Do you support third-party empowerment?

[liberalcapitalist]

Poll question: Do you support third-party empowerment?

By third-party empowerment, I mean at least several of the following:

1) Instant Run-Off Voting

2) Inclusion of third-party and independent candidates in all multi-partisan forums and debates

3) Election laws that make it more equitable for third-party and independent candidates and parties to gain ballot access

4) Extreme campaign finance reform

[JanMichael]

1. I support choices, so yes.

Two Party debate is severely limited by, well, only two parties.

[Bush loves Jiang]

3. Yes...

Start in Georgia. Virtually every politician there is a Republicrat and they do everything to fuck 3rd parties over.

[Sugarbleus]

51. Yes, I'd like to see at least 4 parties...

I've been barking about this for a long time. We, here in DU, can't even agree what qualities we want in a Pres or which way we want the country to run...yep, we need more choices for sure.

Personally, I am a little bit libertarian, a little bit social Democrat, and whole lotta----->'jazz' (thought it was gonna be rock and roll didn't ya..lol)

[alittlelark]

2. I favor a 3rd or 4th or 5th......

BUT NOT IN THIS ELECTION!! Sorry 'bout the scream, but this is too important. I would support a 3rd party candidate on the right side of the spectrum though - maybe even financially;-)

[Dark Star]

11. my answer exactly n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. That's about where I am right now too

Just hope the Dem candidate nominated is willing to go to bat for election reform.

[Ardee]

41. youre kidding right?

You are asking that the two parties who benefit from the current system to act contrary to their best interests and open the door to honest competition? Living in a dream arent you?

[LWolf]

60. Kucinich does.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/campaignreform-irv.php

Our election system is in need of serious reform to expand and enrich democracy. I support measures such as comprehensive campaign finance reform and Clean Money public financing of the public's elections; ample free television time for candidates, coupled with the break-up of the media monopolies that restrict political debate; election day as a holiday; election day voter registration; enhanced voting rights enforcement; an end to the racially-biased disenfranchisement of felons who have served their time; full Congressional representation for residents of the District of Columbia; cross-party endorsement or "fusion"; an inclusive debate process that does not exclude credible 3rd-party candidates; and expansion of elections using full (proportional) representation, which assure more accurate and broader representation than winner-take-all elections.

I also support "Instant Runoff Voting." IRV offers a cost-effective way of insuring that the winning candidate is preferred by a majority of voters; it encourages voters to vote their wishes and not their fears; it promotes greater voter turnout and positive campaigning.

I am running my presidential campaign in line with these reform principles. I don't take corporate PAC money. My campaign is financed largely through small donations, mostly through the Internet -- and propelled by thousands of volunteers. A true grassroots campaign.

Also, supports open debates and media reform that would give 3rd parties a place at the table.

[Ardee]

66. I love his platform also

but the Democratic Party certainly does not!

[LWolf]

69. Yeah, you'd think

they'd appreciate him. But no, they don't.

[Freddie Stubbs]

70. I hope that we do not nominate a candidate

that supports "reforms" that make it harder to elect Democrats.

[GreenPartyVoter]

71. Better a mainstream Dem than a progressive other?

Is that what you are saying?

For me it's less about the labels than it is about the integrity and vision of the person behind the label.

But this must be obvious since I am an ABB Green who is rooting for Dennis. *g*

[LeahMira]

45. Out of curiosity...

I favor a 3rd or 4th or 5th......
BUT NOT IN THIS ELECTION!!

Under what specific circumstances would anyone support a third party that was on the liberal or left side of the political spectrum?

[durutti]

61. My Conditions

I vote for progressive third-party candidates any time that the Democrat is unlikely to instigate any significant break with the status quo. So, I supported Nader in 2000, and I voted for Michael Morrill rather than Ed Rendell in the PA gubernatorial election. And if there is no third-party candidate, I vote for the Democrat.

So, in essence, I *always* vote third-party unless there's a progressive, non-establishment Democrat running who has a reasonable chance of winning.

