Do we need third parties in the US?

[WaffleSingSong]

Hi VT.

I was wondering, do we really need third parties in the US? Do the Democrats and Republicans do a good job or do we need to vote these out for another one?

I personally am split by this, I think that having a third party in the U.S seems like a nice idea, but we would need MAJOR voting reform before we could ever consider the idea to support a multi-party government, such as scrapping the electoral college, getting rid of first past the post to something more suitable, etc. Until then, I don't think it would be a good idea with the current system. But, what are your guys view of the issue?

[Thunderstorm]

Technically we already have third parties, although they have not garnered enough followers to be represented federally. Still, the Green and Libertarian Parties are considered "major parties", which have a significant representation at the state level. In addition, there are two seats in the senate that are Independent, therefore showing that there is a third party on the federal level.

However, these are very minor representations of other political views. I think, although we seem to never be able to reach at least a compromise anymore, progress comes and go with each president. Maybe the next president will agree more with congress. Right now, though, we do not need a third party to enhance our already widespread sectionalism.

[WaffleSingSong]

In addition, there are two seats in the senate that are Independent, therefore showing that there is a third party on the federal level.

I wouldn't consider them to be effectively "third party" as they both caucus with the Democrats and there not really a member of any other party to begin with. However, Bernie Sanders does have slightly different views as he considers himself a social democrat.

However, these are very minor representations of other political views.

I would personally disagree with this, stating that there is a lot of libertarian-leaning politicians in the Republican Party, such as my state's Rand Paul. And, how there is a number of borderline social democrats in the Democratic Party.

Right now, though, we do not need a third party to enhance our already widespread sectionalism.

I do agree with you on the fact that we do not need third parties represented in a major fashion at the moment, but not because of how they would expand sectionalism in the U.S (because sectionalism is unavoidable in a democracy) but because our voting system is extremely flawed for the job. You can only vote for one candidate and that's it. Like another guy? Too bad. We need a voting system where you can vote for the guy you like the most in a strong value, but vote for other candidates you like at a weaker value. This would make sure that third parties are easily represented in local and state levels, and would enhance the genuineness of the collective mindset of the constituents.

[Danny_boi 16]

I'm actually a bit sick of this question tbh. Nothing against you, but to me it's a dumb question. The US has multiple parties. We have the Greens, Libertarians, Communist, Nazi, Independence, the list goes on in on. The truth is making a political party in this country is super easy. Depending on which state you live in. The reason why it seems like only two parties, is because those are the two that get the most attention and the most money. But third party candidates have been elected to office before. I mean we have two independents in the Senate. And if people don't like any of the 20 or so parties in the US, they can always make their own or declare no party affiliation. All in all, minor party candidates are usually elected in to minor governmental bodies.

[Gamma Male]

How about no parties?

[WaffleSingSong]

The truth is making a political party in this country is super easy.

Oh yeah, its very easy. But, what's the point if you can't get elected?

All in all, minor party candidates are usually elected in to minor governmental bodies.

May I see evidence of third party wins to losses at the local level? Or something to that degree?

How about no parties?

Why? Political parties help like-minded individuals to get there voice heard and implemented in government. It's a collective of a popular set of ideas that go along together to create an ideology that suites the needs of a amount of people in a governmental body. To get rid of them would throw the political paradigm into complete discord and political apathy would go down the drain.

[Danny_boi 16]

Oh yeah, its very easy. But, what's the point if you can't get elected?



May I see evidence of third party wins to losses at the local level? Or something to that degree?

The point is to rally a base so that you can get elected. Or serve as a vote robber to prevent the other "mainstream" candidates from reaching the required margin to avoid run-off.
Here are some stats (if you want to call them that) from the Green party and the Libertarian party.
http://www.gp.org/elections/candidates/

http://www.lp.org/candidates-14

Oh, and FYI the Greens, the Libertarians, and the Socialists are the major minor parties.

