Would America be better off...
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:00:57 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Would America be better off...
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Would America be better off with a third major party?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
#3
Maybe
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 33

Author Topic: Would America be better off...  (Read 4258 times)
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 11, 2004, 07:51:36 AM »

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?
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2004, 09:28:12 AM »

Not possible, but I would think, theoretically, it would be good (particularly in Presidential politics).
Logged
Siege40
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,821


Political Matrix
E: -6.25, S: -4.26

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2004, 09:45:53 AM »

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

Siege
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2004, 10:29:12 AM »

YES!  YES!  YES!

Actually, it would be best if every party had equal footing (no 'major parties')
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2004, 10:38:37 AM »

How many elections would be thrown to the house?
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2004, 05:00:11 PM »

Alas, probably not a good thing, as any new more enlightened and libertarian party would lead to victories for Social Conservatives.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Lawrence Watson
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2004, 05:20:23 PM »

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.
Logged
Citizen James
James42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,540


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2004, 05:24:14 PM »

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.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Lawrence Watson
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2004, 05:29:59 PM »

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.
Logged
Tory
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,297


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2004, 06:14:22 PM »

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.
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2004, 06:14:56 PM »

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.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2004, 06:29:38 PM »

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?
Logged
Tory
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,297


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2004, 06:41:51 PM »


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.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2004, 07:32:21 PM »

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).
Logged
Redefeatbush04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,504


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2004, 07:35:10 PM »

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 Smiley )
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2004, 07:38:22 PM »

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.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 11, 2004, 08:26:16 PM »

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.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 11, 2004, 08:30:37 PM »

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 Smiley )

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. Wink

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. Cheesy 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.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 11, 2004, 08:34:00 PM »

Unfortunately the two major parties will never pass this. Perhaps the best route would be a Colorado-style amendment to mandate it?
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 11, 2004, 08:38:19 PM »

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.
Logged
Tory
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,297


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 11, 2004, 08:45:42 PM »

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.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2004, 08:49:24 PM »

Neither the Libertarians, the Constitutionalists, or the Greens could become a major party without moving toward the 'center.'
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2004, 08:51:25 PM »

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.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 11, 2004, 08:52:13 PM »

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

Or the center could move in one of their directions, which does happen sometimes.
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,680
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 11, 2004, 08:53:06 PM »

I think more parties the better!

We should instate Preferential Voting to solve the whole "vote stealing" problem.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 14 queries.