Should the US have a third party?
 

The British government of George III had more support from the original 13 colonies at the time of the US Revolution than the current US government does from its own citizens.

A recent New York Times poll found that a record 84 percent of Americans disapprove of how Congress is handling its job, the highest since the Times began polling in 1977. The poll further found that 89% of Americans distrust the government to do the right thing. That’s even higher disapproval than the ratings after the 1995 government shutdown.

These ratings make President Obama’s lackluster 46% approval rating seem like a love-in by comparison.

In addition, nearly all Americans remain fearful that the economy is stagnating or deteriorating further, and two-thirds of the public said that wealth should be distributed more evenly in the country. Seven in 10 Americans think the policies of congressional Republicans favor the rich. Two-thirds object to tax cuts for corporations and a similar number prefer increasing income taxes on millionaires.

At the same time as a majority of Americans are against corporate tax cuts, corporations have become persons and their rights are enforced under the 14th amendment – an amendment originally made to protect the rights of the freed slaves after the Civil War.

Not only have corporations become people, they get more money from the government than do the veterans who have served our country in the Iraq/Afghanistan and other wars. Financial and other institutions that were bail-out recipients still owe the taxpayer 94 billion dollars. By contrast, the entire annual budget for the Veteran’s Administration is 66.7 billion.

Who loves ya, baby? Congress will take the banks over the men and women who have served their country anytime.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies,” - Thomas Jefferson.

Where’s old Tom when we need him?

So, now what? Does the country need a third party untarnished by affiliation with the two current major parties and corporate interests? Is such a party even possible in present day America? What would the platform of a viable third party look like?

Thoughts?

I think we need a Halloween party.

Yes, even though your sources are pretty biased.

You're right. One of my sources is from the government itself! :p:

like I said. ;)

I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

Bumper sticker nomination.:thumb:

I saw it on a car just last week.

Its been all over FB for months. Occupy has T-Shirts for sale and posters galore.
Its really been catching on as of late.

I also saw a button somewhere...

Here's the problem with congressional disapproval...

"I fucking hate Congress...but my Congressman is awesome!"

And there you go. If people would just say, "You know, you all suck and have to go," then we might see some real changes.

Well, I for one have no respect what-so-ever for anyone currently "serving" in Congress. The incredible cost of an effective election campaign ensures the corruption of anyone elected. No one can get into congress without spending millions. Special interests step in to fill the war chests and incidently buy themselves a congressman.

My congressman can smile and shake hands with the best of them, but his soul belongs to the Cattleman's Association and Coors beer along with a couple of giant financial outfits. :eyebrow:

My congressman is an idiot. But I've voted for him in every general election. I've voted against him the one time someone challenged him in a primary, but the challenger was actually worse than my congressman was, and he lost. I voted for him just because a change would have been good.

Today my congressman was in the paper because he was introducing a circus animal rights bill while flanked by Bob Barker on one side and Jorja Fox from CSI on the other. Don't we have some more serious issues facing the nation right now?

I think term limits would be a good idea. At every level of government. Two terms should be enough for every position. (Although I can see a small town having trouble finding enough qualified people to serve on a town board.)

My congressman is Boehner. 'Nuff said.

i voted revolution.

I'm totally ready.

Me too.

Besides...a third party? I didn't get invited to the first two parties. :mad2:

Me three. ;)

The last time a third party won the White House it was back at the turn of the last century when Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose party took the White House by storm. Bully!

I'd like to see a party that actually represented the American people for a change, but the chances of that are slim.

I think Teddy won as a repubican, then lost as a bull moose.[/picky]

Thanks for clarifying that. My Teddy Roosevelt knowledge is a tad rusty. I loked him up on Wikepedia, and while he indeed was elected on a Republican ticket, he promoted a populist agenda, especially when he stepped up to the presidency after McKinley's assassination. He continued to extol populism when he ran for president a second time.

The final time Teddy ran, that was with the Bull Moose Party. While he didn't win, the Bull Moose Party came in second, something no third party has done before or since.

(End of history lesson)

Toga, Toga, Toga

They really need to execute George Soro's political parties.....

Correct me if I'm wrong but the USA do have other political parties. It is the indirect election system that prevents most of them to come to the front.

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

Yes, of course. Probably ~ 50
The US was formed as a republic (representative government),
while France came in as closer to a democracy.

But, third parties just don't succeed, here or elsewhere... they end up as coalitions,
with a minority holding excessive power via threats to move to the other side.

Remember Italy just a few years ago...
elections every other week because coalitions would form and dissolve over small issues.

To my eye, it's up the the Republican's+TeaParty's to decide what the Republican party is going to be.
Then, it's up to voters to decide which party has their best interests at heart.

Ahh, that's one of those Zen riddles which has no answer better than "a fish!".

