3rd party coming?

[Guess Who]

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.

[DenverBrit]

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?

[Requiem]

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.

[B-Large]

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.

[Requiem]

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.

[Guess Who]

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.

[Fedaykin]

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.

[BroncoBeavis]

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.

[Requiem]

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.

[cutthemdown]

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.

[Fedaykin]

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?

[cutthemdown]

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.

[Guess Who]

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.

[B-Large]

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.

[Fedaykin]

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.

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.

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.

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.