Stumbling around with the third party idea

[DanL53]

It occurs to me that it would be easier to just take the Republican party from the far right wingers. I mean, they took it from the moderates!

And one wouldn't have to battle that rigged ballot system or even come up with a new name! And what have they got, fifteen candidates!?!?!?

Could the internet be a cheap method to build support for and freaking draft if we had to some halfway decent candidates, House, Senate, President and even Governors and Mayors, that would not be corporate puppets nor buried in party politics?

I'd say do it to the Democrats but it looks to me like at least for President the current Republican candidates are easier to beat in the Primaries that Hillary Clinton would be.

Moderate Democrats? Would you switch if given a better choice than Hillary? Right wingers...have you noticed yet that your guys turned out kind of stinky?

Hey, we get this done, AFTER we can talk new name and third party. But this looks quicker and simpler?

The big key would be not just finding a President, but stocking all Government spots that we could fill with good leaders who could work with others

Thoughts?

 

[Taw Jackson]

You're an idiot.

 

[naturalmwa]

The group Republican Main Street Partnership (http://republicanmainstreet.org/) has this mission. The problem is most of their funding comes from Ds, Rs don't want to do as you suggest.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

It occurs to me that it would be easier to just take the Republican party from the far right wingers. I mean, they took it from the moderates!

And one wouldn't have to battle that rigged ballot system or even come up with a new name! And what have they got, fifteen candidates!?!?!?

Could the internet be a cheap method to build support for and freaking draft if we had to some halfway decent candidates, House, Senate, President and even Governors and Mayors, that would not be corporate puppets nor buried in party politics?

I'd say do it to the Democrats but it looks to me like at least for President the current Republican candidates are easier to beat in the Primaries that Hillary Clinton would be.

Moderate Democrats? Would you switch if given a better choice than Hillary? Right wingers...have you noticed yet that your guys turned out kind of stinky?

Hey, we get this done, AFTER we can talk new name and third party. But this looks quicker and simpler?

The big key would be not just finding a President, but stocking all Government spots that we could fill with good leaders who could work with others

Thoughts?

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

It occurs to me that it would be easier to just take the Republican party from the far right wingers. I mean, they took it from the moderates!

And one wouldn't have to battle that rigged ballot system or even come up with a new name! And what have they got, fifteen candidates!?!?!?

Could the internet be a cheap method to build support for and freaking draft if we had to some halfway decent candidates, House, Senate, President and even Governors and Mayors, that would not be corporate puppets nor buried in party politics?

I'd say do it to the Democrats but it looks to me like at least for President the current Republican candidates are easier to beat in the Primaries that Hillary Clinton would be.

Moderate Democrats? Would you switch if given a better choice than Hillary? Right wingers...have you noticed yet that your guys turned out kind of stinky?

Hey, we get this done, AFTER we can talk new name and third party. But this looks quicker and simpler?

The big key would be not just finding a President, but stocking all Government spots that we could fill with good leaders who could work with others

Thoughts?

I've always wanted a legitimate "3rd party" because frankly, neither party represents my beliefs.

In a nut shell I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative...tend to be more conservative than "peacenik" on foreign policy.

Anyway, the system is simply rigged against a viable "3rd party"....won't happen. The "wasted vote" argument is valid in almost any 3rd party scenario. The only way additional "legit" parties could work is if we ended up with 4 parties. Basically alternatives for both the right and left.....honestly, I can't see a scenario where this could happen under the current system/

 

[markfromj]

Anyway, the system is simply rigged against a viable "3rd party"..../

How so?

 

[naturalmwa]

How so?

We have a winner takes all system. If you have 4 parties and each gets approximately 25%, the one party that got 25+1 vote will be the winner and get all the power as if they really got 100% of the vote. Other nations have a more proportional system which allows for more parities to reach for the ring. Proportional is nice in some ways as more voices get to be heard in their pure, uncompromised form. But our system has advantages too which many don't take into account. By forcing Americans into just two parties, we force Americans to compromise on their pure views. Compromise is essential for stability and unity in a free society. The winner take all approach plays a big role in bringing different types of people together to ally for a common cause.

