Four Party system?

[MellowDem]

I know it seems a stretch, but if 2012 rolls around and a viable Conservative Party were to form, would you be opposed to starting a Progressive Party? To me, we can't have one without the other. If the right doesn't split, then it follows that the left shouldn't either for strategic reasons. I think it's our best hope of seperating ourselves from corporatism, personally, and would be good for democracy in America generally.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I have long thought we need something like that, or

multiple parties that land all over the political compass so that voters can find someone they feel most closely aligned with to vote for.

[jtrockville]

21. Couple that with instant runoff, and I'm all for it.

[rurallib]

2. Why not Liberal? I am proud to be a liberal

[readmoreoften]

5. In many other countries, liberal means right-wing economics.

In the economic sense, liberalism (as in neoliberalism) means laissez-faire capitalism. For this reason, I personally, don't like the term at all.

[MellowDem]

7. Liberal would be fine too...

Just a party for the Left in general.

[Blue_In_AK]

3. I've been pushing that idea here

for a while. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7248136&mesg_id=7257634 It makes perfect sense to me as a good way to really gauge the political mood of the country. The Democratic and Republican parties are totally owned subsidiaries of our corporate masters, which is fine if you go in for that sort of thing. I don't.

[readmoreoften]

23. I think it's a great idea.

And there is certainly right-wing support for a counterweight.

[YOY]

4. The current system is not built for anything more than 2 parties.

A parlimentary system would.

[Renew Deal]

10. I could see a scenario where no bills would pass

ever

[Posteritatis]

14. Why not? (nt)

[Renew Deal]

22. Because 3 out of the 4 groups would be perpetually unhappy.

I guess they can work together to get stuff done. I can just see them getting to a point where they decide to combine with the two more powerful parties and we're back where we started.

[Posteritatis]

27. The rest of the world is full of counterexamples. (nt)

[Renew Deal]

28. Links?

You should be able to back that one up. And while you're at it, how many are set up just like ours? We're not electing prime ministers around here.

[Posteritatis]

31. http:// most.of.the.rest.of.the.world. (nt)

[Renew Deal]

33. Right

You have no idea.

[readmoreoften]

6. I think it'd be a step forward regardless of who wins.

[endless october]

8. i would certainly consider candidates from a Progressive party.

put people like Sanders in charge of it and it might go somewhere.

my gut feeling is that we're stuck with our two party system that is more like a one party system.

[Renew Deal]

9. I think four parties would be more representative

Though I think we might end up with two parties again once it becomes clear which of the two are more powerful.

[Dogmudgeon]

11. Then, there would be FOUR parties to buy off

The REAL solution is to get "Progressives" off their (our) asses and on to the phones. And organizing. And propagandizing. And actually DOING something.

The recent Progressive "Bitchfest"? Useless! WORSE than useless! Action first, complaints later. We can always isolate, bury, and then bounce Lieberman & Co. out on their collective ass after we win.

Desktop radicalism, whining, petulance, and cynicism are utterly losing strategies. DU has become one giant e-wank. We need to change that. NOW.

Even if our level of activism never went beyond lobbying our two Senators and our local federal Representatives, it would still be a HUGE increase in activism, and result in some prompt action.

And not just Health Care Reform, but all the rest of the common agenda: employment, finance reform, Right-To-Marry, climate change action, agricultural recovery policy, new infrastructure, a liberal-but-well-regulated immigration policy, social harm-reduction programs ...

... or am I just whistling in the maw of the hurricane?

--d!

[MellowDem]

18. It was progressive activists that got Obama elected...

and I still am making calls for Organizing for America trying to get people to call their senators to support the health reform bill, but many of them are disillusioned and hate the bill now, and I really don't blame them. The truth is, progressives don't have the numbers to compete with the centrist Dems, and as long as they are part of the coalition, they will be used for their activism then thrown aside after it is won and the centrists will get their policies pushed through, even against the will of the majority of Americans.

