Majority of R's want 3rd party...D's, not so much

[BrianFromWA]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ebt-limit-fight/2011/05/09/AFGReMgG_blog.html

Majority of Republicans want third party: According to a new Gallup poll, 52% Republicans want a major third party to compete with Democrats and the GOP.

While a majority of Americans have wanted another party since 2006, this is the first time most Republicans have voiced that desire since Gallup began asking the question in 2003. Only 33% of Democrats currently want a third party. Unsurprisingly, 68 percent of independents are favor another option in terms of party choices.

Sixty percent of those who identify with the tea party movement want a third party. Altogether, 52 percent of Americans want a third choice.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I strongly believe a viable third party would be very healthy for this country. Both the left & the right have proven to be inept, corrupt and arrogant with a total indifference to the true welfare of the people. There's just something about unchecked political power that breeds contempt for citizens. And that is what we get when just one of two parties is in power. We've seen it recently with both parties. With a third party we'd have new ideas and a necessity to compromise and work more so for the betterment of society. In fact, I can hardly think of anything negative about a viable third political party.

 

[MARIS61]

With a third party we'd have new ideas and a necessity to compromise and work more so for the betterment of society. In fact, I can hardly think of anything negative about a viable third political party.

Same reasoning used to defend having two parties. Hasn't proven true at all, since both parties are beholding to corporate control.

Doesn't matter if we have a dozen or more parties, as long as corporations fund and control our representatives we have no voice in our future and welfare.

 

[MrJayremmie]

We need a third party.

I'm not surprised the Dems don't want one, they don't give a shit.

We should have 6 parties... Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and a moderate party, some type of Independent type who claims moderate policy views in tact with the majority of Americans -- for example, a party that would want tax hikes and spending cuts to solve deficit instead of our parties which either want only spending cuts or only tax hikes.

 

[STOMP]

Same reasoning used to defend having two parties. Hasn't proven true at all, since both parties are beholding to corporate control.

Doesn't matter if we have a dozen or more parties, as long as corporations fund and control our representatives we have no voice in our future and welfare.

yup. its a good cop bad cop routine, but both parties are largely beholden to the same bosses/lobbyists who fund their campaigns. Politicians have to sell out to raise enough $ for TV ads, so they spend much of their time chasing dollars rather then working on enacting legislation for their causes.

I don't see how more parties changes this dynamic.

STOMP

 

[Paxil]

Hell... lets go with no parties and then maybe the people we elect will actually start representing the states instead of being tools of their party.

 

[Denny Crane]

yup. its a good cop bad cop routine, but both parties are largely beholden to the same bosses/lobbyists who fund their campaigns. Politicians have to sell out to raise enough $ for TV ads, so they spend much of their time chasing dollars rather then working on enacting legislation for their causes.

I don't see how more parties changes this dynamic.

STOMP

More parties would mean things would require a coalition to pass. It's sorta working like that now with republicans having to lobby the tea party guys.

Even if it were greens and dems having to reach compromise against tea party (or libertarians) and republicans, it would be a wholly different dynamic.

 

[Ed O]

Whether a majority of Americans want a third part or not isn't very relevant to me... would a majority of Americans want four parties? Seven?

It's easy to agree to complain, but then it's tough for complainers to agree on anything substantive.

Ed O.

 

[BlazersBlood]

Same reasoning used to defend having two parties. Hasn't proven true at all, since both parties are beholding to corporate control.

Doesn't matter if we have a dozen or more parties, as long as corporations fund and control our representatives we have no voice in our future and welfare.

That's America. And I don't see it changing anytime soon. People don't run the country, money does.

 

[Natebishop3]

I think a third party would be great. I also think we should ban lobbying and install term limits on everything. I don't think congressmen and senators should serve more than two terms. Get rid of these career politicians who only care about being re-elected.

 

[barfo]

I think a third party would be great. I also think we should ban lobbying and install term limits on everything. I don't think congressmen and senators should serve more than two terms. Get rid of these career politicians who only care about being re-elected.

I think term limits have basically proven to be a failure. Tell someone they can only work here for X years, and they'll spend just as much time, if not more, looking for the next job as they would trying to get reelected to the current job. And why bother to learn the job, if you know you aren't going to stick around?

Why not have term limits on every job, if that's such a good idea? Get rid of these career employees who only care about not getting fired. Changing, say, 1/3 of the employees every 2 years would make any organization run better, right?

Term limits are the same idea as a salary cap: it's a "we are lame, save us from ourselves" ploy. We, the voters are too stupid to vote out politicians that don't do their job, so we'll make a rule that throws them all out, good or bad. It's abdication of responsibility.

