The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Poll: Would a 3rd Party benefit the U.S. political system in the long run?
Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.
Poll Options
Would a 3rd Party benefit the U.S. political system in the long run?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-26-2014, 03:31 AM   #1
Guess Who
Rookie
 
Guess Who's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,073

Adopt-a-Bronco:
PMFM
Default 3rd party coming?

All the talk of a 3rd party is interesting. I really think a viable 3rd party is needed. In the short term it would benefit the democrats but if this happened it would not last long. I think Liberal democrats would be more emboldened and more liberal. I think Republicans could actually then move more to the middle. This would cause some conservative democrats to change to Republican. And then the Freedom Party or whatever they call themselves could man the right flank.

With the country splintering maybe the three party system will be the only thing to save it.
Guess Who is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 06-26-2014, 07:01 AM   #2
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,379

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

As of today, an 'Independent Party' would bury the other two in a landslide.

Today's childish, and destructive, partisan politics are as welcome as the proverbial 'turd in a punchbowl.'

Though even the 'turd' could get elected over this Congress. 7% approval rating? Seriously?
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 08:46 AM   #3
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,276

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

A third party will not prosper until ballot access laws in each individual state are changed in order to make it easier for them to get on the voting ticket. Take a look at the past independents that actually made it -- they all had a ton of $. Most third party candidates aren't like Ross Perot and don't have that, which puts them at a significant disadvantage from the get go . . . and the unfair ballot access laws pretty much put the boot to the throat of any alternative breathe in politics.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 09:18 AM   #4
B-Large
Ring of Famer
 
B-Large's Avatar
 
Expunged... Accidently?

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,555

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
A third party will not prosper until ballot access laws in each individual state are changed in order to make it easier for them to get on the voting ticket. Take a look at the past independents that actually made it -- they all had a ton of $. Most third party candidates aren't like Ross Perot and don't have that, which puts them at a significant disadvantage from the get go . . . and the unfair ballot access laws pretty much put the boot to the throat of any alternative breathe in politics.
Bingo. It's a rigged game.
B-Large is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 09:31 AM   #5
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,276

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Large View Post
Bingo. It's a rigged game.
Which most people are ignorant of so they just default to the, "Well, they don't get votes because they have bad ideas and who likes those guys!" type response.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 12:36 PM   #6
Guess Who
Rookie
 
Guess Who's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,073

Adopt-a-Bronco:
PMFM
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
A third party will not prosper until ballot access laws in each individual state are changed in order to make it easier for them to get on the voting ticket. Take a look at the past independents that actually made it -- they all had a ton of $. Most third party candidates aren't like Ross Perot and don't have that, which puts them at a significant disadvantage from the get go . . . and the unfair ballot access laws pretty much put the boot to the throat of any alternative breathe in politics.
I agree, but we are talking about radical right Republicans that would be backed by The Heritage Foundation, Club For Growth and the Koch Brothers. They would have plenty of money. I think organization would be the tough part.
Guess Who is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 01:16 PM   #7
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,924

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
A third party will not prosper until ballot access laws in each individual state are changed in order to make it easier for them to get on the voting ticket. Take a look at the past independents that actually made it -- they all had a ton of $. Most third party candidates aren't like Ross Perot and don't have that, which puts them at a significant disadvantage from the get go . . . and the unfair ballot access laws pretty much put the boot to the throat of any alternative breathe in politics.
No, a third party won't prosper until we change our voting system to something other than a plurality/first past the post system. Such a system inherently and unavoidably leads to a 2 party system.

Someone posted a nice video a few weeks back that explains why very nicely, but it basically boils down to folks making the logical choice to support the lesser of N evils with an actual chance of winning instead of who they really support.

What we need is an IRV or similar system which allows people to rank candidates in the order they would prefer them. This way we as voters don't have to vote strategically to get the lesser of two evils and can instead actually vote for the (often 3rd party) person that best represents our desires.