[davidwparker]

12. I will be voting 3rd party or writing in Howard Dean regardless of a viable,

alternative party to the two conservative parties that we currently have.

So, this fits in with my plans anyhow.

[truedelphi]

13. The only nations that properly provide for their citizenry are those

With multiple parties.

[jgraz]

15. I've been saying that for a while: the teabaggers may turn out to be our best friends

Figuratively, of course.

[progressoid]

16. BULL MOOSE!!

[hfojvt]

17. bad idea

So your enemy cuts off his right arm, and instead of clobbering a one-armed opponent, you'd rather cut off your left arm so we are left with a stalemate? :wtf:

Think for a second. A new leftist party requires candidates, first and foremost. Why can't those candidates just run in a Democratic primary? If they cannot win in a Democratic Primary, then they certainly cannot win in a general election. All they would do is end up playing spoiler.

[StarfarerBill]

19. A Progressive Party would be a marvelous idea.

But before starting the effort to build such a party from scratch (if we don't want to simply migrate to the Greens, the SPUSA, the New Party, etc.), we should take some time to study previous attempts to build organizations outside the R/D corporate system and so learn not to make the mistakes our predecessors made. Too, a thoroughgoing study of today's social-political landscape would be in order so as to gauge need, support, and opposition.

It's doable but it should be done intelligently, with savvy as well as passion.

[readmoreoften]

25. I'd start with an old classic:

Pierre Broue's "The German Revolution: 1918-1923"

It details how the centrists failed the center-left and left. It's good to learn from past mistakes. Perhaps the Greens are tainted from Nader's reputation, but I'd be willing to go there (although I don't like Nader). SPUSA is actually one of the smaller socialist organizations in the US; not likely to be a gathering point (but I would, of course, go there.)

My sense is that a new organization created with input from existing organizations is best. Particularly because there is no party with outstanding infrastructure to work with.

[StarfarerBill]

32. I don't disagree.

My point in mentioning migrating to an existing progressive party was that there would already be a party structure in place, and a large infusion of new members would hopefully revitalize that party internally and externally.

As for the Socialist Party, it is small, true; but except for the Greens and the New Party, are there any larger, national, non-Leninist leftist parties?

As I said in my previous post, I'd have no qualms in seeing a new progressive party formed; but I would like to see it done with the knowledge of past failures, so that those failures could be avoided.

[cali]

20. There's only one viable Progressive Party in the country

and that's in Vermont. You don't just start up a national Progressive Party with a wave of the wand. You build up Progressive parties on the local and state level. You need party infrastructure on the ground.

[leftstreet]

24. There are 3 parties: ReligiousNutz Party, DLCParty, The Rest of Us Party

We just need some leadership or something for that third one!

[readmoreoften]

26. I like it. Harvey Milk's "The USes"

I like the Egalitarian Party. Put a little touch of French Revolution in there. Connect economic issues with LGBT issues, anti-racist struggle, women's issues, etc.

[tomm2thumbs]

29. We should make liberal candidates sign a letter of resignation and cut it into 100 pieces

and distribute those pieces to 100 random democratic voters from all over the nation

then, if they really feel there is a huge shift in policy that was outside of what was promised, or there is real reason to believe that corporate interests are running the show and nothing can be done directly to work with the elected official, they can send in their piece of the resignation letter.

When all the pieces come in, paste it together and say asta la vista!

[scentopine]

30. Excellent suggestion. Yes, we need competition. We are taken for granted. - nt

[mmonk]

34. I see nothing that enables us to escape corporatism in the near future.

[Bucky]

35. Never happen. Republicans will manage to unite with their nutbase. So Dems won't split up.

The "first past the post" system of Madisonian democracy forces both parties to round up their strays before November. Twice in the 20th century this failed to happen and both times it cost the incumbent his job. No one's going to make that mistake again--certainly not on the left when we still remember what Halliburton and George Bush did to America.