How Long Before A "Real" Three Some Happens?

[lleeder]

Alot of people are always discussing that it needs to happen. The way things are now I don't ever see it getting done the right way. How long do you think it will take before there is no more two party system in politics? How long before a third party emerges and is and equal to the other two?

[mdr55]

Never?


Will it make a difference?? Money is money in my book. That's what we need, a third party of more rich people.

[FUNKMAN]

two years. the military will turn on the government with enough citizens behind it and they'll be a 3rd Party running the country

or at least I hope so

[cupcakelove]

I do believe that sometime in my lifetime, a third party will emerge that will cause problems for the main two. I don't thing they will be electing any presidents, or wield a serious amount of power, but they will start to be serious contenders in elections for Senators and Congresspeople.

[MadMatt]

I'm hoping within 8 years. I see the next election as the last straw - nobody on either side that anybody likes and having to settle for the least vomitous. I think people - especially young people - are getting really tired of the political crap that the 2 major parties have been spewing.

A grassroots movement will start that will slowly build a popular backing. The 2012 election may be too soon to have built enough of a power base, but I see 2016 as a realistic possibility for a legit 3rd party run.

[high fly]

I don't think it will happen and I don't want it to happen.
Imagine if a party was able to consistently deliver, say, 20% of the vote to either the Republican or Democratic Party.
That minority party would have power far beyond the portion of the electorate it represents, thus distorting politics to a degree I don't want to see.

I am dissatisfied with the two major parties, but I believe change can, and will come from within.

The 2 party system has a certain stability I don't want to upset....

[El Mudo]

I'm just gonna vote Whig


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/1848whigbanner.jpg

[LiddyRules]

I'm a Bull Mooser!!

The only way I can envision it happening in our lifetimes is if there are some major, MAJOR changes to our entire socio-political structure. And because the public is too dumb/apathetic to care to force these changes, and the two major parties get too much benefit from how it is, I can't see it happening.

Unless, of course, there's that major change that will shake this country to its core that this country needs.

I love how Ron is one of the few who really do admit that despite all their grandstandings, neither of the parties are all that different.

[cougarjake13]

id love it for 8 years but it all depends on how much more shitty 2 partys we have over the next 2 elections that will give a 3rd party candidate a real chance


maybe if bloomie runs he'll get enough support


but really it'll prob take someone like swarzanegger if he gets the constitution changed, prob not so someone like him

a famous enough celebrity

[DolaMight]

The only way the system will ever change is on the heels of a catastrophic event, economic, natural or large scale terrorism. I'd guess between 16 and 32 years. After that people will have come to realize that other than bumper stickers both parties are exactly the same.

[Yerdaddy]

I think we're more likely to have a one party system before a three party system. And I'm not sure we're even smart enough to handle the two party system we have now.

[PapaBear]

I think we're more likely to have a one party system before a three party system. And I'm not sure we're even smart enough to handle the two party system we have now.
How can we not be smart enough to handle two parties that are basically the same?

Personally, I think anyone who wants to be President should be automatically disqualified. We should vote on who we're going to force to be President.

[Yerdaddy]

How can we not be smart enough to handle two parties that are basically the same?

Personally, I think anyone who wants to be President should be automatically disqualified. We should vote on who we're going to force to be President.

I think the idea that the two parties are basically the same is a sign. And please don't think I'm singling you out for an attack. I used to say the same, but with the liberal phrase: "Two horses - one owner." Hard-core liberals still say it and now the right is saying it too. But for the left I think it's an expression of their desire to think of themselves as outside the evil "mainstream" and have taken on a punk rock philosophy of politics: that as soon as you like something popular you've "sold out" and aren't legitmate anymore. The right is simply covering its ass and disassociating itself from the indefensible fuck-ups of the Bush administration and come up with an expression that implies that the Bush administration has finally proved to be as bad as a Democratic administration = "now they're equally bad." Really? So which Democratic administration does the Bush adminstration equal? Which one has done as much harm to the country as this one? It's actually an expression of party loyalty because it's a party that devotes more of it's time to bashing the opposition than extolling it's own virtues. So the "equally bad" theory is perfect for a Rove-led political strategy.

