Watching the divisions and dysfunction in the GOP, it's clear it's in
reality two distinct groups with different motivations and ideologies pretending
to be a cohesive party.The US has always suffered from a narrow
ideological political range, and we're way overdue for getting better
representation for diverse viewpoints.
I am all for third parties as long as they come from the Ralph Nader side of
things. Nader in fact is the reason Bush won Florida by some 300 votes and
became President. On the other hand, Ross Perot was the reason Clinton got 43%
of the vote and Bush got 36%. Perot took about 20% of the vote, mostly coming
from disaffected Republicans and moderates. Here is an interesting question to
ask. How close did Ross Perot come to winning the Presidency in 1992? Answer.
No closer than you or me, because even though he got almost one fifth of the
vote, he got no electoral votes. Third parties can and have changed history.
But you don't want to be on the side that has a strong third party,
especially when it comes to Presidential elections. At best a third party will
win a few local and state elections.
Too Funny SCFan.Sadly, everything gets viewed from a partisan slant.
You seem to espouse the concept that 3rd parties are only good if
they are a means to get Republicans elected. Are you not ashamed to post
that?Here is a thought. How about a third party that puts America
first? One that puts the American people ahead of unions and corporations. How
about a party that forces the two lame ones that we have today to be better in
order to compete?I would love to see a third party that had as a
platform only fiscal issues.My 3rd party platform- no position
on gay marriage, abortion, religion - will not accept any corporate,union
or large individual campaign money- will vote the interest of the American
people ahead of party- will reduce spending in a responsible way based
solely on sound business principles- will seek to reduce the debt solely
based on sound business principlesThat is a 3rd party I could
support. And, with an intelligent electorate, I believe could win.Alas, it will never happen. Too many love their party, as destructive as they
I disagree that the GOP is dysfunctional. What is dysfunctional is our federal
government. At least some GOP members of congress are doing their constitutional
duty of opposing, warning and exposing wrong doing by our government (spying,
overregulating, over spending, being unaccountable, scandals, etc). America
doesn't need a third party, America needs a wake up call. Which polls are
showing more and more less partisan Americans believe is inevitable.
Given the practically civil-war level division going on in the GOP today, they
are beginning to resemble the Whigs. And let’s be honest, many people have
been disaffected by the Democrats for decades as they seem incapable of fiscally
sound governing unless forced to do so by divided government.At the
popular level, we may have never been more ripe for a viable third party, but
the chances are slim one could ever breech the barriers to entry set in place by
the current two-party machinery.@JoeBlowI would add the
following:1.Fix redistricting – congressional districts that
resemble actual geometric shapes is a must if we want our democracy back.2.A pure balanced budget amendment (i.e., no arbitrary limits on
government spending).3.End the corrupting influence of money in
politics – either through public financing of campaigns or tough
transparency laws or a constitutional amendment stating corporations are not
people, or all of the above or more.
We need to let independent commissions redraw district boundaries based on
population equality and other non political considerations. And a healthy
democracy could and should include a tea party, liberal democrats, greens,
liberterians, and anyone else.
Joe Blow, let's talk. First off, your party is the Liberatarian Party.
They espouse much of what you want and they have been trying to make inroads for
years. Not much success. Secondly, believe it or not, I think Gore got the
shaft in 2000. I didn't vote for him, and would probably not have liked
him as President, but as a conservative Republican I will admit that he should
have been President because he got the most votes in the country. I despise the
electoral college, and 2000 was a good example of why. My post about 3rd
parties was mainly to warn people of how damaging they can be to the real will
of the people because they can, and have, changed the way elections should have
turned out. Not to gloat that my guy won. That is why I gave examples of both
a Republican loss for President and a Democrat loss for President. I don't
like 3rd parties, or the electoral college. That was my point.
SCfan,With the exception of the first bullet in my new party
platform, what could any basic American disagree with? Which would you not want
to see adhered to?I agree that it is somewhat libertarian. I never
understood why those who believe in a strict Constitutional interpretation (Mr
Richards for example) would not have been running a Ron Paul campaign office.I think we have just become too enamored with our party to look
critically at what they actually do, as opposed to their lip service.For example, the GOP talks about doing all sorts of things when they are out
of power. And do none of it when they have the opportunity. (with the
exception of cutting taxes. They are good at that. Its the spending that they
dont address when they are in power)
The Republicans left me in 1988.I voted for Ross Perot, in 1992.And registered as a Libertarian in 1994.Since 2010, I have
become un-affiliated.But - I did vote for a Republican in the
last Presidential election.I voted for Jon M. Huntsman Jr.someone the Tea-Party whacks through under the bus....
JoeBlow, you have my vote. Let me know how I can help with your campaign.Tyler D, you are right on with the redistricting issue. Congressional
districts should become a campaign issue. We need a Tea-Party-like movement, a
real grass-roots uprising to change these ridiculous district maps.
Joe, nothing wrong with a lot of what you suggest. However, in the real world,
where is that going to get the political traction it needs to succeed? Perot
tried it with the Reform Party, as I mentioned before, the Liberatarin Party has
been pushing it for years now, and most recently the T-Party came on the scene,
which did help the Republicans get the House, and stop our slide to Socialism,
(for a while anyway). Now however, with the Obama media and many liberal
Democrats, the PR campaign against the T-Party is so extreme that even Sarah
Palin must feel she got off easy. With those kinds of negatives attacking
anyone with new ideas, the only survivors seem to be either mainstream Democrats
or Republicans. All else need not apply.
Joe, I'm pretty much in agreement with your platform with the exception of
your adoption of sound business principles for spending and reducing the debt.
The government is not a business and in many ways the antithesis of a business.
So while I agree whole heartedly that we need a sound plan to reduce the deficit
and the debt, I'd have to know more about your thoughts before I could buy
into business principles.
Alternative parties have their place but the easiest way to end gridlock in
Congress is just to do away with gerrymandering. This has created the election
of the most strident from both parties. The vast middle of the country is
per JoeBlow on 10/24A party or a sect is a convenient way to save a
man from the vexation of having to think for himself - Ralph Waldo Emerson