I haven't yet decided whether or not I'll vote for the Democratic nominee in the upcoming election, but it's looking more and more like I will. The Bush agenda is just so extreme...

[jsw_81]

4. Third parties are a joke

Our government works best with a stable, two-party system; fringe parties only cause chaos and disruption. Just take a look at Italian or Japanese Parliament on C-Span sometime; it's a circus.

And besides, fringe parties only help idiots like Bush get elected. If it wasn't for Nader, Gore would be in the White House.

[Bush loves Jiang]

5. Japan?

The same party has held power for all but like 2 years since WW2. It just looks weird because the country is controlled by debates between factions of the same political party as opposed to debates between the different political parties.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Would you support third parties and independent candidates

if the spoiler issue wasn't a factor?

[Terwilliger]

8. So Democrats going straight to their knees is a stable system?

Wake me when you develop any balls.

[jsw_81]

9. Well excuse me for supporting the Democratic Party

In case you haven't noticed, this is Democratic Underground, not Fringe Third Party Underground.

[Dark Star]

10. .

wanna bet? :evilgrin:

[Terwilliger]

26. you can support who you want

apparently, others are not afforded that right....because you stick to your two-party lock on power always asking "why is it so wrong?"

[Iverson]

55. "Fringe Third Party Underground"

straw man: a restatement of the opponent's position in exaggerated or unfair terms in order to make it easier to refute.

In case you haven't noticed, progressivism is allowed here. The only "fringe" I see is in the element that would disallow the progressive voice.

[DuctapeFatwa]

13. You're right. A corporate oligarchy in transition to military dictatorship

will function much more smoothly with either a straight up one-party system, like North Korea's, or a bifurcated uniparty, with two branches with minimal differences in actual policy.

It is also important to limit the electorate to the top 25% or so wealthiest citizens, while maintaining the polite fiction that everyone can vote.

This is most effectively done by simply having the polls open for oh, say 12 hours or so on a working day. That will ensure that those with executive level jobs will be able to vote without difficulty, while, if you have planned your communities correctly, your poor will be stuck miles and multiple buses from their polling places. To avert unlikely but possible criticism, you can mandate that employers must give them some "time off" to vote. Couple of hours, maybe. Almost enough time for the bus trip one way, nudge, wink, nudge.

In a few decades, you will have a largely homogeneous, affluent class of voters who can be counted on to view with suspicion and hostility any potential boat-rockers that may attempt to infiltrate the smooth and harmonious flow of your "two" parties, and skillful public education will assure that the very idea of "other" parties is at the very least unpatriotic, and quite possibly terrorism.

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. Well-put

:yourock:

[JohnLocke]

21. Amazing.

It's an amazing ability for some to take an idea (a two-party system has many advantages) and twist it until the person is advocating a corrupt one-party system and think that third-parties atre terrorists.

[DuctapeFatwa]

23. No, it just takes a congenital bullshit filter

Amazing ability is convincing millions of people that a corrupt one-party system with two branches painted different colors is not only two parties, but all the parties anyone should ever want or need.

Truly amazing ability is imploding two large buildings on live TV and convincing even more millions of people that they exploded.

[JohnLocke]

33. Hmm.

Amazing ability is convincing millions of people that a corrupt one-party system with two branches painted different colors is not only two parties, but all the parties anyone should ever want or need.

Are you saying there is no difference between the parties? Pardon me while I laugh my head off. While you're waiting, click here.

Truly amazing ability is imploding two large buildings on live TV and convincing even more millions of people that they exploded.

Aside from the fact that what you're talking about has no relevance to what we're discussing... :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[DuctapeFatwa]

35. Believe what you're told, do as you're told, and keep chanting

"evildoers who hate freedom" and you'll be just fine.

Don't forget to put your butane lighter back in your pocket before you get on that plane, now. :)

[JohnLocke]

39. Funny how you equate supporting the two-party system with stupidity.

Says a lot, doesn't it?

