America Vs. Third Parties Dick Meyer Is Tired Of The Two-Party Political System

CBS News ^ | April 13, 2006 | Dick Meyer

[Little Ray]

Thats why conquering and exploiting it works better. You make money on the conquered province and, if you do it right, leave the basis for self-government when you depart. And you stay long enough because you're actually making a profit.

[Capt. Tom]

This article mirrors my bio on FR. - tom

[ruffedgrouse]

--Thats why conquering and exploiting it works better. You make money on the conquered province and, if you do it right, leave the basis for self-government when you depart. And you stay long enough because you're actually making a profit--

Nice to hear from Marc Antony. And how is Cleopatra doing these days? LOL

[rhombus]

If you really want to change something in Washington, what you really need to do is pass a constitutional amendment cutting the size of the Congress in half. Fewer people means they work together better, and let's face it, we can't find enough qualified people to fill the seats in Congress as it is.

Huh? You've got to be kidding. Why not just leave it all up to 9 Supreme Court justices or how about a King? They'll do what's best for all of us and spend less money too. Getting "the people" involved with so many representatives is just so messy. (of course you know I'm being sarcastic).

[ruffedgrouse]

--With the way our political system is set up--


PRECISELY. You can't win a card game if the other guy is playing with a stacked deck!

[Brilliant]

What hurdles? All you've gotta do is collect some signatures from voters and pay a filing fee. And every candidate has got to do that.

An independent ought to have a better chance of getting on the ballot because he doesn't have to survive a primary.

[Terabitten]

The Founders didn't want political parties, for they saw the corruption and abuse of power that such parties would inevitably bring with them. My understanding is that the founders wanted our elected representatives to come together on an issue-by-issue basis.

I'd like to try a no-party system, not a 3rd party system.

[ruffedgrouse]

--I'd like to try a no-party system, not a 3rd party system.--

From your lips to God's ears (i.e I totally agree). Problem is the framers who ran for POTUS after GW were the ones who formed the parties in the first place!

[You Dirty Rats]

Most other democracies have various forms of proportional representation where parties are represented in proportion to the percentage of the vote. So in Italy, for a rough example with fake parties, if in a national election got the Conservatives got 60 percent, the Socialists 30 percent and the Liberals got 10 percent, the seats in the parliament would by divvied up almost in that exact proportion. In America, it's win or lose.

Is this genius seriesly suggesting that Italy has a better political system than the United States of America?? LOLOL, not even the Italians would say that!

[Terabitten]

Problem is the framers who ran for POTUS after GW were the ones who formed the parties in the first place!

That Washington guy knew what he was talking about. No political parties, no 'entangling foreign alliances...' Maybe we should pay him a bit more attention.

[ruffedgrouse]

"Is this genius seriesly suggesting that Italy has a better political system than the United States of America?? LOLOL, not even the Italians would say that!"

Italy's problems have nothing to do with proportional representation. Her problems are twofold:

1. Endemic and severe corruption.
2. Limited historical experience with being a "representative republic" (what some folks call a "democracy"). Unlike the USA with its long Anglo-Saxon tradition of parliamentary government which predates 1776, Italy has had a tradtion of being ruled by dukes, kings, and a fascist dictatorship. It's a wonder Italy is doing as well as it is.

[Wallace T.]

The Green Party has probably had more negative impact on the Democrats than the Libertarian and Constitution Parties have had on the GOP. In 2000, had Ralph Nader's vote totals been added to those of Al Gore, the Democrats would have held the White House on account of Florida alone. There are insufficient numbers of libertarians or theonomists to make the existing "right wing" parties viable. Not counting George Wallace in 1968 or Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, both of whom were more populist than truly conservative, the various factions of conservatives have either strongly supported the GOP or remained quiescent on the sidelines.

[Yo-Yo]

So you'd rather give elections to the Dims by default, the way we did in '92?

Sorry, but until the system is changed, that's cutting off your nose to spite your face. And I will guarantee you that if you give power to the Dims by default, THEY won't change the system!

[EQAndyBuzz]

"If the independents outnumber Dems and GOPers, then why don't they vote independent? Why are there few independent candidates?"

Money.

There really aren't independents. The day of party voting is over.

You have three ideologies in the USA.

1. Conservative
2. Moderate
3. Marxist

1 & 3 are the base. It is 2 that has to be wooed for either 1 or 3 to win. Both sides try to keep the other home on election day.

The reason 2 will never be a political party is because they vote issues that affect their lives based on their beliefs. An example. What is more important to me, gays being able to marry or lower taxes? If I say gays being able to marry, I am voting Democrat. If I say lower taxes I am voting Republican.

However, as a party, the 2 candidate will have to track one way or the other for campaign funding. Either way he goes, he will not get funding from the other side, so he either turns into a 1 or a 3.

