Balanced Budget - uh both sides pretend to push for this and neither side tends to actually uphold the concept. Although the last time we had a balanced budget, Clinton was in the White House so we'll give the Democrats slightly more credit. But in reality, anyone who is in power thinks short term and overspends. Line Item Veto - Once again, Clinton wanted it and got it passed with a Democratic Congress and Senate in power and it got struck down by the Supreme Court. This is a non-issue. Term Limits - I'm assuming referring to those Republican promises as part of the contract with america to put term limits on congressmen and senators. Well, that never really happened. No Politican will limit their own ability to stay in power. Once again a non-issue. Neither side will actually push for this.
These seem to me to be pretty marginal issues. And it seems to me that it would be easier to work to get the Dems to shift on two out of three of them at least than to form an entire party around them. (And even if you did, wouldn't it just be the Democratic party with a few adjustments?) The Dems are for a balanced budget. I'm guessing you'd want an amendment as well. To me, that's pretty much a matter of degrees. Presidents of both parties have favored a line item veto. If I recall correctly it was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. No third party will change that. As for term limits I'm guessing you mean congressional ones. Any third party would have to become so powerful as to outnumber both of the two current majors in order to pass this and, once they were in that kind of power, I sincerely doubt any third party would do so. There's also a strong argument that term limits of any sort deprive the public of the right to vote for whomever they please -- one I pretty much agree with and not only wrt Congress. I think the argument for term limits has to do mostly with combatting the unfair advantage of incumbency. And I think that problem is better and more meaningfully addressed with campaign finance reform than term limits. But, again, if these are your major objections to the two party system, I'd say you're a Democrat that would like to amend the platform.
Actually I think it is more than a yes or no situation On some arguments. . I can agree with the conservatives on other I am more liberal I would look for a party that maybe I have more to work with Also Perhaps if their was more of a middle party rather than the extremes Is there something wrong with wanted MORE Options? Rocket River
This is exactly my point. The major parties are not extreme. They are in a constant race for the "center," which everyone defines differently. When you talk about the center, you're not talking about the center according to America - you're talking about the center according to you. And even within the sample group of the two or three people here calling for a "middle" party, I'll bet you wouldn't agree on what constitutes the "middle." I would also confidently venture a bet that if everyone here weighed in on what they wanted out of a "Middle Party" platform, you'd wind up very close to the Democratic party's platform. But just for fun, why don't you tell me which of the Dems' positions you'd characterize as "extreme?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_Law How and why it occurs Two-party systems often develop spontaneously when the voting system used for elections discriminates against third or smaller parties, because the number of votes received for a party in a whole country is not directly related to the proportion of seats it receives in the country's assembly/assemblies. While there is sometimes a coincidental relationship between votes cast and seats received in these systems, voters are not assured that their one vote will directly count toward an additional seat. The most widely-used system to have this effect, the simple plurality system (first past the post) often appears to pull systems into encouraging the survival of only two major parties: a third force can break in on the scene (the Labour Party in 20th-century Britain, or the Republican Party in the 19th-century United States, for example) but only at the ultimate expense of a former major party (the Liberal Party in Britain, the Whigs in the USA respectively). The overall system re-stabilizes into two-party mode after a three-party interlude. Some representation systems - such as those involving a single elected president or a mayor dominating the government - may encourage two-party systems, since ultimately the contest will pit the two most popular candidates against each other. When constituencies (districts) vote for candidates on the basis of a geographical constituency, all votes for candidates other than the winner count for nothing. This reflects another factor that encourages a two party system: smaller parties often cannot win enough votes in a constituency because they have smaller support and sometimes more scattered support than larger parties. Often a first-past-the-post electoral system and the election of candidates from geographical constituencies (districts) appear together in a single political system: this means that some smaller parties can garner a significant proportional of votes nationally, but receive few constituency seats and thus cannot realistically expect to compete overall on an equal footing with larger country-wide parties. In countries that use proportional representation (PR), especially where the whole country forms a single constituency (like Israel), the electoral rules discourage a two-party system; the number of votes received for a party relates directly and proportionally to the number of representative seats won, and new parties can thus develop an immediate electoral niche. Duverger identified that the use of proportional representation would make a two party system less likely. However, other systems do not guarantee new parties access to the system: Malta provides an example of a stable two-party system using the single transferable vote. Often, two-party systems result from various factors, mostly the use of a first-past-the-post voting system, rather than from deliberate electoral/political engineering.
