Any thoughts on multiple parties?

[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.

[thoughtomator]

I really don't see any way the Democrats can hold together their coalition. It has been for 12+ years and continues to be shaped by the needs and abilities of Bill Clinton. However, Bill Clinton himself is effectively out of the game at this point and Hillary never had his talent for persuasion. The Democrat coalition is certain to crack apart. There's no way to hold together black preachers and aggressive sodomy activism in one party, or the anti-war Nazis with the Reagan Democrats. It is no longer unheard of for a union to endorse a Republican, even. They can't survive on gays and academics alone.

[IndieKid]

Sorry that I don't share your obviously highly superior wisdom and intelligiance. I guess I will be happy with the status quo, fall back in line, do what I am told, and just be seen and not heard. No wonder young people don't vote. There are condescending elitist snobs like you acting high and mighty.

[Dont Mention the War]

Multiple partners? I'm all for it!

What?

Oh.

Damn.

[IndieKid]

I must admit I have never heard of cross-endorsement before, but I'll look into it now. Too bad these forums are mixed with people who help educate, which is what I thought one of the main reasons for this site, and those who just talk sh*t without adding anything useful

[TBP]

We govern by ad-hoc coalitions anyway, since the parties exert weak discipline on their officials. So each one votes as an individual on most issues.

Instead of 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and Jeffords, would anyone really notice if there were significant numbers of Republicans, Democrats, Constitution, Libertarian, Green, an Independent or two? No, probably not. In the period between the election in November and the beginning of Congress in January, they could figure out who caucuses with whom, who gets which chairmanships, and the like.

[DeFault User]

Perhaps the Dems won't hold together, but if we end up with a number of special interest parties, we will have a mess. Maybe wiser heads will prevail and the Dems will reform their coalition; that is, if they don't want back bench status for the next 50 years.

[Old Sarge]

Newcomers to Free Republic are also expected to conduct themselves better than a few Democrat class warfare comments, as well.

[Shellback Chuck]

I feel the current two major party system is probably the best solution presented for equality in government. Read this piece written by an individual espousing this argument.

"There is no basis to suggest we live in a constitutional republic. The Constitution serves only to legitimize the government to the people, it does little to constrain the government.

The government is 100% under the control of 2 political crime syndicates. These crime syndicates are privately funded. They have a tightly controlled internal leadership structure. They have the largest, and most sophisticated propaganda machine ever seen by man. They are the only organizations which can legally broadcast falsehoods.

These privately-controlled organizations create 100% of all new laws.

They alone choose judges to serve their interests in the government courts.

They alone choose, and/or approve, candidates who will represent their interests at local, state and federal levels.

Attempts to create alternate syndicates are met with extreme hostility.

Attempts to apply Constitutional law against these syndicates are met with extreme hostility. Should such legal "attacks" against them be successful they then revise the laws to accommodate the interests of their power monopoly.

Both syndicates are competitive, but neither syndicate will ever do anything that would seriously jeopardize the public confidence in the other.

They need each other to present the image of a freely competitive political system. This is a carefully cultivated and protected false image. Anything that may arise that could seriously damage the legitimacy of either organization will be controlled at all costs by the other competitive syndicate. This includes matters of vote fraud, Presidential impeachment, influence of foreign powers, treason, bribery, murder, theft, and more. Much of the misbehavior is protected as a special class laws which exclude the elite from prosecution, though the average citizen can be prosecuted for the exact same behavior.

This is an oligarchy, not a constitutional republic."

You really want these people to have a greater say in government????

[Shellback Chuck]

Clarification; "espousing A DIFFERENT argument"

[ETERNAL WARMING]

I prefer it. It won't happen tho. The two party system does everything in it's power to keep themselves in power. That's what CFR was all about, hurting 3rd. party candidates. They have to save their capital for a last minute tv blitz. That's gone now.