Only chance in hell of that happening though is a constitutional convention. The powers that be will never allow any substantive change because they have nothing to gain from it.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 02:13 PM   #8
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,883

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
I agree, but we are talking about radical right Republicans that would be backed by The Heritage Foundation, Club For Growth and the Koch Brothers. They would have plenty of money. I think organization would be the tough part.
So adorable you think this is one-sided Your party's nominee for President was the most well-funded in US History when he was elected in 2008. But it's only those darn Republicans that stand in the way of stopping the gravy train.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 02:38 PM   #9
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,276

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
No, a third party won't prosper until we change our voting system to something other than a plurality/first past the post system. Such a system inherently and unavoidably leads to a 2 party system.

Someone posted a nice video a few weeks back that explains why very nicely, but it basically boils down to folks making the logical choice to support the lesser of N evils with an actual chance of winning instead of who they really support.

What we need is an IRV or similar system which allows people to rank candidates in the order they would prefer them. This way we as voters don't have to vote strategically to get the lesser of two evils and can instead actually vote for the (often 3rd party) person that best represents our desires.

Only chance in hell of that happening though is a constitutional convention. The powers that be will never allow any substantive change because they have nothing to gain from it.
You are right, FPP aren't conducive to multi-parties. I was just saying changing ballot access laws would help, but your thoughts are more right.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 04:23 PM   #10
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,626
Default

Would be bad and just lead to even less getting done. Our Congress set up to be two parties. How would you pick a leader? Would the 3rd party just caucus with who they align with? Our system works fine as long as the leaders would follow the law. Reagen started a bad thing when he increased the Presidents power. Now we just have it getting worst and worst each yr.

We need all meeting with lobbyist to have to be video and audio recorded and sent to the national archives. If we just made politicians be more open we could force them to not be so dirty.

Also laws like you can't lobby the industry you served while in govt.....ever. As in you never get to. Pick your side govt or private.

But thinking some 3rd party can save the day is a joke of an idea.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 04:35 PM   #11
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,924

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Would be bad and just lead to even less getting done. Our Congress set up to be two parties. How would you pick a leader? Would the 3rd party just caucus with who they align with? Our system works fine as long as the leaders would follow the law. Reagen started a bad thing when he increased the Presidents power. Now we just have it getting worst and worst each yr.

We need all meeting with lobbyist to have to be video and audio recorded and sent to the national archives. If we just made politicians be more open we could force them to not be so dirty.

Also laws like you can't lobby the industry you served while in govt.....ever. As in you never get to. Pick your side govt or private.

But thinking some 3rd party can save the day is a joke of an idea.

A viable multi party system means that no one party will ever dominate The Congress, which is a good thing. We'd have a much better representation of the diverse interests of people, and there would be much less bickering and power play bull**** (particularly because a power play could never lead to unchallenged power and would be much more likely to make a party lose voters).

I almost never vote R. This is not because I think Ds are great. It's only because they are a slightly lesser evil. It's always a choice of which of the two evil parties/candidates is a slightly lesser evil. I would much prefer the ability to vote for people that actually represent my interests. Wouldn't you?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 06:11 PM   #12
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,626
Default

Now Fed I disagree, you can vote in conservative dems, or liberal republicans to get different shades. I don't agree a 3rd party would fix a thing. It would just cause more problems trying to change a system set up for two parties.

Otherwise you might as well end Presidential elections because the electoral college is now out of whack. Might as well let your new 3 or 4 party Congress pick a leader.

Otherwise with 3 parties you would never get them to the majorities you need to pass legislation. Unless you somehow rewrite all the rules.

You are right about one thing that minus some huge Constitutional change it can't happen. That is why I said it's a bit silly to talk about. You know things that will never happen.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 10:00 PM   #13
Guess Who
Rookie
 
Guess Who's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,073

Adopt-a-Bronco:
PMFM
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
So adorable you think this is one-sided Your party's nominee for President was the most well-funded in US History when he was elected in 2008. But it's only those darn Republicans that stand in the way of stopping the gravy train.
I was saying a 3rd party would have plenty of funding since the foundation is already there in the Koch Brothers, Heritage Foundation and Club for Growth. They would be able to put their resources together to make a viable 3rd party.