A third party in the current system would be exposed to the same corrupting environment that the other two exist in. That is what needs to be changed.

Each candidate has to sell out for "campaign contributions" because if they don't, the other will, and will blow them out of the water. So they both do. The solution, of course, is to mumblemumblemumble .

Although you might seriously consider preferential voting, at least for the Presidential election. And abolishing that electoral colleges business to eliminate the "battleground state" effect.

Well, sure - there are any number of parties out there. But none of them have the clout to stand up to the two parties which now comprise corporate congress.

I for one would love to have a third choice that had an actual potential to win the elections. I understand that's just some fantasy. I just threw it out there to stir up a discussion. ;)

Bingo! A fish it is!

What is desperately needed is election reform. Create a public pool from which each candidate draws the same amount. Anyone caught using money from any other source to finance their campaign gets to go to jail.

Naturally, this isn't going to happen either. Corporate congress would never pass a law which removes power from special interests and financial gains for themselves.

I love this country but our political system sucks. The US is headed down a very dark road. :(

A Constitutional Amendment requirement on every ballot issue:

None of the Above (_X_)

Preferential voting!

What if we just got rid of political parties all together?

Hah! What if we just got rid of politicians all together?

A basic question... If ALL politicians are bad, were they bad before they were elected ?

That is, does it take a certain internal "bad-ness" for a person to work
their way up through the civic organization offices (e.g., PTA), County,
State, and then Federal.
Or is it primarily the degradation of holding public office that erodes the person.

I've worked in State governments and found most State
employees were trying and actually did do a good job,
but the public view of government workers is really poor.

(ETA: was a reply to SamIam)

I recently watched (much of) a fascinating documentary series called Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace. It was mostly about how machine technology has affected our thinking.

At one point it discussed the counter-culture movement of the sixties and the communes they formed. These were deliberately designed to be de-political. There was to be no leader, no council, no alliances; just individuals interacting as individuals.

They all failed. Some lasted up to three years, most less than six months.

Turns out some people are stronger, smarter, more ruthless, more confrontational, less sensitive, etc than others. With nothing to restrain this, these "stronger" ones became dominant bullies. Constant intimidation and fear killed the communities.

Modern communes and "intentional communities" have recognisable power structures - usually some kind of group meeting or seniors committee - which has the power to uphold group standards. The weak band together to restrain the strong.

Turns out, to make a community anything more than a tyranny, some kind of government is necessary. That does lead to politicians (and is why extreme libertarianism is untenable).

Politicians are a necessary evil.

This is not to say the situation cannot be better than it is now. Politicians could be a lot better behaved than they are. IMHO, lobbyists and massive "campaign contributions" are a much better target for massive restraint.

In the course of my career, I was employed by the state of Colorado for 7 years and the city of Colorado Springs for 4. I agree that government workers do not deserve the public's dim opinion of them. In my experience we did the very best we could with very little to begin with. I have also met members of the Colorado State Legislature who were decent, honorable people doing the best they could for their constituents. I honor them for their hard work and their integrity.

Congress, however, is an entirely different ball game. Election campaigns are incredibly expensive on the national level. Not always, but most of the time, the candidate who spends the most money is the one who wins. Therefore:

1) Anyone who aspires to national office must be wealthy, have wealthy friends and great corporate connections. Most members of the current corporate congress were millionaires before they ever ran for office, and they're even wealthier now. But I don't believe millionaires are inherently evil. Its the second requirement for national office that separates the sheep from the goats.

2) Because of requirement #1, anyone who aspires to national office must be willing to sell themselves to the highest bidder while at the same time making a convincing show of being concerned for the voter. Once in office, the successful candidate shows his gratitude by voting for laws that favor whatever special interests paid into his campaign chest. The people be damned. If you don't believe me, try sending an e-mail to the republican co-chair of the Super Committee.

I won't spoil the game by providing any helpful links. Anyone who wants to play gets to run through the Internet maze like any other American who will be impacted by the Super Committee's decisions - ie everybody. OK, go! (and I'm not staying up for anyone's hypothetical return). Oh, anyone from the co-chair's home state gets a "get out of jail free" card. The rest of you are on your own.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'll wrap this up. Due to requirement no. 2, those now in national office are in it for their own self interest and they are practiced liars and deceivers. They probably were from childhood on. I have no respect for them.

PS I did finally manage to send an e-mail to the co-chair and I bookmarked it for future reference. :eyebrow:

And surprise! I never got so much as an impersonal computerized reply in return. Write "your" congressman? You bet. :right:

I've written my congressman and two others. Every time I got a canned response - weeks later, I might add.

I once wrote a paper-letter to my Senator, about the
US Dept of Interior's plan to discontinue their free-passes
to National Parks that were available for Disabled and Senior Citizens.