But, in fact, like the embarassingly overused ploy that the mainstream media is liberal, the party-equivalency threory is completely indefensible by the facts, but it doesn't stop it from being the most popular fall-back position in America today. On the board anyway.

I think we need a thread for a comparison-contrast between the two parties, but ultimately I don't think it would change many minds. I think it's our loyalty to our parties or our ideologies that drive what little political thinking that we do more than anything, and that loyalty is best expressed by the "both parties suck" idea. I may be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. I'll put some effort into a thread like that, but I won't expect anyone's minds to be changed.

[PapaBear]

I'm just frustrated. I'm Liberal by nature, but when I was growing up, "Liberals" were people who stood for doing things that I thought should be done.

Shit... I don't even know what to say right now. It's not Liberal or Conservative anymore. "Liberal" was branded as a bad word in the past 10 or 15 years. "Conservative" became branded as a religious term in that same period.

As for "Democrat" or "Republican"... They have both abandoned the best parts of both parties. The people I tend to deal with lately (on a personal level) are Libertarians. Their problem is, though... THEY'RE FREAKING NUTS!!!!

[A.J.]

I want a King because checks and balances, and political parties, are stupid.

[zentraed]

honestly, if people were truly involved politically and pressured their representatives, their political affiliation wouldn't matter. there's one representative per 500,000 in the house. how many in a given district can name their representative? the senate's a little trickier, but the solution is the same: more involvement, more awareness, and sending people packing when they start voting the party line.

in parliamentary governments, popular votes translate into legislative representation. ralph nader gets 10% of the votes, then the green party gets 10% of the senate and the house. the way the system is set up now, it's gonna be two-party forever.

[Yerdaddy]

NEWSWEEK - Americans want an alternative to the two-party system, according to a new NEWSWEEK Poll. But they’re not sure Michael Bloomberg is the answer. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19375653/site/newsweek/)

Here's the raw data: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19373524/site/newsweek/)

24. Some people say we should have a third major political party in this country, in addition to the Democrats and Republicans. Do you agree or disagree?

Can't replicate the table, but 57% say yes, 36 say no.

However, as the article tries to explain, that doesn't show in interest and knowledge about Bloomberg, and the data shows Ron Paul polling at 2% among Republicans.

Americans like the idea, but they're not jazzed about the potential candidates or they're just wating around for someone else to create the perfect party for them. In other words: not going to happen.

[LiddyRules]

NEWSWEEK - Americans want an alternative to the two-party system, according to a new NEWSWEEK Poll. But they’re not sure Michael Bloomberg is the answer. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19375653/site/newsweek/)

Here's the raw data: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19373524/site/newsweek/)



Can't replicate the table, but 57% say yes, 36 say no.

However, as the article tries to explain, that doesn't show in interest and knowledge about Bloomberg, and the data shows Ron Paul polling at 2% among Republicans. The problem is twofold. We say we'd like a viable third party but overall, do you think we'd vote for it? It's the same as saying we prefer mom and pop shops but go to Walmart anyway.

And then the politicians. They don't really seem to know how to pull off that entire third party thing well enough to rally enough people behind them.

[Yerdaddy]

The problem is twofold. We say we'd like a viable third party but overall, do you think we'd vote for it? It's the same as saying we prefer mom and pop shops but go to Walmart anyway.

And then the politicians. They don't really seem to know how to pull off that entire third party thing well enough to rally enough people behind them.

That is a damn good analogy.


Here's a big piece on Ron Paul in the NYT Mag. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html)I haven't read it yet, but there it is.

[FUNKMAN]

two years. the military will turn on the government with enough citizens behind it and they'll be a 3rd Party running the country

or at least I hope so

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070725/us_time/behindtheveteranslegalbattle

i'm telling ya, keep fucking the US soldier over. then throw in they find out the war in iraq was nothing but politically and financially motivated and it continues to fall dead on it's ass. it's gonna take alot of internal bloodshed in this country or a mass work stoppage to turn things around and stop the 'rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer'

would love for nothing more than the military to turn on our gov't and forcibly ensure a level playing field and the removal of 'excess'..

[Crispy123]

Alot of people are always discussing that it needs to happen. The way things are now I don't ever see it getting done the right way. How long do you think it will take before there is no more two party system in politics? How long before a third party emerges and is and equal to the other two?