This is an issue I've been dealing with for awhile. In MN we have elected representatives of 4 parties and a few independents and under MN election laws we have 4 major parties. From my the experience here it seems like its much more practical to build from the state and municipaility level. The problem with the federal level is with getting a President elected and the disproportionate power the majority wields in the House of Representatives. IMO the best way to build a successful third party would be to start small at the states, take control of state houses and municipalities until you have a few high profile governerhips. From there build on eventually taking control of the Congress or the Presidency. One way I would think about this would be if a third party could have governorships in CA, NY and a few other states from there those high profile governorships you could have a good base and control of several electoral votes for a presidential run. Also in the Senate the minorities and even individual senators have enough power that a third party Senator could have some say. In fact following Wellstone's death and prior to Coleman's swearing in MN had a third party US Senator who managed to get a bill passed. The high profile route of drafting a really charismatic presidential candidate is problematic because they still have to have the organization to win enough states to get the presidency but once there has really no power base in Congress or the States. Even if they could win without having a power base the party probably couldn't survive beyond their tenure.
Can't argue with you on this, Batman. What I find amusing about the barrage of accusations accusing the Democratic Party of being far to the left, liberal (liberal used as if it's a horrible thing to call a person or a political party), and extreme (which it is not), is that Democrats can't agree on these definitions among themselves. The idea that the Democratic Party is some monolithic group of people of like mind is ludicrous. Indeed, it is our constant disagreement with each other about what being a Democrat means, what being a liberal or a moderate means, what domestic and foreign policies the Party should follow, etc., etc. ...it is both a strength and a weakness. The reason I say that is because (#1) it is true and (#2) it gives independents and dissatisfied Republicans ample opportunity to come join the Democratic Party and make a real difference. You want to influence national policy and are disgusted with the way the country is being run by Washington? Do you feel shut out by the extremism of the current leadership of the Republican Party and you're wondering how to make your voice heard? Join the Democratic Party and work within it to change both it and the politics of Washington. I'm serious. Many look at the Democratic Party as being in disarray. They then look at the Republican Party with dismay, and see nothing for them there. The idea of a third way, a third party, has appeal. Instead of spinning your wheels trying to make that happen (and believe me, you'd be spinning your wheels), join the Democratic Party, which has a real chance, an excellent chance of capturing one or both branches of Congress this year, as well as the Presidency in '08, and help it find the direction it's searching for. Help it refine it's message... hell, help create the policies of the party. How do you think a minority group won control of the Republican Party? They worked at the precinct level and the county level until they captured control of the state apparatus of the GOP, state by state. I hate what they did to the GOP, but I admire the dedication they had to accomplish their goal. You think the Democratic Party needs changing? Work to get people you admire to positions of power and influence in the Democratic Party. Become involved. Work for change. Believe it or not, many Democrats want changes within the Party. They want new leaders, new ideas. Perhaps those new leaders include you. Perhaps the new ideas are some of yours. Rather than giving your effort to attempt the near impossible goal of creating a viable third party, help remake the Democratic Party. We need you, now more than ever. Make a real difference this Fall, and boot out the GOP. Affect real national change. Join the Democratic Party. Keep D&D Civil.
Is it not possible to change the Republican Party from within? Is everything Either Or I a position by position person. Something I agree with the Demos on others I agree with the Republicans on others I beleive they are both wrong. If I join either party . . . start working within I feel it would really kind of change the party into something different anyway . . Call the party after I'm done. . .republican would be like calling a frog a tadpole. . . .they kind of the same but not really Rocket River
Of course it is, RR. The problem with doing that is the reality of the leadership being in the grip of a far-right/ fundamentalist/neo-whatever-the-hell-they-call-themselves-this-week minority, who launch vicious attacks on Republicans who dare disagree with their dogma. The only way the GOP's leadership and direction are going to change, in my opinion, is a crushing defeat at the polls, which would discredit the minority clique with it's hold on power. Then, more moderate/conservative Republicans would have a decent shot at taking their party back, and making it more mainstream, and a party of more diversity in philosophies, and diversity in other ways. One that is more of a "big tent." What should be appealing about the Democratic Party to moderate Republicans, as well as liberal and conservative Republicans whose views differ from those in charge of the GOP, is that joining the Democrats in helping to defeat the radical Republicans (and, obviously, you don't need to join the party... just vote for Democrats who you think share many of your views, which would be my hope, or vote for another party that isn't the GOP) will accomplish two things. It will bring new ideas and energy into the Democratic Party (my hope) and moderate the GOP (another hope of mine). Keep D&D Civil.