 

[markfromj]

But our system does not "force Americans into just two parties". There are many political parties, and Americans are free to join and vote for all of them.

The system is not "rigged for two parties". The populace is just lazy.

 

[naturalmwa]

But our system does not "force Americans into just two parties". There are many political parties, and Americans are free to join and vote for all of them.

The system is not "rigged for two parties". The populace is just lazy.

IMO you are wrong. Our system is structurally set up to only allow two options because of the way votes are counted and power rewarded. There are many things that could be changed to weaken the 2 party duopoly, but it's silly to ignore that it is real.

 

[KitingHigh]

It occurs to me that it would be easier to just take the Republican party from the far right wingers. I mean, they took it from the moderates!


Thoughts?

Didn't really work out for Ron Paul. We can keep the Donkeys and Elephants. We just need more choices.

 

[markfromj]

Didn't really work out for Ron Paul. We can keep the Donkeys and Elephants. We just need more choices.

You have way more that 2 choices now. You just don't use them.

 

[naturalmwa]

Didn't really work out for Ron Paul. We can keep the Donkeys and Elephants. We just need more choices.

I think it worked pretty good for Paul. He moved the R party more toward his views. A couple decades ago libertarianism was hardly on the map. Now Rs regularly champion the philosophy if not the policies.

This is why the real libertarian party won't ever win; the Rs would steal too many of their voters. We had a discussion about melting pots a few days ago. The political parties in the US are the real melting pots where ideas get melted together and coalesce into something uniquely American in nature.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

It all needs to burn, sorry.

 

[KitingHigh]

I think it worked pretty good for Paul. He moved the R party more toward his views. A couple decades ago libertarianism was hardly on the map. Now Rs regularly champion the philosophy if not the policies.

This is why the real libertarian party won't ever win; the Rs would steal too many of their voters. We had a discussion about melting pots a few days ago. The political parties in the US are the real melting pots where ideas get melted together and coalesce into something uniquely American in nature.

I disagree. I don't think he moved the R's at all. Would have been better if he took his considerable clout back the the LP. The LP is on the map. We obviously aren't much compared to the big 2, but we hold many local and regional offices and we are the only other party that appears on the national ballot every election, in the majority and usually all of the states. We are "the" third party, and he could have made it greater, but instead he becomes a footnote. Unfortunately, his son doesn't share his beliefs, so his legacy is pretty much lost.

 

[strummingram]

I disagree. I don't think he moved the R's at all. Would have been better if he took his considerable clout back the the LP. The LP is on the map. We obviously aren't much compared to the big 2, but we hold many local and regional offices and we are the only other party that appears on the national ballot every election, in the majority and usually all of the states. We are "the" third party, and he could have made it greater, but instead he becomes a footnote. Unfortunately, his son doesn't share his beliefs, so his legacy is pretty much lost.

I think he did the right thing in 2008. In 2012, AFTER he'd made an impact and gathered the following; only then should he have gone independent. He would have made more of an impact in 2012 if he'd gone independent. I think he opted not to because of his son's political career which made me respect Ron a lot less. I realize it was his son, but it wasn't worth it to me.

I also agree that the GOP is practically the same. His presence made them change their own rules in the delegate process of their nomination system. His legacy is not lost, but his legacy was never really IN "politics" anyway. Ron Paul was not a politician.

 

[DanL53]

You're an idiot.

Yes. You will get no argument from me. The thing is, I only need to be just smart enough to know the s..t were in and be educated enough to look for political leaders that can fix the mess. We don't need millions of geniuses. Just a few smart folks to fill office and the rest of us can be idiots...as long as we're smart enough to know the difference between a leader and a louse.