I don't think we would ever see a three way division of power. There would be a majority party and several minority parties, similar to what we have now. I would say it would remain the same until the politicians became so corrupt that some sort of coup removed the majority from power and led to a one party system.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070725/us_time/behindtheveteranslegalbattle

i'm telling ya, keep fucking the US soldier over. then throw in they find out the war in iraq was nothing but politically and financially motivated and it continues to fall dead on it's ass. it's gonna take alot of internal bloodshed in this country or a mass work stoppage to turn things around and stop the 'rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer'

would love for nothing more than the military to turn on our gov't and forcibly ensure a level playing field and the removal of 'excess'..

The Military would be the likely and historic group of people to attempt a power grab. That is one reason the system of checks and balances our country holds so dear should not be eroded by one branch of the government.

[Don Stugots]

there really isnt enough interest for another party.

[keithy_19]

there really isnt enough interest for another party.

There should be.

LIBERTARIAN! LIBERTARIAN! LIBERTARIAN!

[disneyspy]

i thought for sure this would be another thread about doug

[Syd]

After the 2010 elections and the fairy tale of the Republicans taking over the House is proven to be false you'll see the "candidate X wasn't conservative enough!" start to take root and you'll see the Republican party become more or less a regional party as well as some sort of super-conservative regional party for states like Kansas and Mississippi.

[epo]

Until a "third" party gets serious and puts together a "ground-up" 20-year plan....I doubt a legitimate third party will exist.

[scottinnj]

Until a "third" party gets serious and puts together a "ground-up" 20-year plan....I doubt a legitimate third party will exist.

Gotta go with epo on this. There is nothing serious out there that is going to spark national interest. Too many PACs vying for attention, and after the last election cycle, most Americans are not even interested in hearing what anyone has to say right now-they are just burned out from close to two years of presidential campaigning.
And if someone, or a group does happen to rally the nation, it will be more then likely on a single issue, such as immigration or deficit spending, which in of itself may get one or two people elected to federal office, but it will not be enough to get an entire infrastructure organized that is needed to campaign nationally to get enough people elected for this "third party" to mean anything in Congress.

[boosterp]

I also want to echo Epo's response. A viable and legitimate 3rd party will not exist because of the current political thought which we pass onto our young.

[ToiletCrusher]

go ahead and throw your vote away!

[weekapaugjz]

I'm just gonna vote Whig


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/1848whigbanner.jpg

Fuck the whigs. Tories all the way!

[Dave's Cackle]

Won't happen unless we're in a prolonged depression - even then it's unlikely. Third parties in the United States have traditionally been driven by single issue voters and they haven't been able to hold together a coalition of them (like the Democrats and Republicans) over a long enough time period to be a viable political entity.

[west milly Tom]

I would love to see a significant rise in a third party, unfortunately our system is set up so that can never happen. My grandndmother earned the most votes ever by a third party candidate as the conservative party's candidate for congress here in Jersey. She used a grass roots type campaign going from church to church snd spent a ton of her own money. It was great to be a part of and see first hand. She had to campaign for main line candidates who were running in the same election and they threw some money/votes her way.
The fucked up thing is its nearly impossible for a third party to win. There simply isn't enough money. Money makes it happen. I suppose a Bloomberg type candidate could win a major, but I don't see it happening. Although, I have voted for third party candidates before.

[Serpico1103]

The democrats and republicans would never allow it. As it is, they know they will when almost every other election. With a third party, one of the original two could be frozen out for a long time.
A third party should be forced into the system. The third highest vote getting party at the last election should be allowed a candidate at every major debate and given equal money.

[high fly]

I hope we don't ever have a three party system.
Imagine if it got to where the Democrats and Republicans both controlled 40% of the vote, and an independent party controlled 20%.
Then the independent party could play kingmaker, and in effect have 60% control, 3 times what they would merit....

[high fly]

Fuck the whigs. Tories all the way!



Tories are sooooooooo yesterday.
Get hip with the "in crowd."
Join the Know Nothing Party!...

[cougarjake13]

unfortunately it would have to take a popular figure in pop culture like a george clooney or brad pitt, whatever


who runs as a 3rd party and everyone just votes for him b/c of his fame