[WaffleSingSong]

The point is to rally a base so that you can get elected. Or serve as a vote robber to prevent the other "mainstream" candidates from reaching the required margin to avoid run-off.

Wouldn't Instant-Runoff voting be a safer way to do this though? Remember what happened in the 2000 election with Bush, Gore and Nader?

Here are some stats (if you want to call them that) from the Green party and the Libertarian party.
http://www.gp.org/elections/candidates/

http://www.lp.org/candidates-14

Oh, and FYI the Greens, the Libertarians, and the Socialists are the major minor parties.

I couldn't see who won or loss in the Libertarian Party, so i'll ignore that. But, The Green Party was rarely elected in offices where the Green could fully execute the ideology of said party. It would make very little difference to either vote in a Green or a Democrat at that level.

Also, I am aware of the Greens and Libertarians, but the Socialist party? I am aware that there is one, but I thought that the Constitution Party was higher in membership?

[Danny_boi 16]

Wouldn't Instant-Runoff voting be a safer way to do this though? Remember what happened in the 2000 election with Bush, Gore and Nader?



I couldn't see who won or loss in the Libertarian Party, so i'll ignore that. But, The Green Party was rarely elected in offices where the Green could fully execute the ideology of said party. It would make very little difference to either vote in a Green or a Democrat at that level.

Also, I am aware of the Greens and Libertarians, but the Socialist party? I am aware that there is one, but I thought that the Constitution Party was higher in membership?

What do you mean by safer? Besides, I'm not talking about presidential races, I brought run-off with the Louisiana Senatorial election in mind. (And other such elections of that degree). Sorry for the Libertarian stats, here are some better ones.
http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials
http://www.lp.org/2013_election_results

I would disagree about how you dismiss local officials. National Politics doesn't affect the people more that local policy. Plus, with current gridlock in DC, local governments are doing most of the work, and no body seems to care. John Oliver did a wonderful piece about that back in November
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIMgfBZrrZ8

And you are right, I should have also placed the Constitution Party on that list, my bad.

[SethfromMI]

all political parties are just a lie here in the US anyways

[Lovelife090994]

Third parties will never get the numbers or break the duality of Democratic vs Republican.

[Danny_boi 16]

Third parties will never get the numbers or break the duality of Democratic vs Republican.

They will if they get enough funding and run a candidate in a swing congressional district. Then you could have a Minor Party congressman/woman. If the campaign is managed right. Then once in office, he or she should advocate for for minority parties, and pick more swing districts.

[WaffleSingSong]

What do you mean by safer? Besides, I'm not talking about presidential races, I brought run-off with the Louisiana Senatorial election in mind. (And other such elections of that degree). Sorry for the Libertarian stats, here are some better ones.
http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials
http://www.lp.org/2013_election_results


Thanks for the link. Anyways, by safer I mean you could elect these officials in a way that would lessen the effect of a third party being a poopy-head and not letting someone else lose because that third party took there votes.

This is Instant-Runoff voting= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

I would disagree about how you dismiss local officials. National Politics doesn't affect the people more that local policy. Plus, with current gridlock in DC, local governments are doing most of the work, and no body seems to care. John Oliver did a wonderful piece about that back in November
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIMgfBZrrZ8

And you are right, I should have also placed the Constitution Party on that list, my bad.

"Township Auditor?" "Township Constable?" "Water District Board?" "Elementary School Governing Board?" Not a lot of these seem very influential at the least. How many Democrats or Republicans hold seats like this? It has to be a staggering amount compared to parties like Libertarian and Green.

Also, I'm not a huge fan of John Oliver, but that was a pretty cool video. Gotta respect the guy at 4:53!

[phuckphace]

^I didn't even know anyone still used the title "Constable" in the US. I'm picturing a fat cop riding horseback with a musket and a three-pointed hat. :lol3:

on topic though, the Austrian School Party (Dems & the GOP) does need to be thrown out. ideally it would be replaced with a socialist vanguard party but realistically we'd end up with one party for each ethnic bloc (i.e. a quasi-libertarian/pro-business party for whites and a nominally-socialist "food stamp party" for minorities). more of the same shit in a different package, yo.

