Historically, you are correct. I am espousing a different dynamic. The difference is that I see a place for a "party" that wants the best policy for America rather than policies that fit a narrow idealogical view. Between the positions of the two major parties are shades of grey that are probably a better way to go. The "Middle Party" as I see it would concentrate on finding reasonable compromises between the polar opposites we have in the Dems and Reps. And if a voting block of 10-20% of voters existed and they were all committed to voting together as much as possible, would it or would it not be this block that would determine who ultimately gets elected? Exactly. We need a substantial group of people who are willing to vote together in order to wield the kind of power I am talking about. Agreed. If we had the voting block I am talking about, it would be possible to pass such legislationthrough the Dems and Reps. Every candidate that did not support issue X, Y, or Z would be targeted for removal from office. As part of that process, the opposing candidate would be informed of the reasons his predecessor is being voted out and the candidate would be reminded that if they do not support X, Y, or Z, their head will be on the chopping block in two or six years. Totally agreed. This is the reason that I talk about the Middle Party as much as I do. It is going to take a lot of work if we are to take back the country from the career politicians we now have. One of the reasons that I don't think it is productive to run candidates initially is because people naturally want to back a winner. If the Middle Party concentrates on voting as a block, we can determine the winner in every single election without running a single candidate. As people get to know what the MP is about, perhaps in the future (I would say at least a decade or two from now) we could run candidates, but that would be once we have captured the votes of the entire 40% of American voters who do not strongly identify as Democrat or Republican. In addition, one does not have to give up their loyalty to their party, be it Dem or Rep, to be committed to the principles of the Middle Party. People of all stripes can believe in campaign finance reform, tax reform, term limits, and reasoned debate (the last being the most important). Also, one will not be FORCED to vote with the block, we would make recommendations in each race just like newspapers do and our members would vote their conscience. We could wield a LOT more power than the Dems or Reps by being the deciding vote. Who has the most power in Survivor as the game wears on? The swing vote typically has the most power and we could be the swing vote in every election.
we also need to relax election laws. the reason ventura won was because you dont even have to register to vote in minnesota before hand. you can just walk up and vote. similarly in europe theres no voting registration nonsense.
They then become another "special interest group." Can't you hear some polical operative say "Hey, why let a bunch of compromisers define America... We stand for something!" or "You wouldn't go to church with a bunch of people who sort of believed, so why let people who have no principles run the country?" Look, we don't really need a third party...we have a corrective that is readily available. It's called EVERYONE VOTES. If we had 85-99% turnout in all elections, politicians would have to run to the middle. Special interest groups would have far less sway because in the election, their voter numbers would be greatly diminished. We're lucky if we get 60% turnout for a Presidential election and 50% for anything else. That means 25-30% of the voting population are voting for the winner. If the NRA or Sierra Club or whoever can say "Our organization supplied 10% of the people that voted for you," then a pol has to coddle that group and vote accordingly, whether the interests of the majority are served or not. If you have everyone voting the percentage any one group can claim goes way down and the number of people you have to appeal to goes way up. The strategy recently has been to intentionally turn voters off so that many don't vote and you can win by going after certain groups. I'm in favor of everyone voting, whether they know anything about the candidates or positions or not just for this reason... then the pols wouldn't be able to predict as easily how the election would turn out and they would have to work to educate voters instead of tearing down opponents and targeting groups.
The one thing that is completely hopeless is a middle or moderate party. Either party is always appealing to these folks. Also by definition moderates tend to be not too involved and will vote for whichever party claims to have the so called moderate or middle views. Usually we have two middle parties. However, at this point the GOP has been captured by what are normally seen as radical right wing types. If you are talking about a party that is say liberal on personal issues and convervative on economics like many educated wealthier folks claim to want, that is a position that quite a few politicians take. When push comes to shove these folks usually vote their pocket book as you see with the West U Repubs who hold their nose and support Bush and Jerry Falwell's GOP.
It's so great that you made it back here, rimmy. You just said something so obvious that people overlook it. It's why I get so angry when I hear someone carry on about how, "there's no point in voting, because they're all alike. They're all corrupt, or crooks, or (fill in the blank). What's the point??" The Dutch used to have a law requiring everyone to vote, unless they had a good reason not to, like they were ill, or something of that nature. I could be mistaken, but I think they finally repealed that law. It's a shame, because it was a damn good idea that we could use here. Keep D&D Civil.
You have the freedom to not speak, and I will fight to the death to preserve that right, left. Keep D&D Civil.
The primary political objective in a elected form of government is to get elected. If you don't you have no power. The lowest common denominator in an democratic government is two, Us versus Them. The two party system has less to do with ideologies than it does with maintaining power for those controling the election machine, The US machine and the Them Machine. Agree to agree and you are one of us, disagree with us and your only choice is agree to agree with Them. This axiom can have exceptions, but it requires the odd man to have some compelling story or personality but the fact is that third parties are powerless unless they can control legislation. They have to be elected knowing they are impotent until they reach critical mass and people have a very hard time throwing away their vote. They wouold rather vote for some guy they have major disagreements with but who can win than vote for someone who they mostly agree with but can influence legislation. If you wanted to start a real third party you would need 1. A leader who capable of building a cult of personality 2. A person or persons with inexhaustable wealth that is willing to spend it all in support of the new leader.
The heck with worrying about a third party, I vote for this. A DECLARATION OF <insert your state name here> SOVEREIGNTY Recent actions by the U.S. government including the prosecution of illegal wars, the Patriot Act, the illegal rendition of terrorist suspects, prisoner abuse and torture, citizen surveillance, the suppression of civil liberties, the suspension of habeas corpus, a foreign policy based on full spectrum dominance and imperial overstretch, and a culture of deceit have all given rise to legitimate concern that under circumstances of its own choosing, our government might not rule out (1) the suspension of the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights, (2) the declaration of martial law, (3) the militarization of civilian police functions, (4) the suspension of free elections, (5) the usurpation of individual property rights, or (6) the negation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In light of these troubling developments, the State of ____________ hereby reaffirms (1) its right of sovereignty, (2) its right to nullify acts of the central government deemed to be unconstitutional, (3) its right to secede from the Union, and (4) its right to call a statewide Convention of the People to decide whether or not it remains in the Union. Vive Le __________ Libre!
Done some more thinking on this. It is not just the moderate "2 out of 3 Americans" issues that the Democrats will not embrass. There are liberal "2 out of 3 Americans" issues that no "right thinking" Democrat will have anything to do with, like medical mar1juana and gun control (e.g. supporting the gun laws that local PDs want). This brings into question exactly what are the Democrats *core* beliefs that they are willing to fight for in Congress. I posit there are very few if any of these must-fight-for Democrat core beliefs.
