Would America be better off...

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Simple question - would the United States be better off than it is now if a strong third party arose that would have power on par with that of the two current parties?

[AuH2O]

Not possible, but I would think, theoretically, it would be good (particularly in Presidential politics).

[Siege40]

I think the U.S. needs more pluralism successfully elected in public office. The whole Republican/Democrat system is really inflexible.

Siege

[ilikeverin]

YES!  YES!  YES!

Actually, it would be best if every party had equal footing (no 'major parties')

[??????????]

How many elections would be thrown to the house?

[Mr. Fresh]

Not with just one major third party.  I wish America would be a multi-party system and that America would vote on ideals rather than party lines...

[opebo]

Alas, probably not a good thing, as any new more enlightened and libertarian party would lead to victories for Social Conservatives.

[Dr. Cynic]

Most third parties arise under a single big issue, and a bunch of little ones. If one came up with enough money and threw all issues out there equally, then maybe.

[Citizen James]

Only if we changed our voting methodology (to something like priortized ballots or something), so that there wouldn't be a spoiler effect.

Otherwise 'strategic voting' would inevitibly bring people back to two parties again and again.

With a change in methodology to prevent the 'spoiler effect' though, I could certainly support such a move.

[Mr. Fresh]

A "spoiler" effect is what Democracy is, abolish that, and you abolish the core of our country, by limiting who's on the ballot.

[Dr. Cynic]

I believe if a third party like say Libertarians, since they seem to be the most consistant, would get more money, and reach a larger base, they could very well turn into a major party.

[Tory]

I think a three party system is terrible, worse than two parties. I have reasons, but I don't really feel like going into them. If it were more like four of five parties, then that would be good.

[David S]

Three or more would be good. You will need instant runoff or something similar though or you will probably have no one with a majority of electoral votes. In that case the election would be decided by the house of representatives.

Also you need a constitutional amendment to scrap the electoral college and replace it with IRV. Not likely.

[True Federalist]

There was a chance in the 1910's/1920's that the US could have developed a viable three party system with the Progressive Party being a national party, the Democrats in the South, and the Republicans elsewhere.  The failure of the Progressives to establish a viable Southern wing kept that from happening.  It would have given the US a situation similar to Australia's current three party system.  Could a three-party situation happen in the US?  The necessary groundwork is being laid with two ideological parties with strong regional support already in existence, but the problem is where is the wedge issue that neither party would be willing to embrace or at least hold hands with in the quest for votes that would be necessary for a strong third party to form?

[Tory]

Three or more would be good.

Three parties are bad because one becomes basically a whore, trying to steal from the other two larger parties. And yes, it's stealing.

The best example of this are the Liberal Democrats here in the U.K. They try to funnel votes away from which ever party is looking weaker at a given moment. This means every couple of years thier ideology completely morphs. It also means that when they finally do get power, they will no longer be able to keep any of thier promises, because by doing one thing they upset a large portion of thier party. They are basically taking votes away from real parties until they gain power, when they will inevitably split into other parties, sending the party system into chaos, or become totally ineffective, equally damning.

That's why I support four or even five parties.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Three parties are bad because one becomes basically a whore, trying to steal from the other two larger parties. And yes, it's stealing.

Oh, I was unaware that people's votes were owned by the political parties and not the people themselves. Do the Libertarians steal votes from Bush and Kerry, or do we earn them? I don't disagree that there COULD be a party that would whore itself out, but how would that be different from the Republicans or Democrats doing it now - I'd rather have two honest parties with ideals and one whore than two whores. But yeah, four or five would be good, four would probably fit if we had one for every major ideology here(conservative, left-liberal, libertarian, and populist).

[Redefeatbush04]

John Dibble.....you know I'm with you and I promise that if the libertarian party is projected to get 10% nationally I will vote for the libertarian....(if I don't you can kick my ass )

[A18]

If we had four parties, we'd have candidates winning with just over a fourth of the population's support!

Not good. John Dibble, how would you reform the voting system? And please don't say IRV.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

If we had four parties, we'd have candidates winning with just over a fourth of the population's support!

Not good. John Dibble, how would you reform the voting system? And please don't say IRV.

Well, to start, I'm sure certain parties would do better in certain regions. So if we had four parties, I imagine the conservative and populist parties wouldn't do well in, say, California, but the left-liberal and libertarian parties would. That would partially solve the problem as far as local and state races would be concerned.

Still, you are right we'd need election reform, especially for presidential elections - I'm not an expert, and haven't done enough research to make a conclusion on what system would be best, but I kind of like the idea of approval voting. Condorcet also looks interesting. What I can tell you what we definitely don't need is proportional representation - I'd take IRV over that.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

John Dibble.....you know I'm with you and I promise that if the libertarian party is projected to get 10% nationally I will vote for the libertarian....(if I don't you can kick my ass )

I wouldn't kick your ass for that - I'm a Libertarian after all. Break in to my house or attack me first, then we'll talk.

Anywho, you should start voting Libertarian now - we aren't going to get anywhere if people don't vote for us, and if people don't vote for us, people won't vote for us. Change won't come unless you're willing to work for it - my candidate may not win now, but the more of us who vote for him the more viable our party looks in the future. And if you can't bring yourself to vote Lib in the presidential election, you could always throw us some votes in your state and local elections.

[A18]

Unfortunately the two major parties will never pass this. Perhaps the best route would be a Colorado-style amendment to mandate it?

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Unfortunately the two major parties will never pass this. Perhaps the best route would be a Colorado-style amendment to mandate it?

Well, the two major parties wouldn't pass it as things are now - it would have to benefit them. A strong third party would make them lose power, and under the current system it would be likely one would collapse, so then it would benefit them, and they might do it then.

[Tory]

Three parties are bad because one becomes basically a whore, trying to steal from the other two larger parties. And yes, it's stealing.

Oh, I was unaware that people's votes were owned by the political parties and not the people themselves. Do the Libertarians steal votes from Bush and Kerry, or do we earn them? I don't disagree that there COULD be a party that would whore itself out, but how would that be different from the Republicans or Democrats doing it now - I'd rather have two honest parties with ideals and one whore than two whores. But yeah, four or five would be good, four would probably fit if we had one for every major ideology here(conservative, left-liberal, libertarian, and populist).

Please read my full post!!!! The weaker of the three parties would almost certainly become a whore.

By stealing votes I don't mean taking votes away from. I mean decieving people through lies.

[A18]

Neither the Libertarians, the Constitutionalists, or the Greens could become a major party without moving toward the 'center.'

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Three parties are bad because one becomes basically a whore, trying to steal from the other two larger parties. And yes, it's stealing.

Oh, I was unaware that people's votes were owned by the political parties and not the people themselves. Do the Libertarians steal votes from Bush and Kerry, or do we earn them? I don't disagree that there COULD be a party that would whore itself out, but how would that be different from the Republicans or Democrats doing it now - I'd rather have two honest parties with ideals and one whore than two whores. But yeah, four or five would be good, four would probably fit if we had one for every major ideology here(conservative, left-liberal, libertarian, and populist).

Please read my full post!!!! The weaker of the three parties would almost certainly become a whore.

By stealing votes I don't mean taking votes away from. I mean decieving people through lies.

I did read your full post - but I get angry when I hear about 'stealing' votes. Your people must be gullible if they fall for that party. And as I said, I'll take one weak whore over two strong ones. In our current system the weak one would die out.