[thoughtomator]

In maybe 2-3 more elections, the Democrat party will be splintered, leaving lots of opportunities for new parties to step into the breach.

[A Jovial Cad]

Who are YOU trying to kid?

[Samwise]

It's worked real well in Europe. /sarcasm

Now, go to bed before your mom finds out you are still on the Internet.

[The_Victor]

Welcome to Free Republic. We have at least six or seven parties, but only two are viable in most elections. Feel free to vote your conscience.

[sinkspur]

Won't work. Never has worked. Never will work.

If you can't work within one of the two major parties, you're wasting your time and your vote.

[VisualizeSmallerGovernment]

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.

[MJY1288]

There are several other parties already, maybe a consolidation of all little known conservative Parties into one group with an agreed upon message might have a chance to get beyond the ceiling of 5% of the National Vote and earn the right to enter the debates. But as long as those who are running the Libertarian and Constitution Parties continue to lead them, there is little chance for a serious third party challenge anytime soon

[TBP]

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.

[coconutt2000]

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.

[A CA Guy]

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!

[Belisaurius]

We've already got multiple parties. Greens, Reform, Libertarian, and Constitution....if there was any demand for a third party, people would be flocking to one of those banners.

They are not.

Bush or Kerry, those are your choices.

[VisualizeSmallerGovernment]

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.

[Texas Eagle]

Take a good look at your ballot when you go to vote. You will see 20 or so Presidential candidates.

[Dont Mention the War]

Multiple partners? I'm all for it!

What?

Oh.

Damn.

[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????

[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.