[Seldona]

52. Thanks for the link.

Great site.

And I am not for anything that will give us 4 more years of Bush.

Once the damage in undone, or if I should say, I will reevaluate my answer on this.

Welcome to DU? heh

[JohnLocke]

58. I agree.

Now is not the time for third parties.

[Darranar]

64. How would this give us four more years of Bush?

Do you know what istant run-off voting is?

[Terwilliger]

27. you know it

nothing has really changed since 2000 either (except a little more awareness) and laws haven't been put in place to properly oversee the system, and, hell, African-Americans in Florida are probably STILL having problems getting re-enfranchised

[mulethree]

32. Just be sure you don't ....

Let people vote at any polling place they happen to be near, make sure they can only cast their votes near their home.

[mulethree]

38. representation

so, um, who is representing the people who don't tend towards the center?

Chaos and disruption are other words for change. Change is opportunity. Combine change, opportunity, and proportional representation and you get?... the foundations of our system?

Problem I see is that our proportional representation is based purely on geography instead of ideology.

You like a 2 party system that shifts between 48/52 and 52/48? Why not 40/40/20 or 30/30/30/10?

[Ardee]

42. If it wasnt for voters like you.......

well ,never mind...Third party politics is the only way left for the progressive agenda to stay in the forefront. Your statement about stability of the current system shows me that you must perforce be a centrist or further right because the only stability comes from the uniformity of opinion and action by both parties as the lines between them blur and disappear.

Better a circus than a droning boring rubber stamp of the Patriot Act, the invasion of Iraq, the passage of pork ladened bills benefitting only the few and harming the savings, pensions and jobs of the rest. Despite your inaccurate appraisal of European politics they have health care that should make americans green with envy, working conditions, including four weeks vacation and liberal maternity (and paternity ) care unknown here, and , by the way, the Euro is beating the tar out of the dollar.......

[rainy]

48. Have you ever heard of run off voting?

look it up it works and if we had used it Nader's votes would have passed on to Gore, better yet each party that gets a certain % should have that same % representation in office.

[KG]

56. works best with a 2 party system?

are you living in the same country i am?

[Iverson]

57. Was that a rhetorical question?

;-)

[durutti]

62. Ridiculous.

The Japanese and Italian governments haven't collapsed in recent memory. They must be doing something right. You call them circuses just because they differ from the U.S. And even if they are "circuses" by some more objective standard: better a democratic circus than an undemocratic puppet show.

Gore is responsible for Gore's loss (in addition to the Bush campaign and the Supreme Court). Perhaps if Gore had acted on the populist rhetoric of his campaign while he held elected office, he wouldn't have suffered defeat.

But more importantly, Gore really didn't represent a qualitative break with the status quo. His voting record was worse than Lieberman's. His average ADA rating was a mere 65 percent.

I honestly think that with Gore, we would still have had the PATRIOT Act or something similar, would still have had imperialist adventures (quite possibly including Iraq), and would still have cut programs (though probably not as severely).

[Darranar]

63. With IRV that wouldn't happen...

since the votes would eventually go to the Democrat anyway.

That's the point.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Support, obviously

:)

[Dark Star]

12. The best thing about your poll

is how fair and balanced the 3 options are! LOL

:silly:

[JohnLocke]

67. See #43

"Duoply" -- they're nuts!

[BattyDem]

14. I voted yes

I honestly believe the only way we will ever truly get our democracy back is if we break the two-party system - it has created an "us against them" mentality which is destroying the country. I'd love to see a major third party emerge. :)

[GreyV]

17. Yes....

If you look at the Democratic parties worldwide you will notice that from European or even South American perspective our Democratic party is barely distinguishable from its only domestic opposition party. Take a Democratic party representative from any European country and compare it to one of ours and difference is quite noticeable.


http://www.therealdifference.org/issues.html

[earthman dave]

18. Not worldwide - New Labour are indistinguishable from the Tories. nt

[HereSince1628]

19. But, but, there are more than two parties

It seems to me that if multiple parties worked within the structure of our system some of these other parties would be stronger.