Last edited by Guess Who; 06-26-2014 at 10:08 PM..
Guess Who is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 06:30 AM   #14
B-Large
Ring of Famer
 
B-Large's Avatar
 
Expunged... Accidently?

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,555

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
Which most people are ignorant of so they just default to the, "Well, they don't get votes because they have bad ideas and who likes those guys!" type response.
as you and I know, mist people are stupid.

the barriers to entry in politics, in this representative republic is criminal.
B-Large is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 10:14 AM   #15
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,924

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Now Fed I disagree, you can vote in conservative dems, or liberal republicans to get different shades. I don't agree a 3rd party would fix a thing. It would just cause more problems trying to change a system set up for two parties.
There is no constitutional requirement for a two party system, nor does the Constitution require any particular voting system for election of members of congress, election of congressional officers, etc.

Quote:
Otherwise you might as well end Presidential elections because the electoral college is now out of whack. Might as well let your new 3 or 4 party Congress pick a leader.
Does not follow at all. Doesn't matter how many different parties were included in the Electoral College. Want to ensure you'll get elected? Better appeal to more than 1/N parties. The 12th amendment lays out how to handle 3+ candidate presidential elections.

Quote:
Otherwise with 3 parties you would never get them to the majorities you need to pass legislation. Unless you somehow rewrite all the rules.
Plenty of healthy functioning democracies have multiple parties. The whole point of multiple parties is to choke out the idiocy of partisan politics. If no one party can dominate or even be a 49.9% minority, all parties will be FORCED to work together, unlike our current government.

Quote:
You are right about one thing that minus some huge Constitutional change it can't happen. That is why I said it's a bit silly to talk about. You know things that will never happen.
We've amended the Constitution on average every 13 years. It's certainly not impossible.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 11:27 AM   #16
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,037
Default

A genuine opposition party has been needed at least since the Reagan days.

To qualify as a real alternative, such a third party would have to be anti-Wall Street, anti-war, anti-corruption, and pro-environment, at a minimum.

Did I leave out anything? MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 12:12 PM   #17
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
A genuine opposition party has been needed at least since the Reagan days.

To qualify as a real alternative, such a third party would have to be anti-Wall Street, anti-war, anti-corruption, and pro-environment, at a minimum.

Did I leave out anything? MHG
Yeah, anti-Jew, with a Hakenkruez armband insignia.

You could be a leader in the Party.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 12:57 PM   #18
Guess Who
Rookie
 
Guess Who's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,073

Adopt-a-Bronco:
PMFM
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
A genuine opposition party has been needed at least since the Reagan days.

To qualify as a real alternative, such a third party would have to be anti-Wall Street, anti-war, anti-corruption, and pro-environment, at a minimum.

Did I leave out anything? MHG
I disagree, I think a far right-wing party would balance everything out. I think The Democratic party would become much more liberal and some democrats would switch to Republican whose party would move Center right.
Guess Who is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 11:31 AM   #19
BroncsRule
Perennial Pro-bowler
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 968

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
I disagree, I think a far right-wing party would balance everything out. I think The Democratic party would become much more liberal and some democrats would switch to Republican whose party would move Center right.
It would be interesting to see which of the 2 legacy parties would win the fight for the middle.

Whoever won that fight would control the government for a generation.

The "mushy middle" + independents have been deciding elections for the last 60 + years.
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 11:51 AM   #20
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,263

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

A constitutional convention is what this country needs now.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 05:07 PM   #21
Bronco Yoda
.
 
Bronco Yoda's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,746
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Large View Post
Bingo. It's a rigged game.
yep
Bronco Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 05:13 PM   #22
Bronco Yoda
.
 
Bronco Yoda's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,746
Default

There is no constitutional requirement for a two party system. It's just they way things have settled.
Bronco Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:33 AM.


Denver Broncos