Should the US have a third party?

Cyber Wolf · 12-01-2011, 12:02 PM

Instead of a third party, it might be interesting if things were set up to have multiple front runners, instead of just two at the general election. Mandate, say, three red and three blue at voting time. They could be the top three survivors of all the caucuses and primaries. The name of a sitting pres can be one of the three if re-election applies. All six names are added to the ballot, not just the top two. The disenchanted voter would have a better chance of picking a candidate they liked instead of just picking whoever they hated least or voting along party lines just to get it over with or not voting at all.

The candidates seem to try a but harder when pots of money are still being allocated. By keeping the field large, contributions could be more spread out or even split between candidates, reducing how much each candidate gets individually.

Lamplighter · 12-01-2011, 12:32 PM

Cyber, check out the way California is voting this year.
The primary will be all candidates from all parties.
The top two vote-getters will be the two on the final ballot.
So there could be 2 Dems or 2 Reps or 1 of each.

Cyber Wolf · 12-01-2011, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Cyber, check out the way California is voting this year.
The primary will be all candidates from all parties.
The top two vote-getters will be the two on the final ballot.
So there could be 2 Dems or 2 Reps or 1 of each.

I like the first part, but it's the whole 'top 2' I think we should veer away from.

I also think we should vote separately for VP, instead of a this guy/another guy ticket. This is purely anecdotal, but I know a few people who would have voted McCain but didn't because they didn't want Palin anywhere near that kind of power. It was that whole 'just a heartbeat away' thing... too close for their comfort.

classicman · 12-01-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

I also think we should vote separately for VP, instead of a this guy/another guy ticket. This is purely anecdotal, but I know a few people who would have voted McCain but didn't because they didn't want Palin anywhere near that kind of power. It was that whole 'just a heartbeat away' thing... too close for their comfort.

It has always seemed rather strange that the, arguably second most important/powerful/influential... person in the world isn't really elected on his/her own. I don't like the package deal either.

Lamplighter · 12-01-2011, 01:27 PM

Seems as though some have forgotten the chaos of earlier
American history when the President and Vice President
were elected separately. And how that led to the system we have now.

View Poll Results: Does the US need a third party?
Yes, anything is better than the two we have now	6	33.33%
No, the Democrats and Republicans were good enough for grandpa, and they're good enough for me	0	0%
Nice thought, but impossible to implement for a variety of reasons	7	38.89%
No, what we need is a revolution	3	16.67%
Huh? Who me? I dunno	2	11.11%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

12-01-2011, 12:02 PM	#1
Cyber Wolf As stable as a ring of PU-239 Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: On a huge rock covered in water, highly advanced moss and 7 billion parasites Posts: 1,264	Instead of a third party, it might be interesting if things were set up to have multiple front runners, instead of just two at the general election. Mandate, say, three red and three blue at voting time. They could be the top three survivors of all the caucuses and primaries. The name of a sitting pres can be one of the three if re-election applies. All six names are added to the ballot, not just the top two. The disenchanted voter would have a better chance of picking a candidate they liked instead of just picking whoever they hated least or voting along party lines just to get it over with or not voting at all. The candidates seem to try a but harder when pots of money are still being allocated. By keeping the field large, contributions could be more spread out or even split between candidates, reducing how much each candidate gets individually. __________________ "I don't see what's so triffic about creating people as people and then getting' upset 'cos they act like people." ~Adam Young, Good Omens "I don't see why it matters what is written. Not when it's about people. It can always be crossed out." ~Adam Young, Good Omens

12-01-2011, 01:27 PM	#5
Lamplighter Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods Posts: 6,402	Seems as though some have forgotten the chaos of earlier American history when the President and Vice President were elected separately. And how that led to the system we have now. Last edited by Lamplighter; 12-01-2011 at 01:42 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-01-2011, 12:32 PM	#2
Lamplighter Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods Posts: 6,402	Cyber, check out the way California is voting this year. The primary will be all candidates from all parties. The top two vote-getters will be the two on the final ballot. So there could be 2 Dems or 2 Reps or 1 of each.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)