some ideas for a third party, but we'll just have to see what happens to the Democrats after this election devastates them in all levels of government.
I think you should go over to Democrats and start a thread about how wonderful it would be to have multiple parties and see if you can siphon off some Democrat votes, great idea!
Or maybe this is a party with a big tent, who allows people of different backgrounds and beliefs to participate without calling them names? Wouldn't that be refreshing.
I would like to revise and extend my remarks. I strongly urge all anti-war Democrats to vote for Nader to send a strong message that they won't be taken for granted.
LOL...yep...or DUmmy...either/or
Take a good look at your ballot when you go to vote. You will see 20 or so Presidential candidates.
In case of seriously splintered or multiple parties it may become necessary to govern by coalition. This is the prescription for paralysis and disaster, as there is no "sugar daddy" country willing and capable of guaranteeing our national security while the parties keep squabbling. Hence IMO the idea is very dangerous and best be aborted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.