Third party candidates have little money, get little tv time. This year, the third largest party..the Constitution Party isn't even mentioned on TV, even tho the candidate beats out Nadar and the Libertarian Party candidate. He's a threat, so he's silenced.

Independents are the fastest growing group in the country. Our numbers are probably larger than either the Dems or Reps. But we are usually stuck voting for one of the two parties.

No more. I'm voting for Perouka this year. I've had enough of electing the two party Hydra that ignores what the people want.

One day we'll win. When that happens, perhaps freedom of speech can return to this nation. Until then, expect more third party obstruction from both sides, the media and the FEC.

I have never seen such a silence on Third Party candidates like this election. There is virtual silence on them. Shame on the Two Party Cabal.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Political cuddle parties.

[sharktrager]

I believe the 2 party system will be the best under our system of government.

Extra parties would be good, but you need a Parliamentary system to make them effective. It is in the necessity to form a coalition of parties that the fringe parties have influence. That is much more important when control of the legislative body defines who will be the chief executive.

Also, to be blunt, our smaller parties are almost all to the left or right of the major parties. As such, an increased presence in congress would likely have little impact because their votes for leadership would be unlikely to have a real impact. The Greens are not going to support a Republican for speaker, and the Constitution Party would not support a Dem.

[William Terrell]

The downside of two parties is that they can collude to lockstep us in a direction we don't want to go, but have no other candidate options. The downside of more than two parties is a candidate will only need (100% / number of parties) + 1 to win.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Welcome to Free Republic.

In the physical world things have natural states or configurations. Electrons orbit nuclei, planets orbit stars, man must have his woman and woman must have her mate. Same thing in the realm of human institutions. Institutions created for whatever purpose assume a natural configuration, their "characteristic function". The survival and stability of these institution depends on their suitability to their environment, including the cultural ethos in which they are planted.

When the founders created a limited government, with power diffused and delegated, with political power ultimately resting with the electorate, they had no idea what form that government would ultimately take, or how it would evolve over time.

I think our form of government with a strong executive independent of the legislature naturally leads to a two party system. I have 200 years of observations to back up that opinion. Parliamentary systems like Britain and most of the rest of the free world employ, lead to consensus governments, where the Greens or the National Socialists may hold the slim margin necessary for the majority needed to form a government.

In parliamentary systems, fringe or minority parties can wield real power. Our form of government requires the Executive to have broad appeal and the legislative candidates gravitate to one of the majoritarian parties, which are like the LaGrange points of our political orbit.

That's what I think anyway.

[longtermmemmory]

In order for that to happen with any viability, the Democrat party must be off the radar. This will free the kookie groups to form their own interest parties (ala 527's).

It will mean there will be a race baiting party, a openly homosexual party, a wacko environmentalist party, and every other little interest group that can only exist in the democrat party.

[Restorer]

All governments in democratic systems are formed by coalitions.

In our 2-party system, the negotiating to form the coalition is done internally within the parties prior to the elections.

In a parliamentary system, the negotiating is done after the election between the parties.

Our system makes greater extremism counter-productive for winning elections, theirs encourages it.

[bronxboy]

No, I don't want multiple parties...Canada has this and look at what their country is like now...This means that you never have strong appoval for any candidate. I think the two party system works quite well.

[longtermmemmory]

That is because of Canada's parlamentary system.

The usa has no such parlamentary "proportional winners".

You win you loose, you come back at the next SCHEDULED election if you dare.

[Darksheare]

No offense, but you've said you were 18.
Looking back the 11 years to when I was 18, you really should watch the tone.
You really ARE 'just a kid', and need to be more attentive to teh world around you.
Yes, Vietnam was a 'long time ago', but it is relevant.
You signed up and basically said 'I don't know who to vote for. What do you think?'
Peopel said, bluntly.
And now you're talking about 'elitist snobbery'?

Be more respectful of elders, and be more attentive.

[bad company]

You again. I really need to start bookmarking your threads for when you return. You're kinda like the jason of trolls.