Whine and cheese party YAY!!
FREE PADILLAHABEUSCORPUSTHEY'RECOMINGTOTAKEUSALLAWAYARMPOLITS
DEPORTALLIMMIGRANTSCLOSETHEBORDERSSTOPARRESTINGUSCITIZEN-
ALQUAEDACELLSINTHEUS!!
Posted on 11/02/2002 5:35:30 AM PST by Pern
Perot was a huge mistake. But look at his campaign. He had momentum, and he pulled out with a tin-foil excuse. After that, when he'd realized what he'd done and tried to get back in, he never recovered.
Had he been a rational human being, (if one exists in politics), I think it would of been a very different election. There was opportunity there.
Ventura is another example. Elected governor because both parties had sucky candidates and were so mad. Of course, he turned out to be a loser as well and they still have an outrageous income tax....back to the question of rationality.
In the past decade there have been some opportunities for a new party to emerge, but its always the same person, some loser who is doing it on his own not for issues but because his personality does not jive with the other losers in the main parties. Third parties where the focus is the candidtate's ego satisfaction and not the issues will always just be spoilers.
I think W has quieted the dissatisfaction storm a bit (especially now we are at war), but he still has 2 more years to go. There are certain things that need to happen and not happen this year for him to maintain his momentum in 2004.
Whine and cheese party YAY!!
FREE PADILLAHABEUSCORPUSTHEY'RECOMINGTOTAKEUSALLAWAYARMPOLITS
DEPORTALLIMMIGRANTSCLOSETHEBORDERSSTOPARRESTINGUSCITIZEN-
ALQUAEDACELLSINTHEUS!!
True. But different kinds of electoral systems encourage-support-sustain different kinds of political formations: e.g. proportional representation encourages multi-party systems (our European brothers and sisters). Our system--which is specified in our founding documents--tends to encourage a two party system.
Indeed. But it is possible, as SCoNJ demonstrated, to confuse the benefit of the two-party system--and the "encouragement" of it which is indeed in the Constitution--with a "right" of one of the two nationally predominant parties to place in the money in a particular race. I hope this writer has some choice words for that fatuous conceit.Because the competition of third parties is part of what keeps the majors on their toes. If indeed it can be said that anything now does at all, when speaking of the Democratic Party . . .
Who says we have a "two party system"? Any idiot knows there are many other parties to choose, but most of the alternate parties don't appeal to the masses. The writer probably thinks this is a "democracy" as well.
Well, we don't really have a republic anymore, either, if that is what you are implying.
Truth is, we have always had a two party system, even though this was not intended by the Founding Fathers, nor provided for in the Constitution. That's not the problem, though.
The problem is that the two current de facto parties - Dems and Repubs - have queered the system so that it is impossible for anyone to change or displace the two incumbent parties.
People who complain that "third" parties only "throw" the election to one or the other of the two parties, miss the point of what "third" parties are all about. The ultimate purpose of a third party is not to throw an election, but rather to displace one of the existing two parties, and to become part of the "two party" system in its stead. This is what the Republicans did in the 19th century, when they displaced the Whigs.
This is an important function of the two party system, because whenever one of the parties becomes unresponsive or out of touch, it can be replaced by a "third" party, which can come from out of nowhere, virtually overnight, if need be (which is what the GOP did when it replaced the Whigs).
If, in the 1850's and 1860's, we had had the kind of ballot access laws that we have now, the Republican Party would probably never have existed (except as an obscure splinter party), Lincoln would have remained an obscure congresscritter, and the Whig Party might still be around as part of the "two party system".
Third parties keep the two major parties honest. This cannot happen, however, when ballot access laws, media, fundraising issues, and incumbent power make it impossible for third parties to ever be anything but spoilers for the other side.
This stiffles change and entrenches incumbent, corrupt elites within the parties, who do not need to fear being displaced by large but politically disarmed factions within the two parties. Consider what happened to Buchanan as one example; when he tried to change the Republican Party from within, GOP insiders denied him access to the primary ballot in several states, and sabotaged him in others. But when he ran as an independent, he risked either "throwing" the election to the Dems, or simply wasting his time and resources on a hopeless third party effort.
This is what happens when we let the two parties collaborate with each other to protect incumbents and to shut out third party access to the ballot. Are we really suprised how out of touch both parties are with their own base of support?
At least, it seems to me that this is the case with the GOP. The Dems may be happier with their party, but I doubt it.
Gourmet whine and cheese...only the best here on FR ;- )
OK then name for me one, just ONE viable 3rd party issue that the 2 major parties are not already addressing ?
Mandate that a winning candidate (in any election) must obtain more than 50% of the vote. So if, in the general election, the "winning candidate" does not hit 50.001% of the vote (carry out the decimals as much as possible), there is a "runoff election" held a week later between the top two candidates in which a candidate receiving more than 50% of the vote is a certainty.
This would do away with the argument that you are "throwing away your vote" if you want to cast a vote for a third party candidate. For if enough people vote for third party candidate, neither candidate from the major two parties will hit that 50%, forcing a runoff, at which time you can choose between the two top candidates, having made your statement. It may even be possible that your third party candidate makes the runoff!
This is a real possibility this year with the gubernatorial election in New York. The third party candidate (Golisimano) has a real shot at coming in second, which would keep Pataki from obtaining 50% of the vote and force a runoff. Things would get very interesting indeed!
Also under this system, the last three presidential elections could have turned out much differently. Take 1992 for example. Clinton obtained 43%, Bush 37% and Perot 19%. Imagine how things might have turned out had a runoff been forced between Clinton and Bush. Also, imagine how many more votes Perot would have gotten if people had not felt that they were "throwing away their vote." Perhaps Perot would have come in second! At any rate, it is my opinion that Clinton never would have been president at all had he been forced to obtain 50% of the vote.
As well, in both 1996 and 2000, no candidate achieved 50% of the vote. We would have had runoffs in both elections. There would have been no 2000 election controversy because GW Bush and Gore would have been in a runoff with no Nader, Buchanan or anybody else on the ballot. We would have almost certainly have had a clear winner. And don't assume that Gore would have won the runoff just because Nader's votes would have gone to Gore. Not necessarily. Most of Nader's voters would likely have stayed home and many more people, having seen just how close Gore was to the presidency, would have been motivated to get up off their asses and vote. Just my humble opinion.
I think the concept of a "runoff" election will generate a lot of excitement with the electorate. Think about it. We will have the general election the first Tuesday of November just like always with a huge slate of candidates and if a candidate fails to achieve 50%, we have a runoff a week later with the top two votegetters - on the second Tuesday of November. If a runoff election is necessary, then for that week, we will have a blitz of campaigning like that you have never seen before.
I think the voters will be better served with a system such as this and it will cause a lot more people (like myself) to vote third party that otherwise never would have considered it because they were so afraid that a socialist (i.e. Democrat) might sneak into office. This way, I can vote for my third party candidate and if he or she fails to make the top two, why I can always go with the Republican in the runoff.
Of course, if you were intending to vote dem, feel free to join the greens. It's good for the earth and other living things:-)
So far we have had three terms of Bush, 41. We have bombing without war declaration, outsourcing jobs and factories, unbalanced trade, ignoring illegal immigration, growing government, military still all over the world, out of control Attorney General, social security lock box pilfered and partial birth abortion.
Differences, the sinks are cleaner and the economy is worse. One of the advantages of third parties is Ventura-types. He isn't beholden and won't take crap from their one.
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.