The structure of our system seems to work against coalitions. If coalitions could gain power, then there could be more parties, because no one party must, necessarily, be dominant.

In our system, dividing up the vote among more and more parties just means that someone who has 60% of the electorate vote _against_ him could become a head of state (sensu Jesse Ventura). Having the majority of the population end up with a leader they didn't vote for isn't a good thing.

One party is tyranny, three leads to Ventura-like results, the solution rests in between...two relatively strong parties, and a (usually)smaller but significant group of people who swing between them.

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. Hence the need for ranked voting and full representation

More about that on my website.

[Dob Bole]

22. Yes..Run Newt Run! (nt)

[proud patriot]

24. YES ! !

The more the merrier IMHO

I support run off voting to introduce 3rd parties to
the national system .

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. I prefer Borda voting to IRV

But will take IRV over what we've got now, for sure.

[welshTerrier2]

28. 2 party middle of the road malaise

the two party system seems to emphasize stability and the status quo over change ... to support a "big tent" structure, all forces are drawn to the center ... even in the republican party with its current extremist agenda, you can see the cracks starting to appear ... traditional republicans scorn the big budget insanities of the bush administration ... clearly the right wing mission has lost its way and become corrupted ...

and the battles in the democratic party are no better ... how can we play host to the likes of zell miller and the likes of dennis kucinich ... it seems to me that this broad spectrum renders the party's ideology, or lack of ideology, somewhat meaningless ... we stay together to win but provide no compelling reason to voters to support "the party" ...

third parties have little chance of seeing the light of day anytime soon ... but that has little to do with whether they would be good for our democracy or not ... getting there is more than half the problem ... if a third party jumps in on the left, democrats lose ... on the right, republicans lose ... the pressure to not do it and the damage it could to the country is no small thing ...

it seems to me that what we need is not one third party but a handful of additional parties from across the political spectrum ... this would give voters exposure to new ideas ... and it would put the emphasis on the issues rather than on whether a candidate is "wooden" or uses "botox" or screams a little too loud ...

the analogy is like this ... there's a guy standing in the middle of the road with a large truck bearing down on him ... one guy says, "quick, jump to the left" ... another guy says, "quick, jump to the right" ... the point is that it is not necessarily best to stand in the middle ...

[Seldona]

29. Not at the time no.

Right now, if we don't all get on the same bandwagon, there may now even be a viable two party system.

Lets get rid of neocon influence first, them talk third party when the circumstances are not so dire.

Hell, counting neocon movement, we are effectively under a third party sytem already anyway. hehe

[MrPrax]

30. I support PR systems...

If, under a proportional representational electoral system, that third (or even 4th and 5th) parties emerge, then great.

But to change the system to simply 'allow' them -- is wrong and dangerous.

Any party/political group can test their popularity at an election with supporters...

The focus should be on media control, access, finance and 'dirty tricks'--not a third party for the sake of a third party simply because it MIGHT represent hitherto unrepresented 'factions' This basic assumption is not really been proved that the current system is NOT representative.

I think it is just unused by certain constituencies for many different reasons

[solinvictus]

31. Yes

Because if we wind up with a Bush vs. Kerry election this year, where's the choice? All we'll have to choose from is rich corporate insider A or rich corporate insider B.

[Nazgul35]

34. Of Course!! Because small fringe groups

don't have enough power in our system!

As a person who actually studies parties and electoral laws, I am always amazed at those who would seek to introduce a multi party system in an extremely heterogeneous society....

What we really need is the Michigan militia party getting four seats in Congress....or the KKK Party gaining 40 seats from the south....

Yes!!! Open up the system!!!! Things are not hard enough to get through Congress with two parties....let's multiply the problems!!!

Imagine a House with 40 parties, a Senate with 20 and a President elected from a run-off election from the two candidates who got 20% and 17% of the vote.....perfect!!!

Don't forget that parties will be come more important than the candidates, so constituency service goes right out the window...

