Would A "Legitimate" 3-Party System Be Best?

[ABM]

I was just wondering if this country needs a true, 3rd-party voice? Perhaps, if anything, to help the other two rediscover their own roots.

Yes, I'm fully aware that we have Independent, Libertarian, and Green(?) parties. But, honestly, are they legitimately viable? It sure doesn't appear that way to me. In fact, it more seems that if one was considering voting for a candidate from any of those parties, the resulting question facing that decison might become, "Which Dem or Rep candidate would I potentially be stealing a vote from? Do I REALLY want to do this?"

Know what I mean?

OTOH, is it best just the way it is....two parties.....then everything else......just to keep things interesting?

BTW, my former boss has voted for Al Bundy for President...each and every presidential election of that past 16 years or so.

 

[CelticKing]

We need either a Socialist or Communist party. lol


But I agree with you ABM, the more choices the better, it also raises the debates, and brings more out of the candidates.

 

[Sedatedfork]

A proportional representation system might be interesting for Congress. I am actually considering voting for a 3rd party candidate seriously in this election. I really don't know if I like McCain or Obama and Oregon is going to go Obama anyway.

 

[Denny Crane]

I've voted for 3rd party candidates since 1988. The way I see it is "why vote for someone you don't want to vote for?" or "vote for the person you actually do want to vote for."

This year, I'm writing in Ron Paul. I normally vote Libertarian, but I can't stomach voting for Bob Barr this time around (he's a republican).

The viability of a 3rd party has potential. Ross Perot looked like he was building a decent party until Pat Buchanan got involved. If Bloomberg decided to run as a 3rd party candidate, I suspect he'd actually win.

The problem with 2 parties is they're too partisan and refuse to accept that the other side might have good ideas, too. The problem for a grass roots 3rd party is getting around the rules the two parties voted in to keep themselves the only two parties.

 

[huevonkiller]

I'd love to see the Libertarian party be more viable.

Of course anyone can run on that platform as well, and simply call themselves something else.

 

[bodyman5001]

I would rather not have any parties whatsoever.

They give themselves our money to keep themselves in office. Don't like that.

 

[maxiep]

The problem with fractionalizing the parties rather than having one party left-of-center and another right-of-center is that you end up with a coalition legislature and a President who may received less than 1/3 of the votes. That puts the control of the Congress in the hands of the far left or far right and neuters the Presidency.

 

[44Thrilla]

To me, the title of this thread is just as ridiculous as "should I have sex with Jessica Alba?"

Yes. The answer is yes.

 

[maxiep]

To me, the title of this thread is just as ridiculous as "should I have sex with Jessica Alba?"

Yes. The answer is yes.

But for those of us who are married, the "should" needs to be changed to "would I like to..."?

 

[44Thrilla]

But for those of us who are married, the "should" needs to be changed to "would I like to..."?

No, you still should. Your wife will understand.

 

[Tortimer]

I do think it might be time for a third party. I think both party's are way to partisan lately. I remember when I was very young with my parents. My mom was a democrat and my dad was a republican and with Ike, Kennedy and other presidents etc. they both ended up liking them even though they didn't vote for the president. Now it doesn't matter how good or what party you are from the other party is going to hate the other candidate even before they had a chance to do anything.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think a third party would be a good thing. Currently, the two seem to spend more time trying to cut each others throats rather than working together. A third party might keep people more honest and help build consesus to get legislation thru.

 

[Ed O]

I don't see a third party that can have a basic platform that will take roughly half of each of the two existing parties' memberships.

There are coalitions in the Democratic and Republican parties, but no groups from within either of those are going to be commit political suicide (handing power to the non-balkanizing party) by breaking up.

Unless, of course, one party gets its butt kicked repeatedly and some portion of the party figures they might as well lose on their own principles. And I think both parties are too good to lose that often.

Ed O.

 

[gambitnut]

I don't see a third party that can have a basic platform that will take roughly half of each of the two existing parties' memberships.

There are coalitions in the Democratic and Republican parties, but no groups from within either of those are going to be commit political suicide (handing power to the non-balkanizing party) by breaking up.

Unless, of course, one party gets its butt kicked repeatedly and some portion of the party figures they might as well lose on their own principles. And I think both parties are too good to lose that often.

Ed O.

Would it be possible for portions of both parties to break of at the same time?

 

[barfo]

Would it be possible for portions of both parties to break of at the same time?

It seems to me that if one of the major parties broke up, the other one would be likely to do so also, because after the party realized they could win elections without "those people" they'd stop catering to "those people", and "those people" would get the message and leave the party.

But I have a hard time seeing the first party break up, unless something very dramatic happens (nuclear war, depression, Brittany Spears comeback, etc).

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

A zero-party system is the only democratic system.

All political parties are more correctly referred to as conspiracies or cartels. They are designed solely to steer and control masses of people, not serve them.