What you end up with, with term limits, is that the lobbyists have much more power. Because they aren't term limited. They can invest the time and energy to learn how things are done. And so the non-career politicians end up depending on the lobbyists to tell them how to do their jobs.

barfo

 

[BlazersBlood]

Republicans probably would want a 3rd party because it's likely that the Dems would lose more votes to the new party than the Republicans would.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Republicans probably would want a 3rd party because it's likely that the Dems would lose more votes to the new party than the Republicans would.

Why is that?

A third party could equally hurt one party or the other or damage them both.

 

[maxiep]

Republicans probably would want a 3rd party because it's likely that the Dems would lose more votes to the new party than the Republicans would.

I disagree. A third party would likely be one based closely on the limited government vision of the Tea Party. And that party would eviscerate the GOP. In fact, I think the reason you see more Republicans desirous of a third party than Democrats is that more people that label themselves as Republicans are really pissed at their party for going Democrat-lite.

 

[Natebishop3]

I think term limits have basically proven to be a failure. Tell someone they can only work here for X years, and they'll spend just as much time, if not more, looking for the next job as they would trying to get reelected to the current job. And why bother to learn the job, if you know you aren't going to stick around?

Why not have term limits on every job, if that's such a good idea? Get rid of these career employees who only care about not getting fired. Changing, say, 1/3 of the employees every 2 years would make any organization run better, right?

Term limits are the same idea as a salary cap: it's a "we are lame, save us from ourselves" ploy. We, the voters are too stupid to vote out politicians that don't do their job, so we'll make a rule that throws them all out, good or bad. It's abdication of responsibility.

What you end up with, with term limits, is that the lobbyists have much more power. Because they aren't term limited. They can invest the time and energy to learn how things are done. And so the non-career politicians end up depending on the lobbyists to tell them how to do their jobs.

barfo

Or...... they would be less scared of doing what they think is right because they don't want to piss anyone off. Being a politician shouldn't be a career. It should be something that a citizen does because they care about their country and they want to make sure that things are done right. As it stands now, we have all these people in office who are essentially bought by big business. Big Ag, big pharma, etc have paid millions of dollars to buy off the people in congress and the senate. If they piss off the lobbyists, they just invest millions in whomever is running against them to get them out of office.

If anything, I'd say the status quo shows that NOT having term limits has proven to be a failure. Look at all the douche bag career politicians on both sides who never accomplish anything. I think most of our Presidents have shown that they can get quite a bit done in four to eight years. It shouldn't be about how much money you have or how much power you have. People should be elected based on their opinions and their ideas. I want people who are running because they actually want to get stuff done. They want to make a difference. Is that not what you want or are you just disagreeing with me because that's how the ebb and flow of this forum works out?

 

[barfo]

Or...... they would be less scared of doing what they think is right because they don't want to piss anyone off. Being a politician shouldn't be a career. It should be something that a citizen does because they care about their country and they want to make sure that things are done right. As it stands now, we have all these people in office who are essentially bought by big business. Big Ag, big pharma, etc have paid millions of dollars to buy off the people in congress and the senate. If they piss off the lobbyists, they just invest millions in whomever is running against them to get them out of office.

I think the idea of government by ordinary citizens is nice, but dated. Things are a lot more complex than they were back in 1800. The average citizen has no fucking clue about government or governing and would be lost if you sent them to Washington. That's not a good thing, but it is reality.

If anything, I'd say the status quo shows that NOT having term limits has proven to be a failure. Look at all the douche bag career politicians on both sides who never accomplish anything. I think most of our Presidents have shown that they can get quite a bit done in four to eight years. It shouldn't be about how much money you have or how much power you have. People should be elected based on their opinions and their ideas. I want people who are running because they actually want to get stuff done. They want to make a difference. Is that not what you want or are you just disagreeing with me because that's how the ebb and flow of this forum works out?

The job of president is fundamentally different than the job of legislating. You don't have to get into the details as president (although I'd argue that the effective presidents do). It's not possible to legislate without getting into the details (well, it's obviously possible, but it's stupid).

I definitely want what you want (independent representatives of the people, not beholden to lobbyists, who genuinely want to get things done). But I disagree with you about how to get there (not sure there even is a way to get there, actually). And, of course, I'm argumentative and so I'm going to find something you say and disagree with it, as you say that's just the way the forum works.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Being a politician shouldn't be a career.

This deserves a separate argument. Why not? Like anything else in life, it's something that some people are better at than others, and it is something where experience matters.

It would be completely crazy to say "Being an aerospace engineer shouldn't be a career". Replacing every aerospace engineer every few years is not going to lead to better aircraft.
You just waste the human capital that you have, and pretty soon no one wants to be an aerospace engineer, because it takes training and experience to be good at it, and then when you get good you aren't allowed to do it anymore. That would be crazy, right?

But yet you want the government to be run by people without aspiration, people who don't mind losing their job after a few years, people without experience or training. Oh, and it doesn't pay very well, either.