Weeks later, I received a copy of a letter the Senator had written
to the Head of the Dept of the Interior, objecting to their plan.
And, he included a copy of the Notice that the Dept had canceled those plans.

You know he's getting my vote for his re-election.

Their desire for political office shows a need for power over others which they can either manage or not. Many, once elected, can't manage. Government employees can be under similar pressures but most are simply pursuing a career and are not corrupt people.

I got an FU from my freshmen Republican House Rep... at least someone reads his mail.

What if we could replace human politicians with robot politicians?

They could weigh the pros and cons of an argument and make decisions based on the greatest good, they'd be impervious to bribes and creature comforts, they'd have no loyalty except to the people! Well, we'd have to make sure the programmers programmed them that way...but, still. I think it's a good idea. If one turned evil we could just deactivate it!

I really like the idea, Bri, but the flaw is obvious. Someone has to program them, and the world is full of Dr. Smiths. We'll have robotoid politicians running around drinking cognac, smoking cigars, and stomping on the little people.

Danger Will Robinson, indeed!

;)

The problem with a third party, as I see it, is that it would be an farther to the right or left. My feeling about the majority of Americans is that they would be happier with a third party that is moderate. Of course there's no newsworthiness in that.

Wow!

Or maybe we could clone Lamplighter's Senator?

Try Plato's "Republic" (a horrible translation of "Res Publica", "On the Constitution".

Philosopher Kings. That's what you want.

Asimov was a fan of that idea.

Hmmm... the problem right now is that human politicians are representing recently humanized mega-corporations so to solve this robot legislators will represent human interests? I think we're looking at this the wrong way. We may need our own parallel government... anarchy is looking better every day.

Since corporations are now people with their rights protected under the 14th Amendment (passed after the Civil War to protect the rights of slaves), they should have to obey the laws just like every other person in the US and be held accountable.

If they don't pay their income tax, the Federal Revenue should seize their property and assets just as they do to a person who refuses to pay taxes. If they have unsafe working conditions and one or more of their employees dies, they should be charged with murder and sentenced to life without parole just like a person would be. In fact, let's hold the trial in Texas where the corporation could be executed just like a person. If a corporation uses illegal business and financial practices - far from being bailed out - they should be tried for embezzlement, fraud, conspiracy to commit a crime and everything else a good prosecutor would charge a criminal person with who did what these corporations do.

Once upon a time, we all stood equal before the law. Now this person called a corporation has become more equal than the rest of us.

Shades of an animal farm

What SamIam said!

Also, it is my considered opinion that we as a nation have made a total hash of two parties. We are not mature enough to handle three. Ask again in a few more decades.

Alas, corporate tax dodging is not an illegal "refusal to pay". It is exploiting existing legal loopholes to minimise the bill they get. And lobbying congress to make sure those loopholes do not get closed off. Grr.

I'm not sure if this goes here or in the"Occupy" thread. For what its worth:

Occupy has started a fledgling third party. Interesting…

Romney proposed we should have executed GM. Maybe they are people.

A little bit of quick research into the percentage of the population that votes shows that since 1960 there have been only 13 years that voter turn out has been over 50 percent and only 3 years since 1960 has that average edged up over 60 percent. Which means that less then 30 percent of the U.S. population, probably closer to less then 25 percent of the U.S. population elects any given Government official.

If 84 percent of Americans are not happy with the officials in office then some one is being a bit of a hypocrite. I say the system is working just fine. If they don't want to vote, but want to bitch about what the guys in office do with their time in office....fuck em.

The biggest reason that third party will not currently work is because of this low voter turn out.

I've avoided this thread for too long.

Yes, I think the US should have a third party despite the inevitable hangover.

You don't think there's a possibility you have your cause and effect mixed up there?

That just sounds like a vicious circle.

You are making the assumption that these people can elect someone they will be happy with.

I'm only making the assumption that 90-100 percent of a voting population can impact the vote greater then 50-60 percent.

IN MY OPINION
 

If you wanna improve the 'system' (aside from just plain scrapping it): ban all political parties (when someone is elected, 'he' or 'she' is elected, not the bandwagon he or she climbed on to), and, implement a *real 'none of the above' option in every election from the federal level all the way down to the municipal.









*'Real' in that if NotA gets the majority vote, then all the losers go home and cannot participate in that particular election again in that particular cycle. This might mean a post would remain un-filled for quite a while...it might also mean the machine of governance will be stymied from time to time, for goodly chunks of time: fine by me.

Especially if that additional 40-50% all cast their votes for a third party.

Here ya go Sam ...

The Bull Moose Party Progressives

Bully! Go, Teddy, go! He was a great character and a great American Progressive. But even Teddy Roosevelt couldn't get elected running as a third party candidate. (sigh) The resurrection of the Bull Moose Party does have a certain quaint charm, though.

;)