PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Would America benefit from another political party?


The_Doctor10
04-28-2011, 03:39 AM
Just a curiousity of mine; Canada's holding an election next week, and we've got five major parties running (one is a separatist wingnut party in Quebec and the other doesn't actually hold any seats, but did get 900,000 votes last election, but that's neither here nor there).

Now, throughout the entire process up here, I've noticed that the Liberals and Conservatives are cut from essentially the same cloth. While the Conservative government's banking regulations went a long way to keeping Canada above water during the recession, they've also been absurdly secretive considering they ran on a platform of transparency. The Liberals spend the same as the Conservatives, but they tax more. It's gotten to the point where I'm going to vote New Democrat (which is a fairly socialist party, it must be said, but whatever) just so there's a new voice leading the opposition. The Conservatives are all but guaranteed a majority in this next election, but the last thing I want is the Liberals heading the opposition.

So all this is to say, do you think America would benefit from another political party? The difference between a Democrat and a Republican seems to be, at this point, that one believes in evolution and the other doesn't. Granted, that's just my outsider's understanding of it, but wouldn't it be good if America had a third option that actually stood for something? Because from the outside looking in, I don't know what Democrats do to make themselves appealing options to the public besides 'not being Republican'. I thought the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility and business, but it appears that they just pay lip service to these ideals and spend just as recklessly (California, for example) as Democrats. And while I understand their loyalties to businesses and corporations, I don't understand their loyalty to religion; money doesn't have a god. Nor do I understand why profits allow for the forgiveness of unethical conduct.

But then, it's unfair to paint only Republicans on this issue; Democrats see to have been equally spineless/ineffective at standing up for the people that put them in power.

Or am I way off?

ClevelandBronco
04-28-2011, 03:50 AM
As long as the new political party replaced one of the two viable parties, sure. Maybe it's time for redefinition and rebranding. But we have two major parties for systemic reasons. We still have coalition government in our own fashion; it's just that we form our coalitions before elections rather than after them.

The_Doctor10
04-28-2011, 03:59 AM
As long as the new political party replaced one of the two viable parties, sure. Maybe it's time for redefinition and rebranding. But we have two major parties for systemic reasons. We still have coalition government in our own fashion; it's just that we form our coalitions before elections rather than after them.

But then what's the point of people running as independents? I mean, what if, say, the number of registered independents exceeded one or both of registered Dems or Republicans? Would that not also constitute a 'third party', and if so, what would happen if, hypothetically, Independents came to control the House or Senate?

ClevelandBronco
04-28-2011, 04:18 AM
But then what's the point of people running as independents? I mean, what if, say, the number of registered independents exceeded one or both of registered Dems or Republicans? Would that not also constitute a 'third party', and if so, what would happen if, hypothetically, Independents came to control the House or Senate?

First off, while there may be a point in running as a third party candidate, the point isn't winning. It's usually more like wanting to get some narrow issue included in the larger debate. Unaffilated voters do outnumber either party nationally. We're something like 30% Republican, 30% democrat, 40% unaffiliated, with give and take in those rough numbers depending on the season. I guess I'd find it pretty farfetched to think the unaffiliated voters could ever find a way to band together in any kind of meaningful way. It's not like they're going to suddenly find a galvanizing issue that neither party will adopt as its own anyway, even if it's for entirely selfish and disingenuous reasons.

Damn this iPhone. Takes forever to key something this long. Can't see the whole post...

ClevelandBronco
04-28-2011, 04:24 AM
By the way, I left the Republican Party (in part) because I believe you're correct. They're no longer fiscally conservative, and I won't support them. But I won't waste my time voting for a third party.

Simplex3
04-28-2011, 07:41 AM
When I vote I follow this general rule: candidates I like (which is almost always none), Libertarian candidates, Republicans, then nobody. I value my money above all else because it can buy me anything else I want from corrupt politicians.

I also don't see it as a wasted vote. The more people vote 3rd party the more the two major ones will take notice and wise up. If one of them wised up and became socially liberal and fiscally conservative they would dominate.

Jaric
04-28-2011, 07:45 AM
It would be nice to have a second party to vote for.

BucEyedPea
04-28-2011, 08:15 AM
It would be nice to have a second party to vote for.

Don't we have two?

Jaric
04-28-2011, 08:48 AM
Don't we have two?

Do we? I have a hard time distinguishing real differences between the republicrats these days.

alnorth
04-28-2011, 08:58 AM
We would need at least 2 or more, with widespread popularity, at the same time from somewhere around the opposite ends of the spectrum. One party won't ever catch fire anytime soon because of the fear from whichever their natural ally may be that they would be conceding elections.

(eg, Green isn't taking off because that would elect republicans)

BucEyedPea
04-28-2011, 09:50 AM
Do we? I have a hard time distinguishing real differences between the republicrats these days.

Oh well in that case, I see what you're saying.

BucEyedPea
04-28-2011, 09:51 AM
We would need at least 2 or more, with widespread popularity, at the same time from somewhere around the opposite ends of the spectrum. One party won't ever catch fire anytime soon because of the fear from whichever their natural ally may be that they would be conceding elections.

(eg, Green isn't taking off because that would elect republicans)

Yeah, I was thinking more than one too. It would represent the spectrum better hopefully unless there's copycats with minor differences.

teedubya
04-29-2011, 02:37 PM
If we wanted to insure that our political votes weren't wasted on "owned politicians"... we should ALL ONLY vote for independent candidates. Purchasing the Dem and Rep candidates are easy for the powers that be...