Personally, I'd rather have smart, experienced, motivated people running the government instead of people who couldn't get a real job.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

I think the idea of government by ordinary citizens is nice, but dated. Things are a lot more complex than they were back in 1800. The average citizen has no fucking clue about government or governing and would be lost if you sent them to Washington. That's not a good thing, but it is reality.



The job of president is fundamentally different than the job of legislating. You don't have to get into the details as president (although I'd argue that the effective presidents do). It's not possible to legislate without getting into the details (well, it's obviously possible, but it's stupid).

I definitely want what you want (independent representatives of the people, not beholden to lobbyists, who genuinely want to get things done). But I disagree with you about how to get there (not sure there even is a way to get there, actually). And, of course, I'm argumentative and so I'm going to find something you say and disagree with it, as you say that's just the way the forum works.

barfo

But it's the money that's corrupting the process. Take away the money and it's no longer a problem. Outlaw lobbying and set a strict limit on how much that can be donated to a campaign fund. A major corporation should not be able to donate millions of dollars to someone who is sitting on a committee that controls their business. That's why we have so many problems with our food industry right now, or our pharmaceutical industry, or the car industry, etc etc etc.

I don't know if I'm saying "ordinary citizens", but I am saying that it shouldn't be someone who is cultivating a career for politics. Some of our best politicians in Oregon were merely business owners or farmers. People who saw something that bothered them and they took action. We wouldn't have our urban growth boundary if it weren't for a farmer from Hillsboro who ran for state senate to stop the suburbs from spreading. I don't want someone who is afraid to rock the boat because they don't want to piss off the backers. Our founding fathers had term limits when they served on the senate, so I don't see any reason why we can't put it back.

 

[barfo]

But it's the money that's corrupting the process. Take away the money and it's no longer a problem. Outlaw lobbying and set a strict limit on how much that can be donated to a campaign fund. A major corporation should not be able to donate millions of dollars to someone who is sitting on a committee that controls their business. That's why we have so many problems with our food industry right now, or our pharmaceutical industry, or the car industry, etc etc etc.

How do you outlaw lobbying? That seems impossible to me, since you'd have to disallow any contact between legislators and the public.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

How do you outlaw lobbying? That seems impossible to me, since you'd have to disallow any contact between legislators and the public.

barfo

I'm talking about money. Major corporations should not be able to donate millions of dollars to campaigns.

 

[barfo]

I'm talking about money. Major corporations should not be able to donate millions of dollars to campaigns.

Well, I agree with that. No person or organization should be able to donate millions of dollars to campaigns. The limit should be set at something trivially low (low enough that no one would think it buys them a favor). Like $100, maybe.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Our founding fathers had term limits when they served on the senate, so I don't see any reason why we can't put it back.

That isn't completely correct. They did have some interest in implementing term limits, but in the end they left them out of the constitution.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

That isn't completely correct. They did have some interest in implementing term limits, but in the end they left them out of the constitution.

barfo

The continental congress had limits of 2 years.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[barfo]

The continental congress had limits of 2 years.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

But the continental congress isn't the us senate.

barfo

Sent from my ASS using ASeriesOfTubes

 

[Natebishop3]

But the continental congress isn't the us senate.

barfo

Sent from my ASS using ASeriesOfTubes

No but it was the govening body until the constitution was ratified, and our founding fathers did serve on it.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Denny Crane]

I think the idea of government by ordinary citizens is nice, but dated. Things are a lot more complex than they were back in 1800. The average citizen has no fucking clue about government or governing and would be lost if you sent them to Washington. That's not a good thing, but it is reality.

The problem with career senators (or whatever) is they do have a fucking clue about abusing their authority.

And there's nothing wrong with a career politician, as long as he's an alderman, then mayor, then state house member, then governor, then house member, then president (if he gets that far). Term limited at each job.

 

[barfo]

The problem with career senators (or whatever) is they do have a fucking clue about abusing their authority.

There is a very simple solution to that, and it is already in the constitution. Vote the bum out.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

I gotta say I'm with barfo on this one. All a term limit does is limit the ability of someone good to keep doing their job. For those who aren't doing their job, it's the job of the people to vote them out. I'm not ok with limited potential good from happening just because we want to legislate around 51% people who are too ignorant to understand issues.

 

[Natebishop3]

I gotta say I'm with barfo on this one. All a term limit does is limit the ability of someone good to keep doing their job. For those who aren't doing their job, it's the job of the people to vote them out. I'm not ok with limited potential good from happening just because we want to legislate around 51% people who are too ignorant to understand issues.

How many of the current bozos in office actually do good?

 

[BrianFromWA]

even if it was just one of 537, do you legislate forcing him/her to leave just because you can't trust the populace to not vote for bozos? That's not the way I want laws/policies to be made.