The expansion of parties would weaken whatever power the House would have as it would become unstable, very similar to the Italian Parliament, while the Senate would not change much and the Presidency would be further strengthened...as the victor would be able to claim a mandate that the others could not...

Don't even go into what would happen at the state level!

Another thing to consider....in almost ever country that has a PR system, the left is more fractured than the right is....so guess what happens in those countries?! How many governments has the Communist Party in France participated in? And what happened in the last Presidential election?

You want to change the way parties work...than get involved in the two parties that already exist!

The UK has the same type of system that we do, yet they have a multi-party system...and we don't! Perhaps the voices of the alternative is not as important in the US as many here would believe...

Two things you need to understand:

1) Strategic voting: Duverger's Law says that the number of seats (M) + 1 will be the number of Parties that can compete in a given district...hence the reason we have a two party system...

2) The Number of Cleavages: each country has a certain number of cleavages (soci-economic, racial, ethnic, wealth, etc.) and that just because M + 1 = 48, doesn't mean that 48 parties will exist....the more heterogeneous a society is, the more parties are likely to emerge.....large countries that are diverse tend to have federal systems with plurality elections...

I would recommend that everyone here take a look at Gary Cox's Making Votes Count, Maurice Duverger's Party Politics, Joseph Schlesinger's Political Parties and the Winning of Office and any article found in the political science journal Party Politics...

[GreenPartyVoter]

36. What I see happening

with ranked voting and proportional representation in the House:

The Congress will indeed have some more Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, what-have-you..yes.

However the Senate would still most likely tend to have Dem and Repubs. And I suspect that most governors and presidents would also continue to be Dems and repubs.

The reason for this is that you might find small areas with high concentrations of a particular small party (Libertarians in the tip of New Hampshire, or Socialists in San Fransisco), so those groups fielding a rep for that small area could possibly win.

But as you move outward into a larger area, the mix becomes more diverse, so odds are that the two traditional parties will still have the largest number of constituents and therefore still elect more officials.

The point is to let everyone in this country have an opportunity to choose representatives who actually represent their beliefs. The system we have now is all about narrowing down the list of options to just two or 3 by the time the electorate hits the polls for general elections.

I feel democracy would be better served if we have more names on ballots which allow us to rank the candidates in order of preference.

[cryofan]

40. please read

the social democracy links in my sig url

[IronLionZion]

50. nice avatar! BSD rocks!

on edit: spelling!

[IronLionZion]

37. Empower some Conservative third party so we can win!

I'm all for having many parties at a local level but Greens and Dems have a lot of common ground and should stick together to beat the Republicans.

If the radical right wing of the Republican party broke away and rightfully called themselves Fascists or Christian Taliban we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today.

[JohnLocke]

43. Nice Push Poll

[Piperay]

44. No...

the way our system is set up TWO major parties is all that is really going to work.

[rainy]

46. RUN OFF VOTING SOLVES ALL OF THE PROBLEMS

and allows the majority to still win by passing on the vote of the losing party to the next choice on the voters ballot.

[mot78]

47. Yes

nt

[gate of the sun]

49. It's supposed to be a "free country"

so Yes I support it.

[sweetheart]

53. Only for coalition government, otherwise no

As it stands, the only third party i support is this one:

http://www.thirdparty.demon.co.uk/

They do OUTSTANDING shakespeare.

[laruemtt]

54. i'm a "yes but"

yes, but not this year because of the gravity of getting * out this year to save our country and the world in fact. this is not an election as usual. we can't afford experimentation this time.

[durutti]

59. A resounding yes!

I think it's sad that our idea of freedom has deteriorated to the point where we're outraged at the prospect of not being able to choose between Pepsi and Coke, yet don't care at all that our political choices are limited two factions of the business party.

[Darranar]

65. Yes, totally!

With IRV there would be no problems with it.

[maxr4clark]

68. In a parliamentary system, 3+ parties makes sense

but in our form of government, it does not.