[Danny_boi 16]

Thanks for the link. Anyways, by safer I mean you could elect these officials in a way that would lessen the effect of a third party being a poopy-head and not letting someone else lose because that third party took there votes.

This is Instant-Runoff voting= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting



"Township Auditor?" "Township Constable?" "Water District Board?" "Elementary School Governing Board?" Not a lot of these seem very influential at the least. How many Democrats or Republicans hold seats like this? It has to be a staggering amount compared to parties like Libertarian and Green.

Also, I'm not a huge fan of John Oliver, but that was a pretty cool video. Gotta respect the guy at 4:53!

We want third party candidates to be "poopy-heads" and take people's votes. It furthers dialogue. And if they are lucky they can actually win a seat. Those positions your dismissed are far more influential than the national government. Here's why. What a Township Auditor's decision actually matters and immediately affects the lives of the citizens in that area, more so than the national congress. An Elementary School Governing Board decides if a child should learn evolution or creationism. These are major decisions that affect the life of John Doe. Those seats can also be used to launch a political career in that state that furthers a persons political power. I'm not a fan of other methods of voting, I'm perfectly fine with the system of voting we have now. But CGP Grey on YouTube does some excellent explanations of other voting systems and other things (if your interested).

[normalperson]

well as long as we blindly replace one weak dictator after another and mess things up as long as possible it doesn't matter.

[Arkansasguy]

Hi VT.

I was wondering, do we really need third parties in the US? Do the Democrats and Republicans do a good job or do we need to vote these out for another one?

I personally am split by this, I think that having a third party in the U.S seems like a nice idea, but we would need MAJOR voting reform before we could ever consider the idea to support a multi-party government, such as scrapping the electoral college, getting rid of first past the post to something more suitable, etc. Until then, I don't think it would be a good idea with the current system. But, what are your guys view of the issue?

I would prefer abandoning democracy and thus eliminating the need for third parties.

[Stronk Serb]

well as long as we blindly replace one weak dictator after another and mess things up as long as possible it doesn't matter.

I would prefer abandoning democracy and thus eliminating the need for third parties.

Democracy:

Pros:
-You can replace the current government
Cons:
-It gets replaced by an equally incompetent government
-The will of the people isn't represented which is Ironic because demos- people and krateum-rulership do not apply
-In many countries it's hard to find a party which is for your political orientation and you yourself are unable to maintain your own party
-People aren't represented from their stratae, instead they are represented by the higher classes which don't care about them.
-I can pretty much say democracy caused more harm to this world than other forms of government. The demos was killed in the name of democracy, their rule.

[normalperson]

Democracy:

Pros:
-You can replace the current government
Cons:
-It gets replaced by an equally incompetent government
-The will of the people isn't represented which is Ironic because demos- people and krateum-rulership do not apply
-In many countries it's hard to find a party which is for your political orientation and you yourself are unable to maintain your own party
-People aren't represented from their stratae, instead they are represented by the higher classes which don't care about them.
-I can pretty much say democracy caused more harm to this world than other forms of government. The demos was killed in the name of democracy, their rule.

exactly what i think. :yes:

[Stronk Serb]

exactly what i think. :yes:

Also there isn't any real national focus. The US got industrialized because of a bunch of fatcats wanting money, it wouldn't if the rich didn't do it while the USSR got industrialized because Uncle Stalin said so because he realised he needed a powerful industry.