Here is my "issue based objection" to both parties. They are willing to sell out their values, their constituents, and their grandmothers for two things: money and power. Those are the only two things that matter to them. This is why we need a third "party" (as I said in my initial response, I don't think we need to run candidates in order to wield considerable power) to push for things like term limits, publicly funded elections, and a new system of taxation. If elections are financed through public funds and candidates are limited to two or three terms, a lot of the power aggregation we have seen in recent years will diminish, as will the influence of corporations on government. Neither the Dems nor the Reps want this to happen as it will reduce their power and ability to solicit bri ... er ... campaign contributions.
Is it any wonder we only have a two party system? Hell Americans are too lazy to even understand govenment 101. -------------------- Study: Few Americans Know 1st Amendment By ANNA JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer CHICAGO - Americans apparently know more about "The Simpsons" than they do about the First Amendment. Only one in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half can name at least two members of the cartoon family, according to a survey. The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just one in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms. Joe Madeira, director of exhibitions at the museum, said he was surprised by the results. "Part of the survey really shows there are misconceptions, and part of our mission is to clear up these misconceptions," said Madeira, whose museum will be dedicated to helping visitors understand the First Amendment when it opens in April. "It means we have our job cut out for us." The survey found more people could name the three "American Idol" judges than identify three First Amendment rights. They were also more likely to remember popular advertising slogans. It also showed that people misidentified First Amendment rights. About one in five people thought the right to own a pet was protected, and 38 percent said they believed the right against self-incrimination contained in the Fifth Amendment was a First Amendment right, the survey found. The telephone survey of 1,000 adults was conducted Jan. 20-22 by the research firm Synovate and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060301/ap_on_re_us/freedom_poll carry on...
And if they were not, they would be liberal issues. IIRC you ask for moderate issues, not liberal issues. While you may not be impressed with the above issues, 2 out of 3 Americans are. What is the point of being the people's party when you can not support an issue 2 out of 3 Americans support? To understand this question is to understand how the Democrats have lost their way. You know Progressives play the same "2 out of 3 Americans" card when they see fit, like on the environment or health care. This is not a bad thing. The Democrats could stand to have a *Come To Jesus* moment, decide to be the people's party not in name only, and adopt *all* of the "2 out of 3 Americans" issues without regard to where on the political spectrum the issue lands.
The history of third parties in this country reflects the way the country is structured... if you have a third party with decent ideas, one of the two established parties will eventually coopt the ideas. If you have a third party based on a personality, as soon as that personality loses interest, dies, or is compromised, the party falls apart. The only way we'll have a truly powerful third party is when one of the two major parties begins to disintegrate and reform, like the Whigs into Republicans... then we'll be back to two parties again. I am not optimistic that there will ever be a long-term third party that is capable of challenging the other two. If you're really upset with the way things are going, pick a party and start working to change it into something you can live with. This is true. There would be a lot more Iraqis and US soldiers alive if Nader had spent some time reading history.
An example of a third party being wiped out overnight from texas politics. La Raza Unida Party. Democrats who controlled all the action in TX would not run Hispanics in So. TX. La Raza Unida fielded a party, ran liberal Chicnos,and in a few election cycles won a few important elections. Next election the Demos ran liberal Hispanics in all those races. After a few cycles La Raza Unida Party was done. An interesting aside, one of the early organizers told me that they found out later that most of their money was coming from the GOP for their spoiler role in statewide elections. So the Raza Unida did suceed, but it raises the question: if you have the support is it easier to start a new party or take over an existing one to promote your issues. Either is tough given that one part or the other will coopt your issue(s).
Except that the whole point of having a political party is to get people elected. In many ways the issues are secondary to the purpose of the party since we've seen the Democrats and Rebublicans flip flop on several issues in their history. If you want to wield power for political change that means getting candidates elected. Politicians aren't just going to do things because a lot of people support a position unless they know that those people will either vote them in or out of office. Like it or not its a fact that to win elected office at anything beyond a school board level you're going to need money and organization. You can wish that there was full federal funding as much as you want but unless you get candidates elected in the first place who will be willing to pass a federal funding election bill its not going to happen. Going to Deckard's point he's very correct that if you want to see change you have to participate in the process even if you don't like it. We all have a good time being a member of the 101st keyboarders but how many of us have worked on a campaign, participated in a party caucus, helped raise money, helped write a party platform or any of the other things that need to be done to get candidates elected? If you want change you have to do your part to make it happen.