In reality, there needs to be a true liberal party in the mold of a Kennedy(John) or even a Bush Jr. Tough on defense, tough on crime, wants lower taxes and less government, but the government we do have helps those less fortunate by creating programs that give the less fortunate a chance to get out of poverty rather then suck on the teet of government.

That is what 2 needs to be. By the way, there is a term for these people. I believe we call them RINOS.

[Little Ray]

I'd rather be Scipio, Julius Caesar, Marius, or Sulla, or possibly a brighter Alexander (secure your succession...). But if I was Mark Anthony, I would have NEVER trusted that snake Octavian...
Its just the way history has worked so far.

[Alia]

Stacks the deck? Okay, let's presume the "stacks the deck".

Are you proposing that a "new" third party would never, ever, not ever do this? That they'd be willing to step aside to a competitor "fourth" party? How about a nationalist group from another country with "better" ideas for America?

This talk about "third" parties always makes me think of the Atom. For the sake of argument: If Republicans are the Protons, Democrats are the electrons, does this mean "third parties" are the neutrons, carrying no charge at all?

I'm not at all saying that various political interest groups do not have an important place in the body politic.

But how can a neutron (carrying no energy) become interchangeable with an electron or proton? There'd be no nucleus.

And so while I find these articles about "third parties" of interest, they really are simple "political interest parties" wishing they carried a genuine charge within the frame of the American nucleus. That's not to say that either electron or positron cannot shift the weight of the atom using the neutron to do so.

I'm praying the "neutrons" in this atom we call American politics will shift their vote to Republicans, instead of choosing this moment, 6 days before an election to talk about themselves and thereby lend their "shift" to their circling about the nucleus, electron (anti-electorate) party, Dems.

It's important to keep the sovereignty of the United States right inside the nucleus with the protons, and the electrons not in power bumping other countries agendas' and ideologies to invade our America, the nucleus; and thereby radically altering the shape, form and Constitution of the American nucleus.

[Yo-Yo]

Don't forget to add the Buchanan votes to Bush in Florida, if you're going to add Nader's votes to Gore.

Thank you for making my point. Nader did split the liberal ticket. Why should we do the same with the conservative vote?

What if someone like Forbes ran as an independent, or Libertarian, or whatever label you care to choose? A strong conservative that didn't get the Republican nod can split the conservative vote, and much more so than the Greens did to the Dims.

[ruffedgrouse]

--So you'd rather give elections to the Dims by default, the way we did in '92?--


No, what I'm saying is that the system is porked, that's why things turned out they way they did. If you had a proportional Electoral College in 1992 instead of winner-take-all, neither Bush41 or Clinton would have gotten 270 EVs, then Perot would have had to decide who to give his EVs to (and he probably would have given them to Clinton) based on who was more likely to carry out what he (Perot) campaigned on; mostly the budget deficit IRRC.

BTW--I'm not so sure Bush 41 was a shoe-in if there was no Perot. Bush 41 broke some big promises and ran a terrible campaign; he looked clueless and out of touch, especially during a (mild) economic recession. A lot of the voters who voted for Perot would have stayed home if no Perot was around. And yes, I voted for Bush 41, and Dole too.

[You Dirty Rats]

Then maybe Mr. Meyer should have picked a better example than Italy.

How about the Weimar Republic? That enabled a small lunatic party to build strength and take power. How about Germany today -- two parties at 35% each and three at 10%. Ask Germans how well that's working for them.

Or France -- there were many candidates for President in 2002 and they ended up with a crook and a fascist as their top two. LePen actually was one of the top two candidates in France!! There's a fine example for us to follow.

Britain has multiple parties but the first-past-the-post system for each seat in Parliament means no proportional representation. Same in Canada. That cuts down on the radicals.

Advocating radical changes in our political system away from the proven American and Anglo-Saxon systems and towards European Continental systems is a pathetic example of living in a dreamworld. We have, by far, the best political system in the world. The examples of France and Germany and Italy do not inspire me to abandon our own system. Like most radicals, Dick Meyer has his feet firmly planted in the air (FDR line).

[ruffedgrouse]

--How about the Weimar Republic? That enabled a small lunatic party to build strength and take power--

Germany after the Great War had no democratic tradtion. A weak republican governemt was foisted on a defeated, demoralized nation. Once hyperinflation was followed by the Great Depression (which hit Germany really hard)a turn to radicalism and totalitarian government was inevitable. The only question was whether Germany was doomed to become fascist or communist.

--Ask Germans how well that's working for them.--

Today Germany is doing pretty well. Her economic headaches are due mostly to getting the old DDR back in shape--a tough job.

--LePen actually was one of the top two candidates in France!! There's a fine example for us to follow.--

LePen is basically a Gallic Tom Tancredo. He has tapped in to the understandable anger Frenchmen have with obnoxious behavior of the Arab Muslims in their midst; just as Americans are incensed with illegal immigration primarily from Mexico. Chirac is a scumbucket, no argument there.