[normalperson]

Also there isn't any real national focus. The US got industrialized because of a bunch of fatcats wanting money,
exactly what i think too!!! :yes:
the USSR got industrialized because Uncle Stalin said so because he realised he needed a powerful industry.

mmm... i don't exactly agree with that whole thing. the USSR got semi-industrialized and that was only in armaments production in almost everything else (agriculture, technology, business, etc.) it lagged behind and became a stagnant backwater. in all fairness the USSR barely had a shot at making it after the war which cost Russia about 30 million dead and 40 million misplaced (out of a population of around 120 million) and the fact that the government had been destroying their own country from 1917 in the russian civil war, the famines of the 20's and 30's (Holodomor), the "five-year plans", the falsified records (very huge thing) and the massive damage to the already small and crumbling infrastructure in WW2 (a lot of which didn't even get repaired until after the dissolution of the USSR) . overall the USSR was just a ticking time-bomb that went off a little later then it was supposed to and with the standard of living one would find in a third-world country.

---

you seem to like tito and stalin a lot, i thought of you more as a Fascist like me, but i still like most of your ideas :).

[Stronk Serb]

Mexactly what i think too!!! :yes:


mmm... i don't exactly agree with that whole thing. the USSR got semi-industrialized and that was only in armaments production in almost everything else (agriculture, technology, business, etc.) it lagged behind and became a stagnant backwater. in all fairness the USSR barely had a shot at making it after the war which cost Russia about 30 million dead and 40 million misplaced (out of a population of around 120 million) and the fact that the government had been destroying their own country from 1917 in the russian civil war, the famines of the 20's and 30's (Holodomor), the "five-year plans", the falsified records (very huge thing) and the massive damage to the already small and crumbling infrastructure in WW2 (a lot of which didn't even get repaired until after the dissolution of the USSR) . overall the USSR was just a ticking time-bomb that went off a little later then it was supposed to and with the standard of living one would find in a third-world country.

---

you seem to like tito and stalin a lot, i thought of you more as a Fascist like me, but i still like most of your ideas :).

I like Tito because every leader after him fucked us up, I won't forgive that he divided the Serbs which created a boom of new so-called ethnicities, but Stalin... He's a douche. I'm a lighter version of a national-socialist. I think all nations deserve their independence and a Lebensraum (within reason of course). I think that we should start hirring immigramts when the domestic workforce is employed and I think that we shouldn't adapt our laws to the traditions of immigrants. They are in our country, not the opposite. During autocratic and totalitarian regimes, the needs of the demos are met, the need to be fed, work for a fair wage, to have provided healthcare and education, to have the rule of law, within reason of course. If those are provided, the demos is happy, a thing dictators exploited, but hey, I'd live like that. Shit would get done by the political leadership, I wouldn't have to watch a bazaar squabble they made out of our Parliament meetings.

[normalperson]

I like Tito because every leader after him fucked us up, I won't forgove that he divided the Serbs which created a boom of new so-called ethnicities, but Stalin... He's a douche. I'm a lighter version of a national-socialist. I think all mations deserve their independence and a Lebensraum (within reason of course). I think that we should start hirring ižmigramts when the domestic workforce is employed and I think that we shouldn't adapt our laws to the traditiona of immigrants. They are in our countr, not the opposite.

*starts to mumble* well tito wasn't really that great of a leader either. *stops mumbling*

i agree with most of what you said especially your views on immigration and lebensraum.

[Stronk Serb]

*starts to mumble* well tito wasn't really that great of a leader either. *stops mumbling*

i agree with most of what you said especially your views on immigration and lebensraum.

He wasn't great but he wasn't the worst. That medal goes to Slobodan Milošević and King Peter II Karađorđević. Slobodan tore Yugoslavia apart and destroyed Serbia while the king showed a middle finger to Hitler which lead to a surprising Anschluß of Yugoslavia to the Third Reich. If we just said 'Ok, we will let you pass and take out Greece and guess what? Join you against the Soviets if you lend us an industrial hand in the shape of lend-lease aid!', even if the war was lost, we would keep a large portion, like today's Serbia (with Kosovo), Bosnia, Montenegro and Macedonia combined and there'd be almost two times more Serbs than today.